RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

Tuesday 13 June 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                                                                                                            13 June 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, 13 June 2017 at 6:00pm

 

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 - 9 May 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.

D42/17     14 Alexandria Parade, South Coogee (DA/854/2016)................................ 1

D43/17     1159 Anzac Parade, Matraville (DA/795/2016)........................................ 37

D44/17     14 Eastbourne Avenue, Clovelly (DA/469/2011/C).................................. 45

D45/17     71 Coogee Bay Road, Randwick (DA/564/2016)...................................... 53

D46/17     87-89 Frenchmans Road, Randwick (DA/439/2016)................................ 65

D47/17     28 Greville Street, Clovelly (DA/124/2017)............................................. 89

D48/17     48 Chester Avenue, Maroubra (DA/859/2016)........................................ 99

D49/17     19 Howard Street, Randwick (DA/177/2016/A)..................................... 113

D50/17     173 Gale Road, Maroubra (DA/845/2016)............................................. 119

D51/17     225 Rainbow Street, Randwick (DA/912/2016)...................................... 127

D52/17     91 Perouse Road, Randwick (DA/940/2016).......................................... 133

D53/17     181 Oberon Street, COOGEE (DA/221/2017)........................................ 143

Miscellaneous Reports (record of voting NOT required)

M1/17       Report variation to Development Standard under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 (SEPP1) and clause 4.6 between 01 February to 31 May 2017.............................................................................................. 161

M2/17       Impacts of the AHSEPP within suburbs of Randwick City........................ 167    

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil  

 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Planning Committee                                                                                                            13 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D42/17

 

Subject:              14 Alexandria Parade, South Coogee (DA/854/2016)

Folder No:                DA/854/2016

Author:                     Matthew Choi, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                  Demolition of the existing structures and construction of a part 2/part 3 storey dwelling house with semi-basement garage, in ground swimming pool and associated site and landscape works (variation to height of buildings and floor space control)

Ward:                        East Ward

Applicant:                Alec Pappas Architects Pty. Ltd.

Owner:                     Mr. Domenic & Fay Vitalone

Summary

Recommendation:   Refusal

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=92bd3897-7edd-4b1b-9d3f-370cb906a14c&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the proposed building height and floor space ratio exceeds the standard under Clause 4.3: Height of Buildings and Clause 4.4: Floor Space Ratios of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 by more than 10%, respectively.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves the demolition of the existing structures and construction of a part 2/part 3 storey dwelling house with semi-basement garage, in ground swimming pool and associated site and landscape works (variation to height of buildings and floor space control).

 

Site

 

The subject site is legally described as Lot 2 DP 448956 and is also known as no. 14 Alexandria Parade, South Coogee. The subject site is generally regular shaped allotment with an angled frontage and a site area of 556.4sqm. The site has a frontage width of 13.62 metres, a northern boundary of 40.645m, a southern boundary of 44.305 metres and a rear boundary of 13.1 metres.

 

The subject site is also characterised by a significant slope from the rear to the front of the site with a fall of approximately 13.16 metres. The significant fall constitutes a fall of approximately 42% of the length of the northern side boundary. The existing improvements comprise of an existing free standing detached dwelling house. Neighbouring the site to the north, south and west of the subject site are existing free standing dwelling houses with Alexandria Parade directly east of the subject site. The immediate locality is characterised by free standing dwellings within a low density residential zoning. 

 

The existing subject site at no. 14 Alexandria Parade, South Coogee.

 

 

Development History

 

Council’s planning officer raised the following key planning issues with the applicant on the 10 January 2017 with respect to the proposed development:

 

1.   

Front Building Alignment

 

The RDCP2013 for front setbacks prescribes the following controls:

 

i) The front setback must be consistent with the average setbacks of the adjoining dwellings. Where there are no adjoining dwellings, the setback must be no less than 6 metres. Where a development is proposed in an area identified as being under transition in the site analysis the front setback will be determined on a merit basis.

 

The proposed new dwelling house does not comply with the above control and will protrude forward of the established front building alignment and extends beyond the neighbouring dwellings at nos. 12 and 16 Alexandra Parade. The submitted plans indicate that the proposal will maintain the front “average neighbouring setback” line of the immediately adjoining dwellings, however, this is incorrect given the average setback has been taken from the balcony alignment rather than the front building alignment (measured from the eastern face of the external enclosing wall) of the neighbouring dwellings. The proposal is an unacceptable design response given the Council’s controls for front setbacks which explicitly outlines that the front setback must be consistent with the average setbacks of the adjoining dwellings. Notwithstanding this, the objectives of the controls also prescribe that any new development should enable a reasonable level of view sharing between a development and the neighbouring dwellings and that the form and massing of development must complement and enhance the streetscape character.

 

The siting of the new dwelling house further forward from the neighbouring dwellings does not constitute one that is compliant with Council’s controls in that it abandons the orderly requirements of the front setback provisions which ensures consistency within the front streetscape. This is in particular given the proposal involves the demolition of the existing dwelling and the opportunity to present a more compliant building envelope than the current design scheme. Further, the variation to the Council requirements is unjustified given the encroachment within the front setback will give rise to view loss impacts and  contributes to the significant variation from the Floor Space Ratio development and Height of Buildings standards as set within the RLEP2012. A more compliant building envelope which maintains a similar front balcony and external wall setback to the immediate northern and southern neighbour would be more aligned to the maximum permissible development standards, demonstrate an improved relationship between the neighbouring dwellings, comply with the maximum permissible building height requirements (as prescribed within the applicants Clause 4.6: Exceptions to Development Standards) and minimise view loss impacts to the neighbouring dwellings.

 

2.   

Building Design

 

Clause 4: Building Design of the RDCP2013 requires Council to consider the proposed development and its immediate relationship between the neighbouring dwellings:

 

The control reads as follows:

 

Built form must respect and follow the natural topography of the site. On sloping sites, the building mass must be modelled or stepped in response to the land gradient and avoid concentrating the structural bulk on the uphill or downhill side of the allotment.

 

Similarly, the objective for Building Design reads as follows:

 

To ensure the form, scale, massing and proportions of dwellings recognize and adapt to the characteristics of a site in terms of topography, configuration, orientation and surrounding natural and built context.

 

The proposal does not comply with the above provisions in that the finished floor level of the ground floor terrace and associated planter at the lower ground floor level extends approximately 2 metres above the finished floor level of the front terrace (above the garage) of no. 16 Alexandria Parade, located on the low side of the dwelling and more than 560mm above no. 12 Alexandria Parade, located on the high side of Alexandria Parade. This is also reciprocated at each individual level in which the finished floor level exceeds the immediately adjoining neighbours and creates a misalignment of front façade features (including windows, balconies, balustrading etc.) to the neighbouring buildings and does not positively reflect a development which respects the sloping topography of the land. The finished floor levels should sit between the immediately adjoining neighbours at no. 12 and 16 Alexandria Parade to reflect a positive relationship between the low and hide side of the neighbouring buildings. 

 

3.   

Side Setbacks

The side setback provisions require a setback of 1200mm from the side boundaries should the frontage exceed 12 metres. The subject site consists of a frontage width of 13.62 metres and subsequently a minimum 1200mm side setback is applicable at the ground and first floor levels and 1800mm for upper floor levels. Please see extract from RDCP2013.

 

The proposal represents in a non-compliance with a side setback of 900mm and does not comply with the minimum setback requirements of 1800mm for the second storey or above. An additional setback that is compliant with Council’s controls would alleviate the extensive departure from the maximum permissible floor space ratio, improve solar access and overshadowing impacts to the southern neighbour and result in a building envelope that would fit more comfortably within the subject site.  

 

 

The applicant sought to address Council’s issues and submitted amended plans that were received by Council on the 28 February 2017. The modifications to the proposed development are as follows:

 

·     Increase the front setback of the eastern building alignment at the lower ground floor level by an additional 1.1 metres.

·     Lower the finish floor level of the east-facing terrace at the lower ground floor level by 700mm.

·     Increase the front setback of the eastern building alignment at the ground floor level by an additional 300mm.

·     Reduction to the gross floor area by approximately 11sqm.

 

Key Issues

 

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards – Height of Buildings Cl4.3(2) of RLEP 2012.

 

Height of Buildings

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

 

Proposed height of building 

10.84 metres 

Maximum height of building 

9.5 metres

Height exceeding LEP control

1.34 metres (14%)

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

(a) To ensure 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’s written justifications in the following key arguments for the departure from the standard are as below:

 

Clause 4.6(3) (a) requires the applicant to provide justification that strict compliance with the height requirement is unnecessary and unreasonable in the exceptional circumstances of the case. In Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) NSWLEC 827, Preston CJ established five potential tests for determining whether a development standard could be considered to be unreasonable or unnecessary.

 

The Court’s recent decision in Four2Five Pty Limited v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90 has altered the way the five tests ought to be applied, requiring justification beyond compliance with the objectives of the development standard and the zone. That is, more than one of those five grounds is now arguably required to be made out.

 

It is our opinion that the proposal satisfies a number of the five tests established in Wehbe and for that reason; the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance.

 

The relevant tests will now be considered.

 

Test 1 – The objectives of the standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard

As indicated, this request seeks to vary the application of Clause 4.3 to the proposed

development. It is our opinion that the objectives of the height of buildings development standard are satisfied, notwithstanding the non-compliance.

 

 

Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings – Objectives

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

 

The extent of non-compliance is very minor and does not hinder the consistency with objective (a), which is to encourage development to be compatible with the future character of the area.

 

Alexandria Parade comprises a number of newly renovated multi storey dwellings. The proposed works will result in a part two and part three storey dwelling that will remain consistent with the emerging pattern of newly renovated multi storey developments in the surrounding area (see Figure 2 on the following page).

 

The extent of non-compliance will contribute to presenting an articulated façade. In addition the proposed setbacks, materials and finishes at the street frontage will provide a high level of visual interest in the streetscape, which will positively contribute to the future character of the area.

 

In our opinion, the proposal satisfies objective (a) as the building has a scale and height that is contextually appropriate with the built form and desired future character of the neighbourhood.

 

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

 

The subject site is not located within a conservation area or within close proximity to a heritage item. Therefore the extent of non-compliance will have no adverse impacts on heritage significance.

 

(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 principal dwelling complies with the height development standard. In fact, the rear portion of the dwelling is considerably below the height development standard to

minimise adverse amenity impacts on the neighbouring dwellings. The area of non-compliance relates to a small portion of the roof overhang above the ground floor level balcony, as such there is not likely to be any adverse impacts on privacy, views and overshadowing of neighbouring properties.

 

Test 2 - The underlying objective or purpose of the standard is not relevant to the development and therefore compliance is unnecessary.

In our opinion, the underlying purpose of the development standard is to present a building that is compatible with the height, context and character of the locality whilst preserving the amenity of adjoining properties.

 

The existing context of the locality features a number of freestanding dwellings along Alexandria Parade which would appear to breach the height control of 9.5m. The area of noncompliance is very minor and is a result of having the height measurement being undertaken at the basement floor level. Importantly, there is not likely to be any adverse amenity impacts on neighbouring properties.

 

Accordingly in our opinion, the requirement to comply with the maximum height development standard is unnecessary in this circumstance, as the proposal is contextually compatible with the surrounding developments and does not result in any significant amenity impacts to neighbouring properties.

 

Test 3 - The underlying objective or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required and therefore compliance is unreasonable;

In our opinion the underlying objective of the development standard is to present a building that is contextually compatible with the height and character of the locality whilst ensuring the amenity of adjoining properties is retained. This objective is thwarted if compliance with the development standard is observed.

 

In our opinion, when viewed from the street, the propose extent of non-compliance will not be noticeable in comparison to a non-compliance with the principal built form.

 

Compliance with the height standard would require the removal of the roof overhang, which would jeopardise the architectural design of the building façade.

 

Importantly the area of non-compliance is not likely to result in any adverse visual impacts when viewed from the public domain or result in significant adverse amenity impacts on neighbouring dwellings.

 

It is in our opinion that the underlying purpose outlined above, that is to present a building that is appropriate to the height, context and character of the area would not be achieved if strict compliance with the building height was required.

 

6. There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard

The proposal is permissible within the R2 Low Density Zone and is consistent with the zone objectives, which are to provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment, provide development that is compatible with the character and amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood and to ensure that development is of a height and scale that achieves the desired future character of the neighbourhood.

 

The proposal maintains the low density residential environment and is of similar scale to both existing and likely future development in the area. The proposal is consistent with the eclectic character of the area.

 

As outlined, the non-compliance is very minor in the context of the site and the location. The areas of non-compliance are essentially restricted to a portion of the roof overhang above the ground floor balcony, which is a result of having the height measured from the basement floor level. Compliance with the standard would unreasonably and unnecessarily compromise the design and will require additional excavation as set out above.

 

In addition, it is our opinion that the proposal is unlikely to result in adverse amenity impacts in terms of privacy, overshadowing or view loss. For these reasons, it is considered that the height non-compliance is unlikely to have adverse impacts and the proposal is in the public interest.

 

It is our view that compliance with the 9.5m height control is unreasonable in the circumstances of the case and that the proposed development exhibits sufficient compelling planning reasons to vary the development standard.

 

7. Clause 4.6(4) Requirements

Clause 4.6(4) guides the consent authority’s consideration of this clause 4.6 variation request. It provides that:

(4) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

 

(a) The consent authority is satisfied that:

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

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

 

The applicant submits that the consent authority can and should be satisfied of each of these requirements of clause 4.6(4), for all of the reasons set out in this request, and having regard to the characteristics of the locality.

As indicated, it is our opinion that the proposal is in the public interest. In accordance with Test 1 in Wehbe and Clause 4.6(4) (a) (ii) an assessment of the proposal against the objectives of the standard and the zone has been undertaken. The consideration of the objectives of the standard is set out in this submission and in our opinion, the proposal is consistent.

 

An assessment of the proposal against the objectives of the zone is undertaken in the

accompanying SEE. Accordingly, it is our opinion that the proposal is consistent with the zone objectives and should be supported.

 

For all the above reasons it is our opinion that the variation is appropriate, consistent with the intent of Clause 4.6 and should be supported.

 

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

 

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

 

2.       The objectives of this clause are as follows:

 

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

 

Assessment:

The proposed development involves an exceedance to the maximum permissible height of buildings development standard which is attributed by the roof overhang above the east-facing ground floor balcony and associated planter box. The variation is not consistent with the above objective given the area of non-compliance extends significantly beyond the predominant front building alignment of the neighbouring buildings along Alexandria Parade and collectively exacerbates the visual bulk and scale impacts from the existing streetscape. The above objective is explicit in that any departure to the height of buildings must be compatible with respect with the size and scale of the existing buildings within the immediate locality. The built form character within this portion of Alexandria Parade reflects a number of dwellings which are appropriately stepped from the front property boundary and establishes a consistent rhythm of front setbacks along the street. It can be reasonably argued that a development which maintains a similar front building and balcony alignment of the neighbouring dwellings along Alexandra Parade will result in a development that will fully comply with the height of buildings requirements given the increased setback. The applicants justification does not address the relationship between the building alignments and the breach to the building height in the context of the adjoining buildings and therefore the submitted Clause 4.6 is not considered to be well founded to the relevant objective.

 

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

 

Assessment:

The proposed development is not in close proximity to a heritage conservation area or heritage items.

 

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 variation to the building height will result in the following amenity impacts:

 

·     The proposal will contribute to adverse visual bulk and scale impacts from the existing streetscape. As advised above, the east-facing ground floor deck (fronting Alexandria Parade) will extend significantly forward of the predominant front building alignment of the neighbouring buildings within the urban block and the non-compliant building height will contribute to a visually dominant building element that is inconsistent with the built form characteristics of the street. The exceedance by 1.34 metres above the maximum prescribed controls will attribute to the perceivable visual bulk and scale impacts and will not be in keeping with the existing streetscape character.

 

·     The roof overhang above the east-facing ground floor deck (fronting Alexandria Parade) which exceeds the height of building development standard will reduce views of an existing headland including visible transitions of land and water from the first floor level of the northern neighbour. The skillion roof end with an RL31.00 extends 350mm above the existing roof gutter level and increases the degree of view loss from the northern neighbour visible from the first floor level. A compliant building height would allow for uninterrupted views of the headland and preserve the status of the view as being a whole view. The proposal will contribute to adverse view loss amenity impacts to the neighbouring buildings.

 

2.     Consistency with the objectives of the R2: Low Density Residential 

 

        The relevant Objectives of the R2 zone include:

 

·      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.

 

Assessment:

Recognition of the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form requires careful consideration that new development will adopt appropriate design cues and the building envelope is sympathetic to the existing built form character of the existing streetscape. The built form character generally consists of a number of contemporary dwellings to the streetscape setting all of which establish consistency within the front setback building pattern along Alexandria Parade. The proposed design scheme fails to address appropriate site planning that will positively respond to the characteristics of the neighbouring buildings and the surrounding context. The development is sited further forward of the front building alignment (non-compliant with the relevant front setback controls) and the distribution of the building bulk further to the east augments the size and scale of the development leading to a non-compliant building height. Whilst the proposal seeks to maintain a similar location as the existing dwelling, it is worth noting that its siting is uncharacteristically further forward than the adjoining neighbours and replication of the existing built form will continue to undermine the building street edge from the streetscape. The proposed development is incompatible with the above objective of the R2: Low Density Residential zoning.

 

Assessment:

 

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

The proposal does not provide sufficient grounds to warrant Council support to vary the height of buildings requirements. The development fails to comply with the front setback controls of the RDCP2013 in that the proposal is inconsistent with the average setbacks of the adjoining dwellings and the relevant objective as the development does not maintain the street setback which contributes to the character of the neighbourhood. A compliant front setback that is commensurate to the front building alignment of the immediately adjoining neighbours at nos. 12 and 16 Alexandria Parade will ensure that the proposed roof overhang will remain compatible with the street character as well as compliant with the building height. The schemes failure to observe the relationship between the building envelope provisions of setbacks and building height through poor site strategy and will compromise the uniformity of the streetscape pattern. The applicant’s written request has not successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard for the reasons outlined above.

 

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

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 allowable height of buildings in clause 4.3 of RLEP 2012.

 

The submitted development application has been accompanied with a BASIX certificate and is consistent with the required BASIX commitments. Variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning.

 

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

The additional building height forms a detracting feature that compromises the streetscape character and the development will not remain compatible with the built form presentation within the existing streetscape. As prescribed above, the variation to the height of buildings development standards will contribute to significant adverse environmental impacts to the neighbouring dwellings and the existing streetscape. The proposal does not contribute to a better planning outcome with respect to its compatibility with the existing streetscape and the submissions received with respect to the development application. Subsequently, the variation is not within the public interest.

 

Variation from the numerical Height of Buildings standard will be detrimental to the orderly use of the site and there is a public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance. Strict adherence to the numerical standard is necessary in to ensuring the objectives of the R2: Low Density Residential Zone and Clause 4.3: Height of Buildings of the RLEP2012 is achieved.

 

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards – Floor Space Ratios Cl4.4(2) of RLEP 2012.

 

Floor Space Ratios

The proposal contravenes the maximum floor space ratio development standard contained in clause 4.4(2) of RLEP 2012. The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012. The variation is summarized in the table below:

 

Proposed gross floor area

441.84sqm (0.79:1)

Maximum permissible gross floor area

361.66sqm (0.65:1)

FSR exceeding LEP control

80.18sqm (22%)

 

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:

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

In the Wehbe case Justice Preston said the most commonly invoked way to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary is to demonstrate that the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard. The objectives of the Floor Space Ratios development standard are set out in clause 4.4(1) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Clause 4.6(3)(a) requires the applicant to demonstrate that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. In Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827, Preston CJ established five potential tests for determining whether a development standard could be considered to be unreasonable or unnecessary.

 

The Court’s recent decision in Four2Five Pty Limited v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90 has altered the way the five tests ought be applied, requiring justification beyond compliance with the objectives of the development standard and the zone. That is, more than one of those five grounds is now arguably required to be made out.

 

It is our opinion that the proposal satisfies a number of the five tests established in Wehbe and for that reason, the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance.

 

The relevant tests will be considered on the following page.

 

Test 1 - The objectives of the standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard;

In our opinion, the proposal remains consistent with the relevant objectives of the FSR development standard and these objectives will now be considered.

 

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

The subject site is located within the R2 Low Density Zone under the Randwick LEP and as addressed in the SEE, Alexandria Parade and the surrounding area, comprises an eclectic array of two and three storey dwelling houses, the majority of which are newly developed. As mentioned, the proposal will replace an existing outdated dwelling with a contemporary designed dwelling house that will complement the existing and emerging streetscape character.

 

The proposed part two and part three storey dwelling will provide additional living space and improve the internal dwelling configuration. It will also improve the relationship between internal and external living areas.

 

The proposed size and scale of the dwelling will also be consistent with the desired future character of the area. In particular, the proposal will incorporate a greater front setback in comparison to the existing dwelling and (DA 848/2015), present an articulated and modulated facade and will also reduce the site coverage of the existing dwelling from 290.58sqm to 274.22sqm.

 

The proposed dwelling has also been designed to be reflective of the steep topography along Alexandria Parade by having the two storey component at the rear of the site and three storeys at the frontage which is also consistent with the siting of neighbouring developments. Importantly, the principal built form will also comply with the height development standard with the exception of the roof overhang at the frontage of the ground floor level that exceeds the height limit as a result of the height being measured from the basement floor level.

 

In additional the proposal will also embellish landscaping and provide more deep soil

landscaping throughout the subject site which is a considerable improvement in comparison to the existing dwelling. Furthermore, the façade treatment and materials are not likely to dominate the dwelling or the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

 

The proposal will also be consistent other dwellings along Alexandria Parade which comprise multi storey contemporary dwellings that do not appear to comply with the FSR development standard.

 

There are also numerous developments that have been approved in the Randwick Local Government Area (LGA) which exceed the FSR development standard and include the following:

 

·     No. 43 Eyre Street (DA 750/2015) involved construction of attached dual occupancy and was approved with an FSR of 0.52:1.

·     No. 1/99 Carrington Road (DA 665/2015) involved alterations and additions to a residential flat building and was approved with an FSR of 1.45:1.

·     No. 33 Mitchell Street (DA 823/2015) involved construction of a two storey attached dual occupancy and was approved with an FSR of 0.53:1.

·     No. 68 Coogee Bay Road (DA 610/2015) involved alterations and additions to an existing building and construction of additional dwelling at basement level and was approved with an FSR of 1.01:1.

·     No. 8 Clifton Road (DA 550/2015) involved construction of a new two storey attached dual occupancy and was approved with an FSR of 0.54:1.

·     No. 33 Woomera Road (DA 93/2016) involved construction of a new two storey attached dual occupancy and was approved with an FSR of 0.53:1.

·     No. 2 Pearce Street (DA 561/2015) involved construction of residential dwelling and was approved with an FSR of 0.675:1.

·     No. 59 Caley Street (DA 407/2016) involved alterations and additions to residential dwelling and was approved with an FSR of 0.538:1.

·     No. 54A Bream Street (DA 140/2016) involved alterations and additions to a residential flat building and was approved with an FSR of 0.98:1.

·     No. 1169 Anzac Parade (DA 392/2016) involved construction of three attached dual occupancy and was approved with an FSR of 0.546:1.

·     No. 161 Franklin Street (DA 387/2016) involved construction of dual occupancy and was approved with an FSR of 0.538:1.

 

The proposal complies with the majority of DCP controls and with the exception of the roof overhang at the front of the ground floor level, the proposal complies with the height development standard. In particular, the proposal is not likely to result in adverse amenity impacts neighbouring dwellings and this will be discussed in detail throughout the report.

 

The existing streetscape was a key consideration in the design of the dwelling. The proposed FSR is in-keeping with existing character of the locality and the minor exceedance in the numerical control is appropriate in this instance and is consistent with Objective (a).

 

(b) to ensure that the building is well articulated and respond to environmental and energy needs,

The proposal will present an articulated façade comprising a variety of setbacks, materials and finishes at the street frontage to provide a high level of visual interest when viewed from the streetscape and will be sympathetic to the foreshore scenic protection area.

 

The building will be constructed of a variety of materials, finishes and colours. Acrylic rendered and metal wall cladding will be used for the external walls. The proposal will also include aluminium windows and glass balustrades and the garage will be constructed of composite timber slats. The design elements are considered to be suitable to the coastal environment and will be consistent with the built form character along Alexandria Parade.

 

The proposal will provide appropriate internal amenity in terms of natural lighting, ventilation and open space provision. The bedrooms and living areas will comprise windows and are orientated to ensure appropriate levels of solar access and ventilation. The roof of the dwelling will comprise two skylights which contribute to the providing solar access to the dwelling. Furthermore, the proposal will embellish landscaping throughout the subject site. In fact, it will provide an additional 58.29sqm of deep soil landscaping throughout the site.

 

Accordingly in our opinion, the proposal is well articulated and will preserve the environmental amenity and energy needs of the dwelling and satisfies Objective (b).

 

(c) to ensure that development is compatible with the scale and character of

contributory buildings in a conservation area or near a heritage item

The subject site is not located within a conservation area and there are no heritage items in close proximity to the subject site. In our opinion, the proposal will not result in any adverse heritage impacts.

 

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

The proposal has been designed to minimise potential environmental amenity impacts on neighbouring dwellings. This is outlined in detail in Section 5 of the Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) separately submitted. It is noted that the principal building complies with the height limit with the exception of the roof overhang at the frontage of the ground floor level which is minor and not likely to have any adverse amenity impacts on the neighbouring dwellings. The proposal also complies with the site coverage requirement under Council’s DCP.

 

With this in mind, the dwelling has provided adequate responses to potential issues of solar access, views and privacy of neighbouring dwellings, given the orientation and topography of the site. In particular, the revised proposal has considerably reduced the bulk and scale of the previously proposed dwelling (848/2015) by providing a greater front setback and reducing the FSR which is likely to improve the amenity to neighbouring properties.

 

In terms of privacy, the proposal is not likely to result in any significant privacy impacts to neighbouring properties. The proposed lower ground floor level comprises windows that have outlook to the side fencing and does not have direct sightlines to neighbouring properties. In addition, the private open space areas at the upper floor levels have been orientated either toward the front and rear of the subject site. Windows located along the side elevations have been designed to protect privacy to neighbouring properties by providing high level windows, privacy screening, translucent glass and having windows offset from neighbouring habitable rooms and open space.

 

The proposal will result in additional overshadowing over the first floor windows along

the northern elevation of No. 16 Alexandria Parade. It is noted that the existing dwelling results in overshadowing over the ground floor windows of No. 16 Alexandria Parade. The protection of the solar access of north facing windows of neighbouring properties from a side boundary is very difficult, even from a complying southern side setback and height. On this basis, previous advice was sought from Solar Access Expert, Mr Steve King on the reasonableness of such a scenario and this is discussed in detail on page 30 of the SEE. Notwithstanding this, the proposal has been designed to minimise overshadowing to No. 16 Alexandria Parade by limiting the height of the dwelling at the centre of the site and providing a greater southern side setback at the first floor level.

 

In regards to view impacts, Tenacity Consulting V Warringah Council states that the protection of views from across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries. When compared to the existing dwelling and

(DA 848/2015) the proposal is likely to improve views across the front boundary from the neighbouring properties. Furthermore, the proposal may result in side boundary view loss from the upper storey windows of the neighbouring properties. However, it is noted that the rear of the proposal will be considerably below the allowable height limit which will reduce the extent of view impacts from the upper storey windows.

 

The proposal is also likely to maintain eastern views from No. 8 Bloomfield Street as the subject site is located considerably below the dwelling and complies with the height limit at the rear of the site. A view loss assessment report was previously prepared for DA 848/2015 by Richard Lamb and Associates which is considered to remain relevant as the proposal will not result in an intensification of the previous DA. A summary of the view assessment is provided on page 31 of the SEE.

 

Accordingly in our opinion, the proposal will preserve the environmental amenity of the surrounding on neighbouring properties and the locality and satisfies Objective (d).

 

Test 2 - The underlying objective or purpose of the standard is not relevant to the development and therefore compliance is unnecessary.

In our opinion, the underlying purpose of the development standard is to present a building that is compatible with the height, context and character of the locality whilst preserving the amenity of adjoining properties.

 

As mentioned the proposed dwelling has been designed to be consistent with the contemporary built form in the locality. The principal dwelling complies with the height development standard contained in the LEP with the exception of a minor portion of the roof overhang at the front of the dwelling which exceeds the standard. The proposal also complies with the site coverage control and provides additional deep soil landscaping on the subject site.

 

The existing context of the locality features a number of multi storey dwellings which appear to breach the FSR control of 0.65:1. Therefore compliance with the maximum FSR control to be compatible with the context of the locality is unnecessary. Importantly, the proposal has been designed to minimise amenity impacts to neighbouring properties.

 

Accordingly in our opinion, the requirement to comply with the maximum FSR control is unnecessary in this circumstance as the proposal is contextually compatible with the surrounding developments and does not result in significant amenity impacts to neighbouring properties.

 

Test 3 - The underlying object of purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required and therefore compliance is unreasonable.

It is our opinion that the underlying object of purpose outlined above would be defeated if compliance with the maximum FSR was necessary.

 

In our opinion, the density and footprint of the development is appropriate in this instance. As mentioned, the existing dwelling is surrounded by contemporary part two and part three storey dwellings built upon a similar topography. The siting of the proposed building, the proposed design measures and compliance with the majority of the building height contribute to a favourable relationship with the surrounding residential uses. In particular, the proposal will reinvigorate a site which currently detracts from the desired built form character of the surrounding area and the foreshore scenic protection area.

 

As mentioned, the proposal has been amended to address the issues raised by Council staff and the neighbours in relation to DA 848/2015. The current application has resulted in a greater front setback, reduced FSR and will be of a similar scale to surrounding developments.

 

Strict compliance would jeopardise the internal amenity for the occupants of the site and will result in a dwelling which will not be consistent with the pattern of large dwelling houses along Alexandria Parade. If the standard is set aside, the construction of a high quality dwelling can be facilitated that strikes a balance between the existing character and likely future context. Importantly the proposal will preserve the amenity to neighbouring properties and this is further detailed in the SEE separately submitted.

 

The proposal is an appropriate and necessary response to the context of the locality. For these reasons, compliance with the development standard is unnecessary.

 

6. There are Sufficient Environmental Planning Grounds to Justify Contravening the Development Standard

The proposal is permissible within the R2 Low Density Residential zone and is consistent with the relevant zone objective which is to provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

 

It is our opinion that the proposal is consistent with the relevant zone objectives and satisfies a number of the ‘unreasonable and unnecessary’ tests established by the Court in Wehbe. In addition, it is our opinion that the proposal is unlikely to result in significant adverse amenity impacts in terms of privacy, overshadowing or view loss.

 

These are considered in detail in the submitted SEE. For these reasons, it is considered that the FSR non-compliance is unlikely to have adverse impacts and the proposal is in the public interest.

 

The proposal will remain consistent with the existing and emerging housing types along Alexandria Parade and is therefore providing for the housing needs of the community by further developing the variety of dwellings within the precinct.

 

Accordingly, in our opinion, the non-compliance will not be inconsistent with existing and future planning objectives for the locality. For these reasons outlined above, it is our opinion that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard in the particular circumstances of the case.

 

7. Clause 4.6(4) Requirements

Clause 4.6(4) guides the consent authority’s consideration of this clause 4.6 variation request. It provides that:

 

“(4) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

 

(a) the consent authority is satisfied that:

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

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

 

The applicant submits that the consent authority can and should be satisfied of each of these requirements of clause 4.6(4), for all of the reasons set out in this request, and also having regard to the unique characteristics of this particular site, in this particular locality; and having regard to the compliance with the height development standard.

 

As indicated, it is our opinion that the proposal is in the public interest. In accordance with Test 1 in Wehbe and Clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii) an assessment of the proposal against both the objectives of the standard and the zone has been undertaken. The consideration of the objectives of the standard is set out in this submission and in our opinion, the proposal is consistent.

 

A detailed assessment of the proposal against the objectives of the zone is undertaken in the submitted SEE. From this, it is our opinion that the proposal is consistent with the zone objectives and should be supported.

 

For these reasons it is our opinion that the variation is appropriate, consistent with the intent of Clause 4.6 and should be supported.

 

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

 

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

 

2.     The objectives of this clause are as follows:

 

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

 

Assessment:

The proposed site strategy is to generally mimic the siting and configuration of the existing building envelope of the free standing dwelling house to emphasise that the development will continue to remain similar to the existing dwelling and will continue to be compatible within the street context. However, adopting this approach fails to recognise that the current dwelling house is significantly forward of the predominant front setback alignment of the neighbouring buildings within the urban block and mirroring the existing building envelope will continue to disregard Council’s controls relating to front setbacks. The siting of the new dwelling house further forward from the neighbouring dwellings does not constitute one that is compliant with Council’s controls in that it abandons the orderly requirements of the front setback provisions to ensure consistency within the streetscape. This is in particular given the proposal involves the demolition of the existing dwelling which presents an opportunity to provide a more compliant building envelope than the current design scheme. Presenting a similar front balcony and external wall setback to the immediate northern and southern neighbour would be more aligned to the maximum permissible development standards including Floor Space Ratios as well as demonstrate an improved relationship between the neighbouring dwellings.

 

It is worthwhile acknowledging the planning principle of compatibility of surrounding development within Project Venture Developments Pty. Ltd. v Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 191. One of the key determinants in recognising streetscape compatibility is the treatment of the front setbacks. Paragraph 28 specifies the following:

 

28    Front setbacks and the way they are treated are an important element of urban character. When there is a uniform building line, even small differences can destroy the unit.

 

The proposed development does not maintain the consistent front setback pattern to the neighbouring dwellings along Alexandria Parade. The front building and balcony alignment at the ground and first floor level extends significantly beyond the front alignments of the adjoining neighbours and contributes to a development that detracts from the local setting by compromising the uniformity of the existing streetscape pattern. The treatment of the eastern portion of the dwelling is incompatible with the surrounding urban character and does not positively respond to the existing site context. Subsequently, the development is considered to be inconsistent with either the desired or existing character of the site. Notwithstanding the above, the exceedance to the FSR is contributory to the overdevelopment nature of the site. The non-compliances to a suite of building envelope controls including floor space ratio, building height, external wall height, site coverage, soft landscaping, front and side setbacks all translates to a development is excessive in size and scale and does not reflect the desired future character of the area as determined under both the RLEP2012 and RDCP2013. The proposal is not in keeping with the intended desired future character of the area and is inconsistent with the above objective.

 

b)     To ensure that the building is well articulated and respond to environmental and energy needs,

 

Assessment:

The exceedance to the Floor Space Ratio provisions does not result in a development that appropriately responds to the environmental and energy needs of the building. The development does not comply with either the site coverage or soft landscaping requirements with 52% (12.56sqm above the minimum site coverage requirements) and 22% (46.07sqm below the minimum soft landscaping requirements) of the RDCP2013, respectively. The lack of appropriate landscaping does not positively contribute to the environmental performance of the building in that it minimises the permeability of the building and does not provide an equitable distribution of built and unbuilt upon areas on a site.

 

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

 

Assessment:

The proposed development is not in close proximity to a heritage conservation area or heritage items.

 

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

 

Assessment:

The variation to the building height will result in the following amenity impacts:

 

·     The non-compliance to the Floor Space Ratio provisions will result in a development that is significantly further forward of the front building alignment as the neighbouring buildings within the urban block of Alexandria Parade. The existing streetscape is defined by the established front setback pattern of freestanding dwellings and the distribution of the floor space to the eastern side of the dwelling protrudes beyond this alignment. An increased front setback would ensure the development remains visually compatible with its context and can be improved with a reduction in the gross floor area. The proposal in its current form does not result in a development that provides an acceptable level of visual bulk and scale from the streetscape setting.

 

·     The proposal will result in adverse visual privacy impacts to the neighbouring dwellings. The ground and first floor west-facing living/bedroom windows are also immediately adjacent the living/bedroom windows of no. 16 Alexandria Parade. Notwithstanding this, the oversized building configuration as a result of the exceedance to the FSR propels the balconies beyond the prevailing front balcony alignment of the neighbouring buildings and directly overlooks the living and habitable room windows of the northern neighbour. The window openings and balconies do not provide any measures to mitigate privacy impacts and will not comply with Council’s objectives or controls for visual privacy within the RDCP2013. 

 

3.     Consistency with the objectives of the R2: Low Density Residential 

        The relevant Objectives of the R2 zone include:

 

·      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.

 

Assessment:

The proposed development does not comply with the objectives of the R2: Low Density Residential Zone. The non-compliant floor area, in particular to the eastern end of the building envelope does not uphold the desirable elements of the streetscape in that it extends beyond the prevailing front building alignment of the neighbouring buildings. The protrusion results in a development that does not harmonise with the streetscape and fails to address the wider street context as a consequence of the breach to the floor space provisions. Variation to the floor space provisions does not achieve a sound planning outcome given the additional building bulk is appreciable when viewed from the streetscape and emphasised by the fact that the building is set well forward of the adjoining properties. Furthermore, the development does not protect the amenity of the residents with respect to visual privacy and view loss impacts. The dwelling house includes a number of window and balconies which will overlook the habitable room windows of the adjoining neighbours and interrupt key easterly viewing vistas as a result of the proposed development.    

 

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

The applicant’s written request has not successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. The significant variation from the maximum permissible floor space ratio development standards establishes a building envelope that is excessive in size and scale and the additional building bulk can be appreciated from the street given it sits further forward of the prevailing front setback of the neighbouring buildings within the street. It is clear the proposal will be disproportionate in scale given the building envelope will sit further forward towards the property boundary than the neighbouring dwellings.

 

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

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 allowable Floor Space Ratios in clause 4.4 of RLEP 2012.

 

The submitted development application has been accompanied with a BASIX certificate and is consistent with the required BASIX commitments. Variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning.

 

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

 

Comments:

The breach to the floor space provisions is not within the public benefit or achieve a better planning outcome. The non-compliant floor area is set further forward of the prevailing front setback of the neighbouring buildings will adversely impact the visual bulk and scale of the development and compromise the continuity of the street facades along Alexandria Parade. The development as a result of the non-compliant floor area does not appropriately integrate new development with the established setback character of the street. Variation from the numerical Floor Space Ratio standard will be detrimental to the orderly use of the site and there is a public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance.

 

The proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. However, strict adherence to the numerical standard is necessary in this instance to ensure the objectives of the R2: Low Density Residential Zone and Clause 4.4: Floor Space Ratios, as per the RLEP2012 is achieved.

 

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 Alexandria Parade, South Coogee

·     12 Alexandria Parade, South Coogee 

·     18 Alexandria Parade, South Coogee

·     22 Alexandria Parade, South Coogee

·     5 Widsom Street, South Coogee

·     8 Bloomfield Street, South Coogee

 

Issue

Comment

The proposal does not comply with the front setback requirements of the RDCP2013.

 

The building extends beyond the established front setback alignment and will contribute to additional privacy and view loss impacts.

Noted. The application has been recommended for refusal. 

The proposal does not comply with the side setback requirements of the RDCP2013.

Noted. The application has been recommended for refusal. 

The proposal exceeds the maximum permissible floor space ratio as per the RLEP2012

Noted. The application has been recommended for refusal.

The height of the building does not respect or follow the natural topography of the site. 

The proposed dwelling house consists of an RL34.15 and will sit within the building height plane of the immediately adjoining neighbours at nos. 12 and 16 Alexandria Parade with an RL35.02 and RL33.74, respectively. Further, the applicant has submitted amended plans lowers the height and finished floor levels of the lower ground floor east-facing terrace to ensure the building mass will respond to the land gradient.   

The proposal will result in adverse view loss impacts.

Noted. The application has been recommended for refusal.

The proposal will result in adverse visual privacy impacts.

Noted. The application has been recommended for refusal.

The proposal will result in adverse overshadowing impacts to the southern neighbour.

The proposal is expected to result in additional overshadowing impacts to the southern neighbour at no. 16 Alexandria Parade. The north-facing window openings at the first floor level will continue to maintain the required three hours of direct solar access between the hours of 11am – 1pm, 21 June and will comply with the minimum solar access requirements. 

The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site.

Noted. The application has been recommended for refusal.

 

The application was re-notified following amended plans being submitted by applicant received by Council on the 28 February 2017 which included the following modifications to the original plans:

 

·     Increase the front setback of the eastern building alignment at the lower ground floor level by an additional 1.1 metres.

·     Lower the finish floor level of the east-facing terrace at the lower ground floor level by 700mm.

·     Increase the front setback of the eastern building alignment at the ground floor level by an additional 300mm.

·     Reduction to the gross floor area by approximately 11sqm.

 

The following additional submissions have been received in response to the amended plans:

 

·     10 Alexandria Parade, South Coogee

·     12 Alexandria Parade, South Coogee

·     16 Alexandria Parade, South Coogee

·     18 Alexandria Parade, South Coogee

·     22 Alexandria Parade, South Coogee 

·     5 Wisdom Street, South Coogee

·     8 Bloomfield Street, South Coogee

 

 

Issue

Comment

The proposal exceeds the maximum permissible floor space ratio as per the RLEP2012

Noted. The application has been recommended for refusal.

The proposal exceeds the maximum permissible height of buildings as per the RLEP2012

The proposal does not comply with the requirements for front setbacks of the RDCP2013

The size and scale of the development is not commensurate with the existing streetscape character.

The proposal will contribute to adverse view loss impacts to the neighbouring dwellings.

The proposal will result in adverse privacy impacts.

The proposal does not comply with the requirements for side setbacks of the RDCP2013.

The proposal will result in adverse overshadowing impacts to the neighbouring dwellings.

 

Key Issues

 

·     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP2012)

 

R2: Low Density Residential Zoning

The relevant objectives of the R2: Low Density Residential Zone is as follows:

 

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

·     To protect the amenity of the residents.

 

The proposed development is inconsistent with the above objectives of the Low Density Residential zoning. As discussed within the Clause 4.6: Exceptions to Development Standards of the Executive Summary Report, the site strategy to distribute the floor area to the east, beyond the prevailing front setback alignment of the neighbouring dwellings does not appropriately respond to the desirable elements of the existing streetscape. Alexandria Parade contains a mixture of three and four storey single dwellings all of which share a similar front setback and establishes continuity of the street facades.  The non-compliance in maintaining the average setback of the neighbouring dwellings, as prescribed within the front setback controls of the RDCP2013, will detract from the local setting by compromising the uniformity of the existing streetscape pattern. The built form is presented as being excessive in bulk and scale when compared to the adjoining buildings which are setback further from their respective property boundaries than that of the proposed development. 

 

The portion of the building and balcony alignment which extends beyond the prevailing front setback line is not only incompatible with the streetscape pattern but also gives rise to adverse amenity impacts. The eastern portion of the ground and first floor balconies provides opportunities to overlook the east facing habitable and non-habitable room windows and obscures the outlook of key viewing vistas from the immediately adjoining neighbours. The non-compliant eastern portion of the building envelope does not enable a reasonable level of amenity with respect to privacy and views. 

 

Further, the presentation of the built form further towards the east will set an undesirable planning precedent which can detrimentally impact the consistency of the streetscape pattern. The applicant’s justification to mirror the proposed building envelope to that of the existing dwelling is also invalid. The existing dwelling house abandons a number of the relevant planning controls with respect to building envelopes and maintaining this configuration will further compromise the compatibility of the building pattern. The demolition of the existing dwelling provides an opportunity to improve the compatibility of the streetscape acknowledged by the building envelope controls.  

 

Clause 6.7: Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

The subject site is located immediately opposite Coogee Bay and is located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area as defined by the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area Map of the RLEP2012. Clause 6.7(3) specifies that development consent must be granted unless the consent authority (Council) is satisfied that the development minimises its visual impact on public areas of the coastline and contributes to the scenic qualities of the coastal foreshore area. The proposal involves positioning the building envelope of the new dwelling house significantly further forward of the prevailing front setback alignment of the neighbouring dwellings along Alexandria Parade. The built form does not establish a consistent rhythm of street setbacks to the neighbouring dwellings and contributes to the visual prominence of the building when viewed from the coastal foreshore areas. The exceedance to the floor space ratio and height of buildings development standards and the non-compliance to the front setback all contribute to a building that is disproportionate in scale to the neighbouring buildings and the street and does not positively contribute to the coastal setting. A development that is more aligned to the building envelope controls will minimise the perceivable visual bulk and improve the views to and from the foreshore. The approach on siting of the existing dwelling should not bear any substantial weighting and consideration should be given on the significance of the current planning controls in demonstrating consistency with the surrounding site context and reduce the environmental amenity impacts, in particular the site sensitivities of foreshore areas.

 

·     Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP2013)

 

Part C1: Low Density Residential  

 

Clause 2.3: Site Coverage

The proposed development will exceed the maximum site coverage requirements with 290.76sqm (52%) above the required 278.2sqm (50%) as per the RDCP2013. The non-compliance to the Council controls is unacceptable given the variation is directly attributed to other departures from the relevant building envelope provisions which includes floor space provisions, height of buildings, external wall heights, permeable landscaping, front setbacks and side setbacks. In considering the proposed development will vary from a number of these provisions the exceedance of the site coverage requirements is representative of the poor distribution between the built and unbuilt upon areas on a site. Further, it is worthwhile noting that the site coverage has a direct relationship between the soft landscaping provisions and exceedance to the site coverage provisions reduces the availability of unbuilt upon areas to be accommodated for soft landscaping. Given the proposed soft landscaping treatment is also reduced less than the minimum requirements with only 22% provided as soft landscaping below the required 30% of the site area the proposal has direct implications on the environmental performance of the site through a lack of soft landscaping and a key determinant on the overdeveloped nature of the site.

 

Clause 2.4: Landscaping and Permeable Surfaces

The proposal achieves 22% (120.83sqm) of the site area as soft landscaping, less than the minimum required 30% (166.92sqm). The reduced permeable landscaping provided on site does not achieve compliance with either the numerical or objectives of the RDCP2013. Shortfall to the permeable landscaping areas does not provide an equitable distribution between the built form and the open space which can be observed through the non-compliance of the site coverage requirements of the RDCP2013, as detailed above. Further, the reduction to the available soft landscaping will also reduce the sites environmental performance in minimising surface water and stormwater infiltration to and from and the subject site. The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives for landscaping and permeable surfaces.

 

Clause 3.2: Building Height

The RDCP2013 specifies that the maximum external wall height for dwelling houses be 7 metres or 8 metres for significantly sloping sites. The site is characterised by a fall of approximately 42% of the site depth and therefore an 8 metre external wall height is applicable in this instance. The new dwelling house consists of an external wall height of 9.36 metres and is a 17% variation from the maximum requirements. In accordance with the objectives for building heights new development must establish a suitable scale to the street and to its character and not cause unreasonable impacts upon the neighbouring dwellings in terms of visual amenity. The non-compliant portion of the external wall on the north-eastern corner of the dwelling at the first floor level extends beyond the prevailing front building alignment of the immediately adjoining dwellings at nos. 12 and 16 Alexandria Parade. Exceedance to the external wall height beyond the front setback of the neighbouring dwellings within the urban block contributes to the visual dominance of the development and is incompatible with its local context.

 

Clause 3.3: Front Setbacks 

The RDCP2013 requires that front setback be consistent with the average setbacks of the adjoining dwellings. The objectives reinforce that setbacks must maintain a consistent rhythm of street setbacks that contributes to the character of the neighbourhood and that the form and massing of development complement and enhance the streetscape character. The numerical non-compliances to the setbacks from the front building and balcony alignments are as follows:

 

 

Proposed ground floor level setback:

Average setback of neighbouring dwellings:

 

Ground level

Proposed first floor level setback:

Average setback of neighbouring dwellings:

 

First floor level

Front building alignment

6.4 metres

 

9 metres

8.4 metres

9.15 metres

Front balcony alignment

3 metres

7.3 metres

7 metres

7.55 metres

 

The proposed dwelling house protrudes significantly beyond the average setbacks of the immediately adjoining dwellings at nos. 12 and 16 Alexandria Parade. In addition to this, it is clear that the neighbouring buildings within the urban block all consist of a prevailing front setback pattern between each neighbouring dwelling which preserves equitable views, visual privacy and uniformity to the built form presentation of the existing streetscape.

 

 

The proposed site strategy involves maintaining a similar building envelope to the existing dwelling house which extends significantly further forward of the front building and balcony alignments of the neighbouring buildings.  The siting of the new dwelling house further forward from the neighbouring dwellings does not constitute one that is compliant with Council’s controls or objectives in that it abandons the orderly requirements of the front setback provisions to ensure consistency with the streetscape pattern. Distribution to the building bulk further to the east translates to a number of non-compliances to the building envelope provisions including floor space ratios, building height, external wall height and site coverage all of which will result in additional amenity impacts. The demolition of the existing dwelling provides an opportunity to provide a more consistent front setback to the neighbouring dwellings, ensure equitable views, visual privacy and uniformity to the streetscape character. Further, a more consistent front setback would respond to the local site context by preserving the rhythm of street setbacks and improve the scale and relationship between the neighbouring dwellings along Alexandria Parade.

 

Clause 3.3.2: Side Setbacks

The minimum side setback requirements for a subject site with a frontage width of more than 12 metres requires a setback of 1200mm at the ground and first floor levels and 1800mm at the second floor level and above. The proposal does not comply with the Council controls for side setbacks in that the ground and first floor levels of the dwelling are defined as the second floor levels and above as per by the RDCP2013 and the proposal is set only 900mm from the side boundaries which is a substantial departure from the minimum requirements. The non-compliance to the side setback and exceedance to the floor space ratio, height of buildings, site coverage and soft landscaping provisions creates an oversized building envelope that is significantly larger than one that is anticipated within the current planning controls. The proposal does not fit comfortably within the site parameters and does not achieve the intent of minimizing impacts to the neighbouring dwellings. Notwithstanding this, the reduced side setback does not provide a reasonable level of amenity to the neighbouring premises. The built form does not provide adequate building separation and will compromise the visual privacy of the immediately adjoining properties with overlooking into the habitable room windows of the neighbouring dwellings at nos. 16 Alexandria Parade. In addition, the non-compliant side setbacks will also reduce ground and first floor headland water views from the south-western aspects of the northern neighbour. The departure from the side setback compromises the amenity that an otherwise compliant scheme would achieve.

 

Clause 5.3: Visual Privacy

The new single dwelling development consists of a number of window openings and balconies along the northern and southern elevations fronting the common boundaries and east facing balconies. The objectives of the RDCP2013 require that development to be skillfully designed to minimise opportunities for overlooking to the neighbouring dwellings and to provide a reasonable level of privacy. The east-facing balconies adjoining the ground and first floor levels significantly encroach within the prevailing front setback alignment of the neighbouring buildings and the non-compliant portion of the front setback will result in additional visual privacy impacts to the neighbouring dwelling. The ground floor east-facing balcony will directly overlook the living room and the first floor east-facing balcony will provide some cross views to a transparent window/door opening to the first floor bedroom/bathroom both of which impacts the visual amenity of the northern neighbour at no. 12 Alexandria Parade.  The ground and first floor east-facing balconies both of which extend beyond the balcony alignments of the neighbouring dwelling creates unreasonable privacy implications than what would be achieved by a development which is commensurate to the setback controls of the RDCP2013. Additionally, the first floor south-facing bedroom no. 3 and no. 4 are immediately opposite the living room windows of no. 16 Alexandria Parade and provides no alternative privacy measures to minimise the extent of overlooking. The visual privacy impacts are unacceptable and inconsistent with the objectives of the RDCP2013 in that the development does not provide a reasonable level of visual privacy.

 

Clause 5.5: View Sharing 

Loss of views has been raised by the following objectors:

 

·     12 Alexandria Parade, South Coogee

·     16 Alexandria Parade, South Coogee

 

The applicant submitted amended plans on the 28 February 2017 which included the following modifications to the original plans:

 

·     Increase the front setback of the eastern building alignment at the lower ground floor level by an additional 1.1 metres.

·     Lower the finish floor level of the east-facing terrace at the lower ground floor level by 700mm.

·     Increase the front setback of the eastern building alignment at the ground floor level by an additional 300mm.

·     Reduction to the gross floor area by approximately 11sqm.

 

The amendments were not formally notified to the adjoining neighbours given the proposed modifications constitutes a reduction to the scope of works in accordance with Clause 3.5.1: Amended Applications, Part A1 of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013. Notwithstanding this, two submissions were received by the following objectors with respect to view loss impacts:

 

·     12 Alexandria Parade, South Coogee

·     16 Alexandria Parade, South Coogee

 

Council’s planning officer contacted the objectors on the 28 April 2017 to carry out a view loss inspection. It should be noted that height poles were not installed given the obstructions from the existing dwelling house and a view loss can be adequately assessed utilizing the existing building envelope configuration. To assess whether the extent of view loss which would result from the proposal is reasonable, an analysis has been undertaken with reference to the Land and Environment Court Planning Principle established in the matter of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah (2004) NSWLEC 140:

 

1.  Quality of Views:

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

 

Planners Assessment:

 

12 Alexandria Parade, South Coogee

The site consists of uninterrupted views of the South Pacific Ocean which includes whole iconic views of Wedding Cake Island to the north-east and whole headland views to the south-east which includes a distinct interface of land and water.

 

Image: South-eastern aspect with an obscured view of an existing headland from the ground floor east-facing balcony at no. 12 Alexandria Parade, South Coogee.

Red line: Estimated building envelope of the proposed development 

 

Image: South-eastern aspect with a view of an existing headland from the ground floor east-facing balcony at no. 12 Alexandria Parade.

Red line: Estimated building envelope of the proposed development 

 

16 Alexandria Parade, South Coogee 

Similar to that of no. 12 Alexandria Parade, the site consists of uninterrupted views of the South Pacific Ocean which includes whole iconic views of Wedding Cake Island to the north-east and whole headland views to the south-east which includes a distinct interface of land and water.

 

Image: North-eastern aspect with view of an existing headland and Wedding Cake Island from the lower ground floor east-facing terrace at no. 16 Alexandria Parade, South Coogee. 

 

Image: Eastern aspect with water views from the first floor east-facing bedroom window at no. 16 Alexandria Parade.

 

2.   Reasonable Expectation of View Retention:

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

 

12 Alexandria Parade, South Coogee

The whole headland and iconic Wedding Cake Island views are visible across the side (northern and southern) boundaries however forms part of the continuous panoramic views to the east with Wedding Cake Island to the north-east and the headland to the south-east. The view is visible from the lower ground floor (swimming pool) level on the eastern end of the deck area; the north-eastern portion of the ground floor living room and adjoining balcony and the first floor master bedroom, bathroom and adjoining deck area. The views are obtainable from both a sitting and standing position. It should be noted that the view of the headland from the south-easterly end of the ground floor living room and deck is obscured by the existing development. 

 

16 Alexandria Parade, South Coogee 

Similar to that of no. 12 Alexandria Parade, the whole headland and iconic Wedding Cake Island views are visible across the side (northern and southern) boundaries however forms part of the continuous panoramic views to the east with Wedding Cake Island to the north-east and the headland to the south-east. The view is visible from the lower ground floor on the eastern end of the terrace above the garage fronting Alexandria Parade and the ground floor level balcony adjoining the living room and bedroom. The view is obtainable from both a sitting and standing position on the deck areas. The views from the first floor level east facing bedrooms are obscured by the rooftops of the neighbouring properties due to the recessed nature of the upper level addition. 

 

3.   Extent of Impact:

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

 

12 Alexandria Parade, South Coogee

The extent of the impact is qualitatively considered to be moderate.

 

Ground floor level: Whilst the proposed development is setback an additional 1.8 metres from the eastern end of the existing front building alignment, the external wall of the dwelling is set only 1200mm from the side boundary as measured north-eastern corner of the building. The reduced side setback will continue to obscure headland views from a south-eastern aspect when standing on the southern end of the living room balcony area at the ground floor level. Notwithstanding this, the provision of a planter box on the north-eastern corner of the balcony also has the potential to contribute to additional view loss impacts. The height of the proposed planting and density of the shrubbery can contribute to additional view loss impacts than the existing situation. In considering the reduced setback from the northern boundary and that no details have been provided to the proposed planting within the planter box the view impact as moderate.

 

First floor level: The views from the first floor will also be impacted by the proposed development. The roof parapet over the ground floor balcony will extend beyond the existing eastern roof and 350mm above the existing roof gutter to an RL31.00. The positioning of the roof over the ground floor balcony will further impact the existing view which will obscure the whole view of the headland from the master bedroom and bathroom area and the visible transitions between land and water. The roof over the ground floor balcony will reduce the whole view of the headland and the visible transitions of land and water. It is important to recognise that the north-eastern portion of the roof is also non-compliant to the maximum permissible height of building requirements of the RLEP2012.   

 

16 Alexandria Parade, South Coogee

The extent of the impact is qualitatively considered to be minor.

 

Ground floor level: The views from the ground floor balcony adjoining the east-facing living room and bedroom will slightly reduce water views as a result of the supporting column and roof overhang on the eastern end of the ground floor deck. The new structure will extend further east than the existing development and contribute to additional view loss from a north-easterly aspect. 

 

First floor level: The views from the first floor level bedroom incorporate water views above the existing hipped roof form of the existing dwelling house. The views will be reduced as a result of the upper level addition from a north-eastern aspect of the bedroom. The significance of the view loss is due primarily by the significant setback of the upper level addition to the front property boundary. 

 

4.   Reasonableness of Proposed Development:

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

 

The proposed dwelling house results in unreasonable view loss impacts given the significant non-compliances with a suite of building envelope controls as prescribed within the planning policies of the RLEP2012 and RDCP2013. The proposed building envelope extends significantly further forward of the front building alignment and does not maintain the average setback of the neighbouring buildings; exceeds the maximum floor space ratio by more than 10%; exceeds the maximum height of buildings and is non-compliant with the side setback, site coverage and soft landscaping controls of the RDCP2013.

 

The site strategy which involves modelling the proposed building envelope to the existing building configuration is not an appropriate justification given the proposal disregards the current planning controls in ensuring conformity within the existing streetscape pattern and minimising the view loss impacts from the neighbouring premises. The presentation of the building forward of the prevailing front setback and the significant departure from the floor space ratio creates a larger building envelope than anticipated under the current planning controls and reduces key headland views from the adjoining neighbours, in particular at no. 12 Alexandria Parade. Compliance with the floor space and setback controls has the effect of enhancing the amount of views that are attainable from typical ground and first floor east-facing areas and are instrumental in determining the reasonableness of the proposed development. 

 

The departure to the height of buildings development standard also leads to adverse view loss impacts. The breach to the building height at the eastern end of the roof over the ground floor balcony will also further reduce views of an existing headland including visible transitions of land and water from the first floor level of the northern neighbour. The skillion roof end with an RL31.00 extends 350mm above the existing roof gutter level and increases the degree of view loss from the neighbouring dwelling visible from the first floor level. A compliant building height would allow for uninterrupted views of the headland and preserve the status of the view as being a whole view. Whilst a fully compliant development would achieve the appropriateness of the views even small incremental changes to the envelope would have some significance in preserving the view corridor. Both of which have not been considered as part of the current design scheme. 

 

In considering the above, the significant breaches to the Council controls do not reflect a development that constitutes a ‘reasonable’ level of view loss given the number and substantial non-compliances to the building envelope provisions. A development that is compliant with the Council’s controls is more aligned to the view sharing principles in ensuring an equitable distribution of views between development and neighbouring dwellings. The view loss impacts are not considered to be reasonable. 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed demolition of the existing structures and construction of a new part two/part three storey single dwelling and semi-basement garage exceeds the maximum permissible height of buildings and floor space ratio of the RLEP2012 and the submitted Clause 4.6: Exceptions to the Development Standards are not considered to be well-founded. The departure to the floor space and building height and the non-compliances to the relevant building envelope controls including front and side setbacks, site coverage, soft landscaping and external wall heights all translates to a development that is excessive in size and scale and will compromise the appearance of the building within the existing streetscape. The site strategy to distribute the floor area to the east beyond the prevailing front setback alignment of the urban block will compromise the uniformity of the front building pattern to the adjoining dwellings along Alexandria Parade. The built form is presented as being significantly closer to the street and will exacerbate the visual bulk and scale when compared to the adjoining buildings which are further setback from their respective property boundaries.

 

In addition, the oversized building envelope will also give rise to adverse amenity impacts to the immediate neighbours. The non-compliant eastern portion of the building will interrupt whole headland views which include visible transitions of land and water from the northern neighbour at no. 12 Alexandria Parade. In considering the planning principles of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah (2004) NSWLEC 140 the significant departures to the Council controls reflects a development that can be defined as having an unreasonable impact of views and the aspect would be significantly improved if the development complied with the suite of Council controls. Visual privacy impacts from the east-facing balconies at the ground and first floor levels to the habitable room windows of the neighbouring buildings would also be largely ameliorated with appropriate treatment to the eastern portion by setting the building and balcony alignment similar to that of the adjoining dwellings. The application is recommended for refusal. 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuses development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 854/2016 for the demolition of the existing structures and construction of a part 2/part 3 storey dwelling house with semi-basement garage, in ground swimming pool and associated site and landscape works, at No. 14 Alexandria Parade, South Coogee, for the following reasons:

 

1.        The proposal does not satisfy the following objectives of the R2: Low Density Residential zone:

 

·     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.

 

2.        The proposal does not satisfy the Clause 6.7: Foreshore Scenic Protection Areas of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in that the development will detract the scenic quality of the coastal foreshore area. 

 

3.        The proposal exceeds the maximum building height of 9.5 metres specified in Clause 4.3 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the Clause 4.6 variation to the development standard is not well founded. 

 

4.        The proposal exceeds the maximum floor space ratio of 0.65:1 specified in Clause 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the Clause 4.6 variation to the development standard is not well founded.

 

5.        The proposal does not satisfy the objectives or controls for Site Coverage set-out in Clause 2.3 of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013, Part C1.

 

6.        The proposal does not satisfy the objectives or controls for Landscaping and Permeable Surfaces set-out in Clause 2.4 of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013, Part C1.

 

7.        The proposal does not satisfy the objectives or controls for Building Height set-out in Clause 3.2 of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013, Part C1.

 

8.        The proposal does not satisfy the objectives or controls for Setbacks set-out in Clause 3.3 of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013, Part C1.

 

9.        The proposal does not satisfy the objectives or controls for Visual Privacy set-out in Clause 5.3 of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013, Part C1.

 

10.      The proposal does not satisfy the objectives or controls for View Sharing set-out in Clause 5.5 of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013, Part C1.

 

11.      The proposal is not within the public interest having regard to the submissions received with the application.

 

12.      The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site with respect to the non-compliances to the relevant building envelope controls set-out in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2013 and Development Control Plan 2012.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 14 Alexandria Parade, SOUTH COOGEE

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                            13 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D43/17

 

Subject:              1159 Anzac Parade, Matraville (DA/795/2016)

Folder No:                DA/795/2016

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

 

Proposal:                  New 3 storey attached dual occupancy with associated site and landscape works and boundary fence

Ward:                        South Ward

Applicant:                Arkhaus

Owner:                     BBC Removals & Transport Services Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=91424865-05f7-4e23-9b0c-08021bfb4a2a&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

This application has been referred to external consultant for assessment and is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the former owner of the property is a Council employee.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of a 3-level attached dual occupancy.

 

The lower ground of each dwelling contains a semi-basement parking area containing space for 3 vehicles in each dwelling as well as a workshop, laundry and storage area beyond. Internal stair access is provided to the ground level living area from the garage level. The front setback area contains landscaping, driveway and bin storage areas as well as stairs leading to the main entries on each side.

 

The ground level contains the main bedroom with ensuite and walk in robe as well as 3 bedrooms and additional bathroom. A small deck is proposed off the main bedroom at the front of each dwelling whilst a deck leading to the rear yard is proposed at the rear. Privacy screens are provided to the side of each rear deck. The main entrance to the dwellings is from the sides via the steps leading up from the level below.

 

The 1st floor contains the living areas which consist of an open plan living, kitchen and dining arrangement with decks at the front and rear. Privacy screens are proposed to each side of the rear decks. Planter beds are provided either side of the common wall either side of the front decks.

 

Site

 

The site is located on the western side of Anzac Parade between Hilary Parade to the south and Truscott Avenue to the north. The site has a frontage of 16.23m to Anzac Parade, site depth of 36.425m and site area of 543.8sqm.

 

The site contains a single storey dwelling house. The site slopes up from the site frontage to the rear yard by approximately 2.3m.The site does not contain any significant vegetation.

 

Figure 1: Existing dwelling on subject site

 

Figure 2: Rear of existing dwelling

 

Neighbouring Properties

 

The locality is characterized by low density residential development. Dwelling houses adjoin the subject site to the north, south and west.

 

Figure 3: Dwelling house adjoining the subject site to the north at 1157 Anzac Parade

 

 

Figure 4: Dwelling house adjoining the subject site to the south at 1161 Anzac Parade

 

Figure 5: Anzac Parade and Pioneers Park to the east of 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 applicant was notified of concerns with the proposal and was subsequently amended and re-notified to surrounding properties.

 

The following submissions were received as a result of both notification processes:

 

·     1157 Anzac Parade, Malabar

·     1161 Anzac Parade, Malabar

·     19 Meehan Street, Malabar

·     23 Meehan Street, Malabar

 

Issues

Comments

Overshadowing

The overall height of the proposal has been reduced to be below the height limit as stipulated in the RLEP 2012.

It is considered that the amendments will have the effect of retaining solar access to the front/east-facing openings in the morning and to the rear/west facing openings in the afternoon whilst the rear yards will enjoy in excess of 3 hours solar access between 9am and 3pm on June 21.

Excessive bulk and scale due to non-compliant height and FSR

The overall height, bulk and scale has been reduced since originally lodged. This has reduced the FSR from 0.54:1 down t0 0.5:1 whilst the overall height has been reduced by 750mm and is now well below the overall height limit and the wall height has been reduced from 8.9m to 8.2m. The size of the decks at the front and rear of the site have also been reduced which shortens the building length and overall bulk and scale when viewed from adjoining properties. Articulation has also been provided to the side elevations through the use of indents.

 

It is considered that the amendments have suitably addressed the concerns raised in relation to height, bulk and scale.

Visual and Acoustic Privacy

It is considered that the lowering of the bedroom and living area floor levels along with the reduction in size of decks and provision of privacy screens (as provided and as conditioned) suitably address these issues. It is noted that the orientation of primary living areas is to the front and rear whilst side facing windows are restricted to highlight windows. It is acknowledged that there may be oblique overlooking opportunities from the rear decks at the 1st floor level, however, such relationship is consistent with the numerous attached dual occupancies which have been approved and erected in this part of Anzac Parade. The size of the rear decks have been significantly reduced to minimize potential overlooking whilst the side privacy screens also limit the extent of potential overlooking.

 

In regard to concerns raised from the adjoining neighbours, it is noted that the northern neighbour has a carport and shed which minimize visual relationship between the respective properties. The single side facing bedroom window is not considered to be adversely affected as it is covered by the carport and is not opposite any proposed windows that would be capable of generating privacy impacts as the sill height of the bedroom on the side elevation has a sill height of 1.6m. The side entry stairs on each side have also been lowered whilst 1.8m high semi-transparent timber privacy screens have been added for privacy between the entries and the adjoining dwellings. This treatment would also be effective in the event of the adjoining dwellings being redeveloped in a similar manner to the other attached dual occupancies in this precinct.

 

Parking

The proposal complies with Council’s controls with regard to car parking rates and facilities.

 

Front fencing

The height of the fencing in the front setback has been reduced and a condition of consent has been set for landscaping within the front setback not to exceed 1m in height, thereby maintaining sight lines to and from Anzac Parade for adjoining properties.

 

 

Key Issues

 

·     Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

 

The overall FSR has been reduced from 0.54:1 down to 0.5:1 and is now compliant with the LEP control and is also consistent with the approved FSR of the other attached dual occupancy developments between 1137 and 1187 Anzac Parade, as approved under the current LEP.

 

The overall bulk and scale has also been reduced by lowering the overall height y sinking the built form into the ground, providing indentations along both side elevations and shortening the length of the rear decks. The combination of the above amendments is considered to achieve a height, bulk and scale which is consistent with that contemplated by the controls and is also consistent with that approved and erected in the vicinity of the site.

 

·     Height

 

The overall height and wall height have been reduced so that the overall height is well below the 9.5m height limit, particularly at the rear where the built form is most visible from adjoining rear yard. The wall height has also been reduced from 8.9m to 8.2m which is considered to be acceptable for the sloping site. The wall height at the rear is 6.8m in height which is compliant and consistent with the wall height of other approved dual occupancies in this precinct.

 

·     Visual and Acoustic Privacy

 

It is considered that the provision of privacy screens to the sides of the rear decks provides sufficient relied from direct sideways overlooking. The provision of landscaping within the rear yards will also ameliorate potential overlooking concerns. The screens to the entry porches on each aide are also suitably screened and it is noted that this method of access is consistent with the majority of dual occupancies that have been approved and developed in this precinct.

 

·     Overshadowing

 

The east-west orientation of the site makes overshadowing of southern neighbours inevitable. The amendments as requested were directed to reduce the extent of impact and this has been achieved by lowering of the overall and wall height, increased side setback and increased rear setback. It is considered that the amendments will have the effect of retaining solar access to the front/east-facing openings in the morning and to the rear/west facing openings in the afternoon whilst the rear yards will enjoy in excess of 3 hours solar access between 9am and 3pm on June 21.

 

·     Vehicle Safety

 

It is noted that the site is located on a bend of Anzac Parade which limits visibility for drivers reversing onto Anzac Parade. The height of the side fencing within the front setback has been reduced to improve the line of sight.

 

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

 

It is considered that the amended design for the attached dual occupancy achieves a height, bulk and scale which is consistent with that anticipated by the controls within the LEP and DCP and will also provide for a development which will be compatible with the sequence of approved and constructed attached dual occupancies along this section of Anzac Parade. It is also considered that the amendments retain privacy and amenity to neighbouring properties which are currently under-developed in comparison to the nearby pattern of attached dual occupancy developments.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 795/2016 for the proposed attached dual occupancy, at No. 1159 Anzac Parade, Matraville, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

Consent Requirements

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

 

a)     Plant species adjacent to the front side fencing must not exceed 1m in height at maturity.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 1159 Anzac Parade, MATRAVILLE 

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                            13 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D44/17

 

Subject:              14 Eastbourne Avenue, Clovelly (DA/469/2011/C)

Folder No:                DA/469/2011/C

Author:                     Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                  Section 96 modification to the approved development including amendment to garage and driveway, decking and rear terrace, upper floor width, roof form and party wall

Ward:                        North Ward

Applicant:                J & R Gordon

Owner:                     J & R Gordon

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=7ae5d02d-e93f-4522-9bc8-d104095171cd&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

This Section 96(2) application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the original application was determined at a Council Meeting.

 

Proposal

 

The application to modify the development includes the following modifications;

 

a)      Extend the garage beneath the floor above to increase the depth of the garage and improve internal access,

b)      Re orientate the internal steps from the garage into the rumpus room,

c)      Widen the garage and opening by 410mm by relocating the side wall closer to the boundary,

d)      Re align the external steps from the street to the dwelling to remove the angled placement of the steps,

e)      Raise the level of the front patio to be in line with the adjoining dwelling proposal and the entry of the dwelling,

f)       Widen front patio by 185mm,

g)      Extend the approved western boundary planter to the patio above the garage over the street entry to improve the appearance from the street

h)      Delete a window and door to the northern corner living room,

i)       Widen the upper floor level by 630mm on the northern side and maintaining a 900mm setback to the side boundary,

j)       Internal stud wall to the party wall replaced with a masonry wall to the boundary,

k)      Realign the roof form to be in line with the approved development to the adjoining dwelling at No.16 Eastbourne Avenue,

 

Site History

 

Approval was originally granted to the application at the Planning Committee Meeting held on 6 December 2011 to carryout alterations and additions to the existing semi detached dwelling including the construction of a first floor level with elevated front balcony, extension of garage, raising level of the podium terrace above the garage, internal reconfiguration of floor plan, installation of swimming pool and site works.

 

The development consent has been the subject of two previous approved Section 96 applications which have modified the development to include the extension of the ground and first floor to the rear, reconfigure the basement and increase the garage width and delete the swimming pool.

 

Section 96 Amendment

 

Under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, Council may only agree to a modification of an existing Development Consent if the application meets the following criteria:

 

Substantially the Same Development

The modifications will not result in a significant change to the nature of the original approval. The increase in FSR primarily results from the decrease in side setback at the first floor level which is a relatively small increase in the footprint of the first floor level whilst the altered roof design is only marginally different. For the purposes of considering a Section 96 application, the proposed modification of the original development consent will be both qualitatively and quantitatively substantially the same as originally approved.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Issue

Comments

18 Shackel Avenue Clovelly

 

-There are concerns in relation to the side setback being narrowed from 1500mm to 900mm which will impact upon their views.

 

12 Eastbourne Avenue Clovelly

 

-There are concerns in relation to the failure to comply with the required side setback of 1500mm, by a non complying 900mm setback which will have a significant impact on their amenity.

 

-The modification will increase the FSR to 0.99:1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-The modification will result in a substantial loss of winter sunlight.

 

 

 

 

 

The 900mm side setback complies with the RDCP controls for site between 6-8m in width.

(See View Loss below).

 

 

 

 

The 900mm side boundary setback complies with the RDCP controls for site between 6 -8m in width.

 

 

 

 

The resultant increase in FSR from 0.95:1 (approved) to 0.99:1, represents an additional 14m² which will in itself not result in any adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining development or the streetscape. The increase in FSR results from the widening of the first floor level to be consistent with the level below and will not add significantly to the perceived bulk of the building. It’s important to note that as the site area is less than 300m2, Council’s LEP does not require a maximum FSR.

 

The resultant solar access to the adjoining properties and dwellings satisfies the DCP solar access requirements in relation to north facing windows and private open space. The additional overshadowing will be largely cast on the eastern side elevation of No 12 Eastbourne Ave, with its northern elevation retaining the required amount of solar access.

 

Key Issues

 

View loss

The assessment of potential view loss in the original application in relation to the properties behind determined that whilst there would be some view impact to the water elements from the properties directly behind at 18 & 16 Shackel Avenue the majority of the sky headland interface and the whole of Wedding Cake Island would not be affected.

 

The following paragraphs provide a four-step analysis of view loss established in the NSW Land and Environment Court case, Tenacity v Warringah Council (2004).

 

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.”

 

P9220026

Photo taken from the rear deck of No.18 Shackel Avenue

 

P9220032

Photo taken from the first floor rear deck of 18 Shackel Ave.

 

The proposed increase in width to the dwelling will not significantly impact on views from the properties behind as the overall height of the building is not increased and the additional width to the building will only obscure views to some of the water at ground level, and other buildings from the first floor deck view. The primary views of the ocean and headland interface and Wedding Cake Island are not affected by the proposed modification.

 

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.”

 

No. 18 Shackel Avenue

Ground floor deck off living areas

The views are obtained across the rear boundary of No. 18 Shackel Avenue itself, and side boundaries of the subject site and No. 10 Eastbourne Avenue.

 

Standing and sitting views (at sitting position, part of Wedding Cake Island and distant headlands would become obscured by existing vegetation in the garden of No. 18 Shackel Avenue).

 

Ground floor lounge window

The views are obtained across the rear boundary of No. 18 Shackel Avenue itself, and side boundaries of the subject site and No. 10 Eastbourne Avenue.

 

Standing and sitting views, filtered through the fly screen of the window.

 

First floor deck off living areas

The views are obtained across the rear boundary of No. 18 Shackel Avenue itself, and side boundaries of the subject site and No. 10 Eastbourne Avenue.

 

Standing and sitting views.

 

 

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.”

 

The degree of impact is considered to be minor given the negligible increase in the building envelope.

 

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.”

 

The extent of view loss is minor in nature. The majority of the sky-headland interface and the whole Wedding Cake Island will not be affected. It is considered that the impact would not result in significant impacts on the amenity of the ground floor deck areas whilst the deck at the first level will continue to capture full views of the scenic and iconic features.

 

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 is satisfactory as it complies with the relevant controls and objectives of the RDCP 2013. The modifications are minor in nature, are generally in keeping with the original approval and will not result in any significant adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining residents.

 

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/469/2011 for 14 Eastbourne Avenue, Clovelly, subject to the conditions contained to this report:

 

·         Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

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

 

Plan Number

Dated

Received

Prepared By

DA01a

2/11/11

4 November 2011

Michael Folk Architects and Interiors Pty. Ltd.

DA02a

2/11/11

DA05a

2/11/11

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received

A115876

23 June 2011

27 June 2011

 

as amended by the following Section 96 (A) details:

 

Plan Number

Dated

Received

Prepared By

DA01b

1/03/12

18 April 2012

Michael Folk Architects and Interiors Pty. Ltd.

DA02b

1/03/12

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received

A115876_03

1 March 2012

18 April 2012

 

as amended by the following Section 96 (B) details:

 

Plan Number

Dated

Received

Prepared By

S9601[C]

10/02/14

12 February 2014

Michael Folk Architects and Interiors Pty. Ltd.

S9602[C]

10/02/14

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received

A115876_04

11 February 2014

12 February 2014

 

        As amended by the following Section 96 (C) details:

 

Plan Number

Dated

Prepared By

S9601C

10/11/16

Michael Folk Architects and Interiors Pty. Ltd.

S9602C

10/11/16

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

A115876_05

3rd November 2016

 

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:

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                            13 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D45/17

 

Subject:              71 Coogee Bay Road, Randwick (DA/564/2016)

Folder No:                DA/564/2016

Author:                     Chahrazad  Rahe, Senior Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                  Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including new front carport, first floor addition and attached secondary dwelling

Ward:                        East Ward

Applicant:                Mr G E Vankuyk

Owner:                     Mr G E Vankuyk and Ms A S Forrest-Bisley

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=e187afa2-ff3d-4b96-9b1e-a8cc9aeb8c48&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

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

 

Proposal

 

The application is seeking approval for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house by creating a secondary dwelling at the upper level, new rear external stairs, front first floor terrace and new carport/garage at the front of the dwelling to replace the exisitng carport strucutre.

 

Amended plans have been received by Council on 20 October 2016 to address issues in relation to the front garage and as a result the garage was replaced with an open carport structure to the front of the dwelling.

 

Further amended plans have been received by Council on 4 April 2017 to address issues in relation to the scale of the secondary dwelling, privacy and front carport structure.  As a result the front first floor terrace area is reduced in depth, the covered open space area has been altered by replacing the side walls and pitched roof with privacy screens and flat roof form, privacy screens are proposed to the western side of the rear staircase, the front roof form is altered and the front carport structure is reduced in height.

 

The assessment is based on these amended plans received by Council on 4 April 2017. The amended scheme was not re-exhibited as the impacts of the proposal were reduced.

 

Site & surrounding locality

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Coogee Bay Road between Dudley Street to the west and Carrington Road to the east and is identified as Lot 7 in DP 653635. The site is rectangular in shape, with a frontage width of 7.51m to Coogee Bay Road and a depth of 38.405m. The site has a total area of 288m².

 

The site is currently occupied by a single storey dwelling house with an attached carport structure to the front of the dwelling.

 

The surrounding area of the site is characterized by a range of residential accommodation which includes dwelling houses and residential flat development.

 

The adjoining property to the east of the subject site is a two storey dwelling houses and to the west is a four storey residential flat building.

 

Image 1:  Subject site

Submissions

 

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

 

69 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee (two submissions prepared by Larissa Ozog – Town Planning Consultant and Alldis & Cox – represented by the Body Corporate of Strata Plan 2652)

Issue

Comment

SEPP requirements

The proposed secondary dwelling is significantly over the permitted area of 60m² under the SEPP. The additional floor space creates additional bulk to the dwelling and is not in keeping with the scale and form of development for a secondary dwelling.

Refer to Key Issues below which demonstrates the proposed development complies with the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 for secondary dwellings.

 

The secondary dwelling is 60m2.

Front setback of Garage

The proposed garage structure forward of the front building line is not in keeping with the adjoining front setbacks and does not meet the DCP control.  The inadequate setback will impede the view of vehicles and reduce pedestrian safety.

 

Garage/carport location and design

The height, size and length of the front garage/carport structure is excessive and will be visually dominating and is non-compliant with a number of provisions in the DCP for parking. 

The amended proposal is for a carport structure not garage.  Currently there is an existing carport structure to the front of the dwelling.  The new carport structure will be similar in height and width to the existing carport structure and does not cause any additional significant visual or safety concerns.

Visual and acoustic privacy concerns

The proposal includes two elements which will adversely affect both the visual and acoustic privacy of the immediately adjoining properties.  The exposed and open style main staircase to the secondary dwelling at the rear and front first floor deck/terrace will adversely affect the visual and acoustic privacy of adjoining properties.

Amended plans have been received reducing the size of the front terrace area and a privacy screen is proposed to the western side of the rear staircase which reduces the acoustic and visual privacy impacts.  A condition is also included further reducing the length of the terrace area. Refer to Key Issues below under Sub-section 5.3 - Visual Privacy which addresses this concern.

Privacy impacts from proposed window opening

The proposed window openings align with the neighbouring windows of 69 Coogee Bay Road and thereby adversely impacting on privacy.

Refer to Key Issues below under Sub-section 5.3 - Visual Privacy which addresses this concern.

Setbacks

The minimum setback should be 900mm for secondary dwelling.  The eastern side has a maximum setback of only 500mm not meeting the control.   The limited setback will be visual dominating and the windows are unlikely to comply with the BCA in terms of fire rating requirements.

The proposed first floor level is setback 900mm from the side boundaries which complies with the control.

Design

The length of the first floor addition is 18.36m and lacks articulation, this further accentuate the bulk and scale of the building. The wall should be staggered or divided to create articulation.

Amended plans have been received reducing the length of the wall to 13.958m by replacing part of the wall with 1.6m high privacy screening and balustrades.  This will reduce the wall mass and break up the wall length providing better articulation to the sides of the building.

 

Also, it is not an uncommon characteristic for dwellings with narrow lot widths to have a longer side elevation of 12m as it is difficult to achieve a functional floor plate with a limited width. 

 

Further, the proposed development will be generally consistent with other two storey dwellings in the immediate locality.

Height, views and shadows

The hillside views currently enjoyed from the lounge room, kitchen, balcony and bedroom (in three units one bedroom, in the other three units two bedrooms) will be impacted by the proposed development.

 

The shadow diagrams appear to be incorrect and the proposed development will be adversely impact on neighbouring properties sunlight in the morning.

The ocean views across the eastern side boundary of Coogee Bay are already blocked by existing vegetation and buildings. The existing district and sky views over the roof top of the subject site and neighbouring properties to the north and east are not iconic views.

 

In relation to overshadowing, Council has undertaken its own assessment of the impacts - refer to Key Issues below under Sub-section 5.1 - Solar Access and Overshadowing which address this concern.

Waste disposal

The location of the bins store along the western side of the site will restrict accessibility to the rear and is very close to the street frontage.  The bin should be relocated away from the public domain and in a more accessible location.

The location of the bin area is acceptable in that the 1.2m high timber fence will partially obscure view of the bins to the street and there is still adequate area along the side passage in order to access the secondary dwelling.

 

 

 

 

 

 

73 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee

 

Issue

Comment

Acoustic privacy concerns

The proposed terrace area on the first floor at the front of the building will cause significant noise concerns.

 

The rear court yard is already frequently used by the occupants of the site and creates significant noise concerns.  The additional elevated outdoor entertaining terrace will exacerbate the current untenable noise issues.

Amended plans have been received reducing the size of the front terrace area. A condition is also included further reducing the length of the terrace area.   Refer to Key Issues below under Sub-section 5.3 - Visual Privacy which addresses this concern.

Parking

The extra residence on the site will impact on parking in the area.  Currently residents commonly park across or in tandem in their driveway creating safety issues for pedestrians and drivers exiting adjacent driveways.

Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013 does not require that any additional car parking facilities be provided where secondary dwellings are proposed; and it is also noted that there is no requirement specified within the provisions of the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP.

 

Further, the area is adequately served by existing public transport infrastructure.

Unauthorised renovations

The current owner undertook significant renovations to 71 Coogee Bay Road approximately in 2015; which they were not advised of and suspect they are unauthorized.  This includes relocating the bathroom window which now overlooks the lounge room.

Council’s Compliance team have inspected the site and there was no evidence of unauthorised works.

 

 

Key Issues

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009:

The application for a secondary dwelling would generally be prohibited development as specified by the Land Use Table for the Medium Density Residential (R3) zone within the RLEP 2012. Nevertheless, the proposal may rely on the provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 for the construction of a secondary dwelling on the  site.

 

Secondary Dwellings:

 

1)          Development to which this Division applies may be carried out with consent.

 

Planner’s Comment:

The subject site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential and the proposed secondary dwelling is permissible on the land.

 

(2)         A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies if there is on the land, or if the development would result in there being on the land, any dwelling other than the principal dwelling and the secondary dwelling.

 

Planner’s Comment:

The proposed secondary dwelling will not result in there being any dwelling other than the principal dwelling and the secondary dwelling on the site.

 

(3)  A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless:

 

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

 

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

 

Planner’s Comment:

The total floor area of the principal dwelling and the secondary dwelling is (or 180.4m2 (or 0.626:1) which is consistent with the objectives of the FSR standard under the RLEP 2012 which is based on merit due to the allotment size.

 

The total floor area of the secondary dwelling will be 60m2 which will comply with the development standard.

 

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

 

        (a)  site area if:

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

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

 

(b)  parking
if no additional parking is to be provided on the site.

 

Planner’s Comment:

The size of the lot is less than 450m² being 275.5m².  The lot size is acceptable as the proposal will comply with the site coverage control under the DCP and will not reduce the existing deep soil on the site which is currently limited.

 

Overall, subject to conditions the proposed development will not result in any significant adverse amenity impact on the adjoining properties and is acceptable having regard to Clause 22.

 

Further discussions of the relevant environmental issues have been discussed in the body of this report.

 

There is currently one existing car space on the site which is accessed from the front of the property off Coogee Bay Road.  This will be retained as part of this application. It is noted that there is no requirement specified within the provisions of the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP. Also, the Randwick comprehensive DCP 2013 does not require that any additional car parking facilities be provided where secondary dwellings are proposed.

 

The proposed parking demand generated by the secondary dwelling will not adversely impact on the current availability of on street car parking. The proposal meets the parking control provisions as discussion below in B7 Table: Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access and is also considered to be consistent with the objectives of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013.

 

(5)  A consent authority may consent to development to which this Division applies whether or not the development complies with the standards set out in subclause (4).

 

Planner’s Comment:

The secondary dwelling meets the standards set out in subclause (4) (a) above and will comply with the relevant planning controls outlined in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

Standard conditions are included within the consent to ensure that the secondary dwelling meets the requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

 

Randwick LEP 2012

 

Clause 4.4 - Floor Space Ratio

Clause 4.4, sub-clause 2(B) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 states that there are no maximum floor space ratio development standards for a dwelling house or semi-detached dwelling with a site area of less than 300sqm. The subject site has a land area of 288m².  Therefore any determination involves a merits based assessment to the objectives of the Clause 4.4: Floor Space Ratio.

 

Floor space ratio (FSR) is a measure that assists in controlling the mass and bulk of a development.  FSR operates in conjunction with building height, wall height and setback controls to define the 3 dimensional spaces within which a development may occur, that is, the building envelope. 

 

The proposed development will result in a floor space ratio of 180.4m2 (or 0.626:1) for the subject site.  The additional FSR on the site will not contribute to any significant bulk and scale to the development given it continues to comply with the maximum permissible building height, building envelope controls and does not contribute to any unreasonably adverse amenity impacts to the adjoining dwellings and streetscape.

 

Furthermore, subject to conditions the design of the upper floor level is sympathetic to the existing dwelling and general surroundings resulting in minimal environmental impacts. The size and scale of the addition is suitable within the existing streetscape and the immediate locality; and therefore, the development will comply with the objectives for floor space ratios as prescribed within the RLEP 2013. 

 

Sub-section 5.1 - Solar Access and Overshadowing

 

Objectives

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

 

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

 

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

 

Controls

 

Solar access to proposed development:

    

i)   A portion of the north-facing living area windows of proposed development must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June (in so far as it does not contradict any BASIX requirements).

 

ii)  The private open space of proposed development must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. The area covered by sunlight must be capable of supporting passive recreation activities.

 

Controls

 

Solar access to neighbouring development:

 

i)   A portion of the north-facing living area windows of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

 

ii)  The private open space of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. The area covered by sunlight must be capable of supporting passive recreation activities. 

 

iii) Existing solar panels on neighbouring dwellings, which are situated not less than 6m above ground level (existing), must retain a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. Where the neighbouring dwellings do not contain any solar panels, direct sunlight must be retained to the northern, eastern and/or western roof planes of neighbouring dwellings, which are at least 6m above ground level (existing), so that future solar panels capturing not less than 3 hours of sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June may be installed.

 

iv) Any variation from the above requirements will be subject to a merit assessment having regard to the following factors:

 

-      Degree of meeting the FSR, height, setbacks and site coverage controls.

-      Orientation of the subject and adjoining allotments and subdivision pattern of the urban block.

-      Topography of the subject and adjoining allotments.

-      Location and level of the windows in question.

-      Shadows cast by existing buildings on the neighbouring allotments.

 

A submission was received from the neighbouring property at no. 69 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee objecting to the proposed development on the grounds that it will adversely impact on their sunlight in the morning and that the shadow diagrams appear to be incorrect.

 

The north facing windows will not be impacted by the proposed development.

 

A significant portion of the rear yard on the subject site is already overshadowed by existing development and currently receives direct solar access around midday to approximately 70% of the rear southern end of the yard for the main principal dwelling.  The subject site currently does not achieve the minimum 3 hours of direct solar access to their yard.  The additional overshadowing impacts are at 12pm leaving only a very small amount of filtered solar access to the rear yard which will further reduce solar access on the subject site.

 

The neighbouring properties are already overshadowed by the existing development and do not achieve the minimum 3 hours of direct solar access.   The additional overshadowing impacts at 8am will result in the neighboruing rear yard at no.69 Coogee Bay Road to be fully overshadowed by the proposed development.

 

The additional overshadowing impacts are not unreasonable when considering the site orientation and constraints.  It is very difficult to achieve compliance where the site is narrow and the rear yard is south orientated.  Therefore, when considering the overall development and its built form being similar to neighbouring development, the additional overshadowing impacts are considered acceptable and will meet the objectives of the solar access control.

 

In addition to the above, the proposed development meets the FSR objectives and height of building standard in the LEP and also meets the built form controls in the DCP for front, side and rear setback controls.

 

Sub-section 5.3 - Visual Privacy

 

Objective

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

 

Controls

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

 

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

·      Front or rear of the allotment;

·      Side courtyard.

 

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

 

a.   Windows

A submission was received from the neighbouring property at no. 69 Coogee Bay Road objecting to the proposed development on the grounds that the proposed window openings will cause privacy concerns as they align with the window openings to their property.

 

Subject to a condition requiring privacy measures, it is not expected that the proposed development will result in any unreasonable adverse privacy impacts to the neighbouring properties. The window openings to the northern and southern elevations will primarily overlook the street and rear yard of the subject site, respectively.  Also, the privacy screens to the sides of the front first floor terrace balcony will minimise overlooking into the neighbouring window openings.

 

The new window openings on the first floor level to the eastern elevation are acceptable as they are either offset from adjoining window openings or are highlight windows with minimum sill heights of 1.6m minimising overlooking impacts. However, the new window opening to the kitchen and front entry porch on the first floor level to the western elevation are directly opposite some of the neighbouring window openings and may cause overlooking concerns.  For this reason it is recommended that one of the following alterative privacy measures be implemented to this window opening with the exception of the entry porch the balustrades are to be replaced with a 1.6m high privacy screen:

 

•     The window opening is to have a minimum sill height of 1.6m above floor level; or alternatively,

•     The window openings are to be fixed and be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing to a minimum sill height of 1.6m above floor level; or alternatively,

•     The window is to be of obscure glazing and converted into an awning hung window or alternatively,

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

 

Subject to the above recommendation, the development will satisfy the objectives of the DCP control for Visual privacy.

 

b.   Balcony

Two submissions were received in relation to the size and privacy impacts of the upper level terrace area off the proposed secondary dwelling. 

 

It is agreed the terrace area is excessive despite being reduced in size in amended plans and will cause acoustic and visual privacy concerns to the neighbouring properties.  It is therefore, recommended that the total depth of the private open space at the front of the dwelling be reduced to a maximum of 4m.   This private open space is adequate in area to service the occupants of the secondary dwelling and is directly off the main living area which will meet the SEPP and DCP controls.

 

Subject to the above recommendation, the development will satisfy the objectives of the DCP control for visual and acoustic privacy.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The site is located within Zone R3 - Medium Density Residential under Randwick LEP 2012. The proposal is consistent with the aims of the LEP and the specific zoning objectives, in that the development will deliver a dwelling house development and secondary dwelling, which will protect the amenity of the adjoining dwellings and is compatible with the desired future character of the locality.

 

The proposal complies with the relevant objectives and controls contained in Comprehensive DCP 2013.

 

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

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/564/2016  for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including new front carport, first floor addition and attached secondary dwelling at 71 Coogee Bay Road, 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.      A privacy screen having a height of 1.6m (measured above the finished floor level) shall be provided to the western side of the rear entry porch on the first floor level.

 

The privacy screen must be constructed with either:

 

·     Translucent or obscured glazing;

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

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

 

b.      One of the following privacy measures shall be implemented to the kitchen window opening on the first floor level to the western side:

 

•   The window opening shall have a minimum sill height of 1.6m above floor level; or alternatively,

•   The window opening shall be fixed and be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing to a minimum sill height of 1.6m above floor level; or alternatively,

•   The window shall be of obscure glazing and converted into an awning hung window or alternatively,

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

 

c.      The outdoor terrace area on the first floor level at the front of the secondary dwelling shall have a maximum depth of 4m.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 71 Coogee Bay Road, RANDWICK 

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                            13 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D46/17

 

Subject:              87-89 Frenchmans Road, Randwick (DA/439/2016)

Folder No:                DA/439/2016

Author:                     Jonathan Blackmore, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                  Construction of a new 4 storey shop top housing development including 2 ground floor commercial premises, 7 residential apartments and basement parking for 12 car spaces with access from 91-95A Frenchmans Road (variation to building height and floor space ratio control)

Ward:                        North Ward

Applicant:                Asimina Pty Ltd

Owner:                     Asimina Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive Summary Report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee as the total development cost of the proposal exceeds $2 million.

 

Proposal

 

The applicant proposes the construction of a new 4 storey shop top housing development including 2 ground floor commercial premises, 7 residential apartments and basement parking for 12 car spaces with access from 91-95A Frenchmans Road (variation to building height and floor space ratio control).

 

Revisions

In response to Design Review Panel comments the applicant undertook the following amendments:

-    OSD tank moved to under parking ramp;

-    Natural ventilation grilles indicated in rear car park walls;

-    Garage storage moved from courtyard into commercial unit;

-    Retail unit frontage aligned with that of No. 85 Frenchmans Road;

-    Ceiling fans added to all living areas;

-    Bedroom window to units 1/4 extended and private terrace formed;

-    Corridor to open lobby reduced and void removed;

-    Front terrace to units 2/5 reduced;

-    Pergola/awning to units 3/6 terrace extended to shade rear bedroom windows;

-    Access stair partially opened and aluminium angle screen indicated;

-    Living/kitchen layout amended to units 2/5 to provide larger living space;

-    Roof top landscaping increased and amended.

 

Council’s assessing officer also raised the following issues with the applicant:

-   That the proposal did not preserve visual privacy across the rear boundary;

-   That the proposal did not provide adequate communal open space;

-   The height and roof form did not transition or relate to the adjoining buildings;

-   The proposal involved blade projections over the footpath ;

-   Recalculation of floor space ratio;

-   That not enough parking was supplied, or sufficient justification provided for a parking shortfall.

 

In response, the applicant:

-   Proposed visual privacy screening to rear windows and balconies, and demonstrated sightlines;

-   Provided a communal open space to the roof top;

-   Reduced the upper-level built form and height through a transition element;

-   Removed proposed blade projections from the front façade;

-   Updated floor space ratio calculations to include horizontal circulation space;

-   Provided a traffic engineering report and proposed four additional parking space ;(using stackers) and additional bicycle storage;

-   Provided an updated BASIX certificate to reflect the design revisions.

 

The amended scheme was not re-notified as the proposed changes reduced the size and scale of the building and lessened the impacts on neighbouring properties.

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the north-western side of Frenchmans Road, opposite its intersection with Kemmis Street. The subject site consists of two separate adjoining sites being No. 87 and No. 89 Frenchmans Road. Both slope down from the street frontage to their rear boundaries and both have previously had buildings removed and are now vacant. This section and side of Frenchmans Road contains two to four storey commercial buildings, generally with zero side setbacks (see fig. 1 below). A four storey shop top housing development is under construction on the site to the east (No. 91-95A Frenchmans Road).  

 

Figure 1. Photograph of the frontage of the vacant subject site and the adjoining development. A building is now under constructions on the adjoining site to the east (No. 91-95A Frenchmans Road).

 

Key Issues

 

Building Height Standard – Clause 4.6 Exception

The proposal seeks to vary a development standard contained within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012). A Clause 4.6 exception has been submitted to Council.

 

Pursuant to Clause 4.3 of the RLEP 2012, the building height must not be more than 12m. A building height of 14.81m is proposed.

 

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

 

Height

Development standard

12m

Proposal

14.81m

Excess above the standard

2.81m or 23.42%

 

The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012: Exception to a Development Standard.

 

Clause 4.6 RLEP Request to Vary Development Standard

Clause 4.6 of the RLEP provides a mechanism for variation to development standards in certain circumstances.

 

Assessment Against the Applicant’s Written Justifications for the Contravention of the Development Standard

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

 

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

 

The concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure must also be obtained for development that contravenes a development standard. However, pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 08-003 (dated 9 May 2008) the concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and 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 sub clause (3) there are various ways that may be invoked to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary as discussed by Chief Justice Preston of the NSW Land and Environment Court in the case of in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827. Although the Wehbe case was decided in relation to State Environmental Planning Policy No 1-Development Standards ("SEPP 1") and not clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012 it remains of some assistance in relation to identifying the ways in which an applicant may demonstrate that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

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

 

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

 

The stated objectives of the RLEP which apply to building height are:

 

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

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

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

 

The applicant’s written justifications outline the following arguments for departure from the standard:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assessing Officer’s Comments:

 

·     The proposal is an appropriate response to the site and its constraints. The building addresses the street and has a frontage appearance and height which is complementary and relates to those on adjoining sites.

·     The proposed non-compliant appears excessive as it relates to a lift projection. Significant portions of the building are proposed below this height and significant portions will comply with the building height standard, including those closest to the rear boundary. 

·     The building features a central courtyard and significant roof form articulation which minimise the bulk of the building.  

·     The overall height of the proposed development is consistent with other buildings along the street, including the building under construction on the adjoining site to the east, and the building steps down to reflect the change in levels along the street.

·     Existing and proposed vegetation will visually blend the building into the existing context, particularly when viewed from the residential sites across the rear boundary. A significant landscaped rear yard is proposed. 

·     It is considered that the proposal is not inconsistent with the objectives of the standard - the size and scale of proposal is compatible with the desired future character of the locality. Further, the height of the building will be comparable to buildings on either side.

·     The proposed building does not impede district or coastal views.

·     The proposal will not directly result in any significant adverse impacts on the adjoining residential properties in terms of perceived bulk and scale, overshadowing and privacy. Lower parts of the building are closest to the residential sites across the rear yard and adequate landscaping, privacy screening and setbacks are proposed in relation to these sites. Sites on either side present blank walls at the boundary.

 

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

 

The applicant’s written request has successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. As discussed above, the proposal achieves the objectives of the Building Height Standard (Clause 4.3 of the RLEP 2012), the size and scale of the proposal is compatible with the desired future character of the locality.

 

The proposal is an appropriate response to the site and its constraints. The building addresses the street and has a frontage appearance and height which is complementary and relates to those on adjoining sites. The proposal will not directly result in any significant adverse impacts on the adjoining residential properties in terms of perceived bulk and scale, overshadowing and privacy.

 

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

 

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the building height standard of the RLEP 2012. The relevant objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (Zone B1 – Neighbourhood Centre) are:

 

Objectives of Zone:

·    To provide a range of small-scale retail, business and community uses that serve the needs of people who live or work in the surrounding neighbourhood.

·    To enable residential development that is well-integrated with, and supports the primary business function of, the zone.

·    To minimise the impact of development and protect the amenity of residents in the zone and in the adjoining and nearby residential zones.

 

In respect of these objectives, the proposal is not inconsistent with the relevant zone objectives in that:

 

·     The size and scale of proposal is compatible with the desired future character of the locality.

·     The amenity of residents in the vicinity and the broader context of the area will not be adversely impacted by the additional built height. The proposal will not directly result in any significant adverse impacts on the adjoining residential properties in terms of perceived bulk and scale, overshadowing and privacy.

·     The proposal will provide for the commercial and housing needs of the community.

 

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

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

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

 

Comments:

Pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 08–003 (dated 9 May 2008)) the concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Environment under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed for the proposed contravention to the building height standard.

 

Variation from the adherence to the building height standard on this occasion is considered to be of benefit to the orderly use of the site and there is a no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance.

 

The proposed development and variation from the standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning.

 

Floor Space Ratio – Clause 4.6 Exception

The proposal seeks to vary a development standard contained within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012). A Clause 4.6 exception has been submitted to Council.

 

Pursuant to Clause 4.4 of the RLEP 2012, the floor space ratio of the building must not be more than 1.5:1 on the site. A floor space ratio of 1.65:1 is proposed.

 

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

 

 

Floor Space Ratio

Development standard

1.5:1

Proposal

1.65:1

Excess above the standard

10%

 

The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012: Exception to a Development Standard.

 

Clause 4.6 RLEP Request to Vary Development Standard

Clause 4.6 of the RLEP provides a mechanism for variation to development standards in certain circumstances.

 

Assessment Against the Applicant’s Written Justifications for the Contravention of the Development Standard

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

 

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

 

The concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure must also be obtained for development that contravenes a development standard. However, pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 08-003 (dated 9 May 2008) the concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and 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 sub clause (3) there are various ways that may be invoked to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary as discussed by Chief Justice Preston of the NSW Land and Environment Court in the case of in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827. Although the Wehbe case was decided in relation to State Environmental Planning Policy No 1-Development Standards ("SEPP 1") and not clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012 it remains of some assistance in relation to identifying the ways in which an applicant may demonstrate that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

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

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

 

The stated objectives of the RLEP which apply to floor space ratio are:

 

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

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

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

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

 

The applicant’s written justifications outline the following arguments for departure from the standard:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assessing Officer’s Comments:

 

·     The proposal is an appropriate response to the site and its constraints. The building addresses the street and has a frontage appearance and height which is complementary and relates to those on adjoining sites.

·     The proposal will provide for solar access and cross ventilation for each unit within the buildings. Further, each unit is to have adequate dimensions and layout for residential amenity.

·     The building is partly below existing ground level, thereby minimising its visual bulk. Further, the building features a central courtyard and significant roof form articulation which minimise the bulk of the building.  

·     The overall height of the proposed development is consistent with other buildings along the street, including the building under construction on the adjoining site to the east, and the building steps down to reflect the change in levels along the street.

·     The frontage features commercial space fronting the street, and significant amounts of window openings and balconies which will enable visual interaction between the street and the units. Further, the windows and balconies provided articulation and visual interest to the front façade and no large expanses of blank facades will be visible from the public or private domain.

·     The proposal will provide sufficient private open spaces. A comprehensive landscape plan has been proposed. Existing and proposed vegetation will visually blend the building into the existing context, particularly when viewed from the residential sites across the rear boundary. A significant landscaped rear yard is proposed. The proposal will comply with the ADG’s minimum deep soil area requirements.  

·     It is considered that the proposal is not inconsistent with the objectives of the standard - the size and scale of proposal is compatible with the desired future character of the locality. Further, the height of the building will be comparable to buildings on either side.

·     The proposed building does not impede district or coastal views.

·     The proposal will not directly result in any significant adverse impacts on the adjoining residential properties in terms of perceived bulk and scale, overshadowing and privacy. Lower parts of the building are closest to the residential sites across the rear yard and adequate landscaping, privacy screening and setbacks are proposed in relation to these sites. Sites on either side present blank walls at the boundary.

 

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

The applicant’s written request has successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. As discussed above, the proposal achieves the objectives of the Floor Space Ratio Standard (Clause 4.4 of the RLEP 2012), the size and scale of the proposal is compatible with the desired future character of the locality.

 

The proposal is an appropriate response to the site and its constraints. The building addresses the street and has a frontage appearance and height which is complementary and relates to those on adjoining sites. The proposal will not directly result in any significant adverse impacts on the adjoining residential properties in terms of perceived bulk and scale, overshadowing and privacy.

 

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

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the floor space ratio standard of the RLEP 2012. The relevant objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (Zone B1 – Neighbourhood Centre) are:

 

Objectives of Zone:

·    To provide a range of small-scale retail, business and community uses that serve the needs of people who live or work in the surrounding neighbourhood.

·    To enable residential development that is well-integrated with, and supports the primary business function of, the zone.

·    To minimise the impact of development and protect the amenity of residents in the zone and in the adjoining and nearby residential zones.

 

In respect of these objectives, the proposal is not inconsistent with the relevant zone objectives in that:

 

·     The size and scale of proposal is compatible with the desired future character of the locality.

·     The amenity of residents in the vicinity and the broader context of the area will not be adversely impacted by the additional floor area. The proposal will not directly result in any significant adverse impacts on the adjoining residential properties in terms of perceived bulk and scale, overshadowing and privacy.

·     The proposal will provide for the commercial and housing needs of the community.

 

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

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

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

 

Comments:

Pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 08–003 (dated 9 May 2008)) the concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Environment under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed for the proposed contravention to the maximum floor space ratio control.

 

Variation from the adherence to the maximum floor space ratio standard on this occasion is considered to be of benefit to the orderly use of the site and there is a no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance.

 

The proposed development and variation from the standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning.

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. As a result of this notification, the following submissions were received:

·    1 Roscrea Ave

·    5 Roscrea Ave

·    7 Roscrea Ave

·    9 Roscrea Ave

·    11 Roscrea Ave

·    10 Gilderthorpe Ave

·    30 Gilderthorpe Ave

·    32 Gilderthorpe Ave

·    75-85 Frenchmans Road

 

Issue

Comment

1.   The rear of the proposed development will overlook private open spaces and dwellings on sites to the north.

2.   The proposal will significantly exceed the building height controls of the RLEP 2012 and the RDCP 2013. Concerned that it will be out of character with the residential sites to the north. The 4 storey height will be inconsistent with the existing context and the building height should transition down. 

3.   The proposal will significantly exceed the FSR controls of the RLEP 2012. Concerned that it will be bulky and out of character in relation to the residential sites to the north.

4.   Parking will become difficult in the area as a result of the development. Parking shortfalls are already present on surrounding development. Parking for the development is not available on an adjoining private parking area. Significant parking issues already present on Roscrea Ave. Request that Roscrea Ave be restricted to “resident parking only”.

5.   Concerns about the additional traffic volumes.

6.   The proposal lacks a dedicated loading space.

7.   Limbs of trees within the rear of the site should not be cut to allow for the building.

8.   The RLEP controls are commonly exceeded within the area and should either be enforced or amended to reflect the revised character (concern of No. 75-85 Frenchmans Road).

 

1.   The application has been amended to include rear privacy protection methods that include screens, planting and extended balustrades. Sightline plans have been provided which demonstrate the restricted views.

2.   The proposed built form has been amended to include a transition element. The built form and height is considered to be acceptable in the context (refer to Clause 4.6).

3.   The built form and floor space ratio is considered to be acceptable in the context (refer to Clause 4.6).

4.   The applicant has amended the proposal to provide four additional parking spaces and additional bicycle storage. A two car parking shortfall is now proposed. A traffic engineering report was also submitted. The proposal has been reviewed by the Council Development Engineer and the shortfall is considered to be acceptable in the circumstances given the good accessibly to public transport and services.

5.   The proposal is not a high traffic generating activity. The zoning permits shop top housing development.  The additional traffic generated will be accommodated in the existing street network.

6.   The RDCP 2013 does not require a dedicated loading space for a development of this size. Proposed parking spaces can be used for loading/unloading for two commercial tenancies.

7.   The Council’s landscape officer has identified all trees within the rear of the site as invasive environmental weed species (not protected by the RDCP 2013). The trees have therefore been recommended for removal and replanting with native species.

8.   Exceedance of the RLEP 2012 is assessed on a case-by-case basis in accordance with Clause 4.6 of the RLEP 2012. The proposed exceedances of the standards have been assessed as justified (see assessments within Key Issues). There are currently no plans to change the standards of the RLEP 2012 in relation to the site and surrounds.  

 

Communal Open Space – Apartment Design Guide – Clause 3D-1

The proposal involves a communal open space with a size of 13.4% of the site area. The Apartment Design Guide requires a communal open space to have a minimum area equal to 25% of the site area.  

 

The proposed non-compliance is not inconsistent with the intent of the Apartment Design Guide and will result in no significant adverse impacts in terms of the residential amenity of future site occupants. The proposed terrace will be of a high quality and will feature usable space with landscaping, some weather protection and district views. Residential units will feature more than adequate private terraces/balconies to provide for residential amenity. The size of the communal space will be adequate for seven residential units. The site is in close proximity to local parks, cafes, and other amenities. Therefore, it is considered that the size of the communal space will not be a determent to the onsite amenity of future residents.

 

Visual Privacy – Apartment Design Guide – Clause 3F-1

The proposal involves 0m side setbacks and rear setbacks between 4.6m (balconies) and 6.95m (habitable rooms). The Apartment Design Guide requires a rear and side setback of 6m for habitable rooms and balconies.

 

The proposed non-compliance is not inconsistent with the intent of the Apartment Design Guide and will result in no significant adverse impacts in terms of the residential amenity of neighbouring development. In relation to the side setbacks, no proposed windows or openings will overlook existing openings on sites on either side and privacy planting/screening is proposed in relation to upper level terraces. In relation to the rear setback, adequate privacy screening measures are proposed to rear windows, balconies and the rear of the upper-level terrace. This includes privacy screens, and privacy planter boxes. Extended balustrades have been proposed for rear balconies to prevent overlooking of nearby residential sites, but allow for district views towards the Sydney CBD (see fig. 2 below).   

 

Figure 2. Section showing how the proposal will preserve privacy for residential sites through the use of extended balustrades and roof forms.

 

Building Height – Randwick Development Control Plan – D6 Neighbourhood Centre General Controls – Sub-Section 2.3

 

The proposal involves a 4 storey building. The RDCP 2013 sets the maximum number of storeys for a building on the site at 3.

The proposed non-compliance is not inconsistent with the objectives of the RDCP 2013 and will result in no significant adverse impacts in terms of the amenity values of the centre and the amenity of neighbouring development. The proposed front façade and built height will be of a comparable scale to existing and under construction buildings along this side and section of Frenchmans Road. The number of storeys will be the same as that on the adjoining site to the east (no. 91-95 Frenchmans Road). The built height will step down as the street slopes due to a proposed transitional built element (see fig. 3 below) and the upper floor will be set back from the front wall line and will have a roof-like and slopping, appearance, minimizing its prominence. The higher elements of the building are setback significantly from the residential sites across the rear boundary and the additional storey will not be over dominating in relation to these sites. The additional storey will comply with the solar access provisions of the ADG and will preserve the privacy of neighbouring sites.   

 

Figure 3. Proposed front elevation showing the height transition to the adjoining building and the roof-like form of the upper-most storey.  

 

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 will not result in any 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 Clauses 4.3 and 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to building height and floor space ratio respectively, 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 & Environment be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/439/2016 for the construction of a new 4 storey shop top housing development including 2 ground floor commercial premises, 7 residential apartments and basement parking for 12 car spaces with access from 91-95A Frenchmans Road (Variation to building height and floor space ratio control) at No. 87-89 Frenchmans Road, 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)   Visitor entry to all units and internal common areas must be provided by intercom and remote locking systems.

 

b)   Artificial lighting must be provided for the underside of the street frontage awning, and all building entries, pedestrian paths and communal open space within the development.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 89 Frenchmans Road, RANDWICK

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                            13 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D47/17

 

Subject:              28 Greville Street, Clovelly (DA/124/2017)

Folder No:                DA/124/2017

Author:                     City Plan Services, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                  Construction of deck and external stair located between existing studio and dwelling with associated works including new door in studio

Ward:                        North Ward

Applicant:                Mr B J Inwood

Owner:                     Mr R J David and Ms K G Burt

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.png?guid=8eb5741f-94a1-4640-bf9c-e5a436b28760&contentType=image%2Fpng

 

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 the Planning Committee for determination as the applicant is a friend of a Council employee.

 

1.        Background

 

Development Consent No. 203/2008

DA 203/2008 proposed alterations and additions to an existing dwelling including the construction of a new roofed terrace and a garage with a first floor studio to the rear of the site. The proposal included stairs located on the western end of the elevated terrace down to the ground level of the garage/studio structure.

 

The DA was approved on 11 September 2011 subject to conditions. Relevant to this application, Condition 3 stated:

 

“3. The stairs shown in Section on plan No. 0796-04 shall be deleted. The Section shall be amended showing the stairs located at the eastern end of the elevated terrace and details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans.”

 

The works were not constructed in accordance with the above condition, with the stairs built on the western end of the terrace up to the first floor level studio.

 

2.        Proposal

 

The proposal is for a Development Application (DA) to legitimise the unauthorised construction of external stairs located on the western end of the rear terrace to the first floor studio, a new timber deck at the first floor studio level, a door to the studio, and screening along the western boundary. The proposal also includes the provision of new screening along the eastern boundary of the first floor level deck.

 

Specifically, the proposal comprises timber stairs that are 0.95m in width, a timber deck that is 0.95m wide and 3.5m in length with a railing consisting of a stainless steel frame and turnbuckles, a glass door to the studio that is 2m high and 0.9m wide, and timber screening along the western boundary that is 2.2m in length and 1m high, as measured from first floor level (3.6m high as measured from ground level). New timber screening is also proposed along the eastern boundary of the first floor deck, that is 1.5m in length and 1.8m high as measured from the first floor level (4.4m high as measured from ground level).

 

We note that consent cannot be retrospectively granted for the construction of the unauthorised works, but rather only for their ongoing use (other than potentially through the lodgement of a modification application under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. For the already constructed works, being the stairs, deck, door and screening on the western boundary, a Building Certificate could be applied for instead. A granted Building Certificate would ensure that Council will not, for a period of 7 years from the date of the certificate, seek to require the works to be demolished or altered.

 

It is noted that consent for the construction of the new screening on the eastern boundary can be granted with this application.   

 

The proposed works are shown in the plan extracts and photographs on the following pages.

 

Figure 1: Plan extracts (Drawing Nos. 0796-04 and 0796-05, Dated: 20/02/17)

Figure 2: View of unauthorised structures from the rear terrace.

 

Figure 3: View of unauthorised structures from the rear of the neighbouring property to the north, No. 30 Greville Street.

 

3.  Site

 

The site is known as No. 28 Greville Street, Clovelly, as legally described as Lot B in Deposited Plan 438443. The site is rectangular in shape, with a frontage of 6m to Greville Street, a depth of 38m, and an approximate area of 240m2. The site is currently occupied by a one-storey semi-detached dwelling house that was most likely built around 1900, with additions to the rear including a new bathroom, kitchen, laundry and deck constructed in the 1980s, and a contemporary garage/studio structure to the rear laneway constructed around 2010. Vehicular access is obtained from Cliff Lane.

 

The adjoining properties to the north and south are both two storey semi-detached dwellings. The surrounding locality is characterised by a mix of one and two storey dwelling houses. The streetscape character is generally consistent in terms of form, building scale and massing to the Greville Street frontage. Development along Cliff Lane comprises a mix of rear building lines and development forms. The site is in an accessible location, in close proximity to Clovelly Road and associated amenities and services.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Figure 4: View from Greville Street of the site and adjoining properties.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Figure 5: Rear view of the site and adjoining properties from Cliff Lane.

 

 

4.  Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. One (1) submission was received as a result of the notification process from the immediately adjoining neighbour to the east at No. 30 Greville Street, Clovelly. The submission raised a number of concerns in relation to the proposed development, as described in the table below.

 

·     30 Greville St, CLOVELLY

 

Issues

Comments

Height, scale and form

·     Height of works is not consistent with adjoining properties

The works do not exceed the existing maximum building height on the site. Although the height of the works is consistent with the existing dwelling, it is noted that the height is not consistent with structures beyond the rear building line of adjoining properties. Refer to Section 5 of this report for further detail.

Privacy

·     Screen only provides partial screening, will result in overlooking to the property

The proposed new screening along the eastern boundary of the first floor deck will assist in minimising overlooking to No.  30 Greville Street. Refer to Section 5 of this report for further detail.

Character

·     Stairs and deck are out of character with the surrounding areas

There are a range of built forms to the rear of properties fronting Cliff Lane, that vary in height and scale. The structures are not considered inconsistent with the character of the surrounding area. Refer to Section 5 of this report for further detail.

Overshadowing

·     Will result in overshadowing and reduced solar access

The works may result in some additional overshadowing to the neighbouring properties, however, the potential shadows cast are considered minor. Refer to Section 5 of this report for further detail.

Previous DA – DA-203/08

·     Inconsistency with the previous DA

It is understood that the proposed works were not constructed in accordance with Condition 3 of Development Consent No. DA-203/08, with the stairs built on the western end of the terrace up to the first floor level studio.

 

It is noted that in addition to a site inspection conducted at the subject site, an inspection was also conducted at the objector’s property to observe any potential impacts as a result of the proposed development.

 

5.  Key Issues

 

An examination of the development against the relevant planning controls reveals the following key issues:

 

Height

The works do not exceed the 9.5m maximum building height for the site as stipulated in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP). Further, the proposal remains consistent with the objectives of the height development standard, which include that the proposal is compatible with the desired future character of the locality and does not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views (discussed further in the sections below).

 

Despite the above, it is noted that the height is not consistent with structures beyond the rear building line of adjoining properties. Nonetheless, the proposed height of the structures is considered appropriate for the site and within the context of the surrounding area. 

 

Form, Bulk and Scale 

The proposed structures are considered to be a size and configuration that is appropriate at the rear portion of the site. The structures are not visible from the Greville Street frontage and are not visually dominant from Cliff Lane. There are a range of built forms to the rear of properties fronting Cliff Lane that vary in height and scale. It is noted that the structures do increase the visual bulk of the dwelling and garage/studio structure as viewed from the adjoining property to the east, however not excessively.

 

Privacy

Concern was raised by the neighbour to the east in relation to potential overlooking from the first floor deck to the rear yard and living area of No. 30 Greville Street. The proposal includes the provision of screening along the eastern boundary to a height of 1.8m and width of 1.5m. This proposed screening is considered appropriate to minimise overlooking to the neighbouring site. However, to further minimise overlooking opportunities from the deck and studio, it is recommended that a condition be imposed for the studio door to be fitted with obscuring glazing.

 

The proposal also includes the provision of screening along the western boundary of the deck. It is noted that at the first floor level the screening only reaches a height of 1m, which does not meet the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2012 (DCP) minimum requirement of 1.6m. Therefore, it is recommended that a condition be imposed for the screening along this boundary to be a height of 1.6m as measured from the first floor level.

 

The above privacy measures will ensure an acceptable level of visual privacy to be maintained to the private open space and principal living areas of the adjoining properties, and is consistent with the objective of the DCP control relating to visual privacy.

 

Overshadowing

With regard to solar access to the subject site, in accordance with Section 5.1 of the DCP, the proposed works do not result in significant overshadowing to the north-facing living areas and private open spaces of the dwelling.

 

In relation to the neighbouring sites, the proposed changes may result in some additional overshadowing, however this overshadowing is considered minor, and does not prevent the neighbouring dwellings from achieving a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June to the north-facing living area windows and private open space, as required by the DCP.

View Sharing

 

The proposed works may obscure a relatively small portion of the sky currently visible from the neighbouring properties. The proposal will not obscure views to any significant scenic elements or landmarks. In this respect the proposal will not cause view loss impact within the meaning of Section 5.6 of the DCP.

 

 

 

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

 

Overall, the proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria and will not result in significant adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality. A comprehensive assessment of the proposed development has been undertaken and all supporting information has been reviewed against the applicable environmental planning provisions.

 

We note that consent cannot be retrospectively granted for the construction of the unauthorised works, but rather only for their ongoing use (other than potentially through the lodgement of modification application under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. For the already constructed works, being the stairs, deck, door and screening on the western boundary, a Building Certificate could be applied for instead. A granted Building Certificate would ensure that Council will not, for a period of 7 years from the date of the certificate, seek to require the works to be demolished or altered.

 

It is noted that consent for the construction of the new screening on the eastern boundary can be granted with this application.  

 

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/124/2017 for the construction of screening on the eastern side of the stair landing to the studio, and the use of the external stairs located between the existing studio and terrace with associated works including a timber deck, a door to the studio, and screening on the western boundary, and at No. 28 Greville Street, Clovelly, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report.

 

Note: Consent is not granted for building works already constructed, being the external stairs, deck, a door to the studio, and screening on the western boundary.

 

 Non standard conditions

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

 

a)     The privacy screen along the western boundary of the first floor deck is to be 1.6m high. Details of compliance will be provided with the Construction Certificate and will be to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifier.

b)     The door to the first floor studio is to be fitted with obscured glazing. Details of compliance will be provided with the Construction

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report -  28 Greville Street, CLOVELLY 

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                            13 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D48/17

 

Subject:              48 Chester Avenue, Maroubra (DA/859/2016)

Folder No:                DA/859/2016

Author:                     Planning Ingenuity, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                  Demolition of existing structures, construction of a 3 storey multi-dwelling housing development containing 5 dwellings with basement carparking for 8 vehicles, landscaping, strata subdivision and associated works (variation to floor space ration control)

Ward:                        Central Ward

Applicant:                Urban Future Pty Ltd

Owner:                     Mr P Flentzeris

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=1f71ecf6-a835-4fc7-886e-68ebe4359743&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Planning Committee Meeting for determination as the Capital Investment Value of the development is more than $2 Million.

 

Proposal

 

The proposed development involves the demolition of the existing dwelling and ancillary structures and the construction of a multi-dwelling housing development containing five units. Specifically, the proposal involves:

 

·      Basement Level: Single car-width vehicular access from Chester Ave to the basement parking level which contains eight (8) car parking spaces, three bicycle spaces, one motorbike space, residential storage areas and a bin store room. Individual stair access is provided to each dwelling above.

 

·      Ground floor: Common accessible pedestrian access is provided along the southern side boundary to the dwellings 2 to 5.  Unit 1 has direct access from Chester Ave. Each dwelling has open plan living areas on the ground floor and a powder room/laundry.  The private open space areas for Units 3, 4 and 5 includes a deck area directly accessible from living/dining rooms.

 

·      First floor: Unit 1 has a master bedroom with street-facing balcony, an ensuite, study and bathroom. Dwellings 2 to 5 have a master bedroom with ensuite a study nook, bathroom and bedroom. Units 3, 4 and 5 also have a balcony adjoining the master bedroom.

 

·      Attic level: Each unit has an attic bedroom and ensuite. Unit one has a street-facing balcony and Units 3 and 4 have decks extending across the width of the building with a louvred roof.  Unit 5 has a rear facing uncovered deck.

 

By way of letter dated 17 February 2017, the applicant was requested to provide amended plans that addressed the following non-compliances and/or issues:

 

-    FSR: amended plans requested to comply

-    Visual privacy: side facing decks were not supported

-    Rear setback: deep soil area to be provided

-    Waste and residential storage in basement: redesign requested to comply with DCP

-    Building height: amended plans requested to comply

-    Solar access: additional analysis requested

 

The applicant provided amended plans that addressed the issues raised above, either through amended plans or additional information, however the proposal still exceeded the maximum FSR for the site. The applicant was requested to comply with the maximum FSR and a further set of amended plans were provided demonstrating compliance.

 

The applicant provided a final set of amended plans (dated 11 April 2017) as described below.

 

Amended Design

 

-    Compliant FSR at 0.75:1

-    Side facing decks at the first floor (Units 2, 3 and 4) were labelled “non-trafficable roof area”;

-    The rear deck of Unit 5 at the first floor was provided with a full height solid wall to the northern side boundary

-    A deep soil planter bed (0.9m deep) is proposed within the rear setback in the south-western corner of the site, along with certification from a landscape consultant that the area can accommodate suitable planting for canopy trees to grow

-    Residential storage and bin store areas amended to comply

-    The amended plans include several Section through the building demonstrating compliance with the height standard

-    Solar access diagrams were provided demonstrating compliance with the DCP controls for overshadowing to neighboring properties

 

Copies of the amended plans were forwarded to the objector.

 

Site and Surrounds

 

The site is known as 48 Chester Avenue, Maroubra and is currently occupied by a single story dwelling house with a shed in the rear yard. The land slopes gently from the rear to the street.  A photograph of 48 Chester Street is included in Figure 1.

 

Figure 1: No. 48 Chester Ave Maroubra

 

A previous Development Application DA-106/2004 was submitted for five (5) multi dwelling units and basement parking at 48 Chester Avenue.  This application was withdrawn on 27 May 2004.

 

Chester Avenue is characterised by a mix of single dwelling houses, dual occupancies, multi-unit townhouses, and older style flat buildings used by the Department of Housing.  The street and immediate vicinity is undergoing a transition in the scale of development from low density to medium density housing.

 

Adjoining properties to the north and south of the subject site are single dwelling houses (Figures 2 and 3).

 

Figure 2: No. 46 Chester Ave, Maroubra

 

Figure 3:No. 50 Chester Ave, Maroubra

 

On the opposite side of Chester Avenue to the subject site, construction is underway for a multi-dwelling housing development.  This development was approved with DA-927/2014 and will result in a three storey multi dwelling housing development containing four (4) dwellings with basement parking for nine (9) vehicles.

 

Further north along Chester Street are a number of multi-unit housing developments as shown in Figures 4 to 7.  These nearby multi dwelling housing developments have basement parking and two and three storey dwellings above.

 

 

Figure 4: No. 44 Chester Ave

 

Figure 5: No. 37 Chester Ave

 

Figure 6: No. 39 Chester Ave

 

Figure 7: Nos. 38-42 Chester Ave

 

To the south of the site are multi-dwelling housing developments of two and three storeys with basement parking (see Figures 8, 9 and 10).  The development at No.59-65 Chester Street is the subject of Development Consent DA280/2014 for a three storeys residential flat building above a basement (see Figure 10).

 

Figure 8: No. 54 Chester Ave

Figure 9: No. 55 Chester Ave

 

Figure 10: Nos. 59-65 Chester Ave

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. Submissions were received from and on behalf of the owner of the neighbouring property to the south being No.50 Chester Avenue.  The issues raised in these submissions are summarised in the following table along with assessment comments.

 

·     50 Chester Avenue, Maroubra

 

Issues

Comments

Overshadowing to southern adjoining property

The shadow analysis plans provided by the applicant demonstrate the southern adjoining property will receive solar access during mid-winter that is compliant with the requirements of Randwick Development Control Plan.  The living room window faces the street.

 

50% of the rear yard of No.50 Chester Avenue will receive 3 hours sunlight between 10am and 1pm midwinter.

 

Part of the east facing living room window will receive sunlight from 8am to 1pm midwinter.

Privacy to rear yard of southern adjoining property

The first floor side facing balconies have been deleted with amended plans.  Screen planting and fixed privacy screens are proposed for the southern side of the two attic level balconies which are also recessed from the external walls of the attic level to further reduce overlooking.  First floor windows are limited to bedroom and bathroom windows with high sills.

Conditions are recommended for skylights to the top of the stairwells for Units 2, 3, 4 and 5 which will not allow a direct line of sight to the neighbouring property to the south but will enhance cross ventilation within the attic level.

Demolition noise and potential for damage to garage on southern adjoining property.

Conditions of consent are recommended to ensure demolition and removal of asbestos waste is undertaken in accordance with relevant Australian Standards and to protect the health and safety of the environment and humans.

Engineering conditions are recommended for excavation and construction to include protection and monitoring of the structural integrity of all buildings on neighbouring properties.

Standard conditions are recommended for the control of noise and the protection of the environment during all works.

Request assessment officers attend the site to explain details of the proposal.

The independent planning consultant responsible for the assessment of the development application met with the persons who made the submission and discussed the details of the proposal prior to the finalization of the assessment report.

Proximity of driveway to the southern side boundary and associated vehicle noise nuisance to No.50 Chester Avenue (additional issue raised during on-site meeting).

The driveway crossing is located 1.5m from the southern side boundary.  Standard conditions are recommended for the driveway grades to comply with Council’s requirements to ensure a smooth-graded transition of vehicles between the site and the road.  Conditions are also recommended for the driveway surface treatment to be of materials which minimise noise generation.  The security gate to the basement entry is to be located at the base of the driveway and retaining walls to the sides of the driveway and the building overhead are expected to shield the dwelling at No.50 from noise associated with the operation of the security gate.

Demolition and construction noise and potential impacts on health of 95 year-old neighbour (additional issue raised during on-site meeting).

Standard conditions are recommended for the control of noise and other impacts associated with the demolition and construction works.  These conditions require compliance with the typical standards imposed by the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA).

 

Key Issues

 

The proposal is compliant with all relevant development standards and objectives of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012).  The proposal is compliant with the relevant objectives and controls of Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan with the exception of variations to:

 

-    the rear setback control;

-    the minimum floor to ceiling height of the first floor level; and

-    the setback of the southern and rear wall of the basement from the site boundaries.

 

These variations are discussed below.

 

Variation to Rear setback

 

The rear setback required by Control 3.4.3 to the DCP is 6.2m being 15% of the depth of the site.

 

At the ground and first floor levels the proposal is setback a minimum 4m from the rear boundary and steps to 6.1m from the rear boundary through articulation of the external wall.  At the attic level the rear setback is 4.8m.  A first floor deck 1.8m wide x 2.8m accessible from the Master bedroom is proposed along the rear façade at a setback of 4m.  A deck 1.8m wide x 6.4m is proposed at attic level accessible from the attic bedroom is proposed at the rear of Unit 5 with a setback of 4m.

 

The objectives for setback controls in Section 3.4 to the DCP are listed below along with assessment comments:

 

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

 

Comment: This objective does not apply to rear setbacks.

 

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

 

Comment: This objective does not apply to rear setbacks.

 

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

 

Comment: The variation to the rear setback of the external wall will not compromise visual and acoustic privacy for neighbouring dwellings subject to recommended adjustments to the proposal as follows:

 

·     The decks at first floor and attic levels oriented to the rear boundary are to be deleted;

·     The glass sliding doors to the former decks at first floor level and attic level are to be replaced with windows with a minimum sill height of 1.6m.

 

Subject to these recommended amendments, the windows in the rear façade of Unit 5 at first floor and attic levels will be limited to bedroom and ensuite windows which are low activity internal spaces and unlikely to result in detrimental impacts to the visual and acoustic privacy of neighbouring dwellings.  Dwellings on properties sharing the rear boundary at No.1044 and 1046 Anzac Parade are set back approximately 16m and 24m respectively from the shared boundary which is considered to be adequate separation to maintain visual and acoustic privacy to these neighbouring dwellings. Should these properties be development for multi dwelling housing in the future, appropriate setbacks and privacy measures can be incorporated into the design of the rear facing dwelling as required in this application.

 

The variation to the rear setback does not prevent compliance with the solar access requirements of the DCP. The shadow cast by the proposed building is reasonably expected given the orientation and dimensions of the site and neighboring lots, the R3 zoning and compliance with the maximum building height limit of 9.5m. The southern neighbouring property will receive at least 3 hours direct sunlight to 50% of the rear yard mid-winter and part of the east (street) facing living room window will continue to receive at least 3 hours direct sunlight in midwinter in accordance with the DCP controls. It is noted that the living room of No, 50 Chester Ave does not have a north-facing window.

 

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

 

Comment: The Landscape Concept Plan submitted with the development application indicates the private open space proposed for the rear Unit 5 will include a 3m x 6m deep soil planter bed with a minimum soil depth of 0.9m located in the south west corner of the site.  A screening hedge is proposed to be planted adjacent to the 1.8m high rear and side boundary fences.  An area 2.5m wide x 10m in the north west corner of the private courtyard space to Unit 5 is available for deep soil planting.

 

A rear ground level deck is proposed to be the primary area of outdoor passive open space for Unit 5.  The deck extends to within 800mm of the rear boundary and will be directly accessible from the open plan living and dining room area.  This proposed set out is considered to provide adequate areas for private open space to be used for passive activities and deep soil landscaping.

 

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

 

Comment:  The proposed variation to the rear setback control will have no impact on view sharing.  There are no existing views across the site from neighbouring properties and no opportunities for the creation of significant or iconic view corridors.

 

Furthermore there is no consistent pattern to the rear setbacks established by redevelopment projects in the immediate vicinity.  The multi dwelling housing developments at No.54 and No.56 Chester Avenue both have rear setbacks of approximately 4m.

 

For these reasons the proposed rear setback is considered to be consistent with the intention of the DCP and consistent with the siting of newer development in the neighbourhood despite the numeric non-compliance and subject to the recommended design amendments.

Minimum floor to ceiling height of first floor level

 

Control 4.4(iii) to the DCP requires a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.7m for all habitable rooms.  The ground floor and attic levels of each unit are compliant.  The first floor level to each unit contains bedrooms and bathrooms and has a floor to ceiling height of 2.4m.

 

The objective of Control 4.4 that relates to a minimum floor to ceiling is:

 

“• To ensure ceiling heights for all habitable rooms promote light and quality interior spaces”

 

A definition of ‘Habitable room’ is included in Section 5.1 to the DCP and states that a habitable room is:

 

“a room used for normal domestic activities, other than a bathroom, laundry, toilet, pantry, walk in wardrobe, hallway, lobby, clothes drying room or other space of a specialised nature that is not occupied frequently or for extended periods (see BCA for full definition).”

 

Therefore the proposed floor to ceiling height of 2.4m at first floor level is appropriate for the bathrooms on this level.  In relation to the proposed bedrooms at first floor level, a condition of consent has been imposed to increase the external wall height by 300mm to increase the floor to ceiling height to 2.7m on the first floor to achieve the objective of the control and meet the minimum ceiling height control.

 

Setback of Basement

 

Section 4.12 (iv) to the DCP requires a minimum setback of 900mm to the outer edge of any excavation, piling or subsurface walls from side and rear boundaries.  The proposed basement has a nil setback to the southern side boundary and the rear boundary.

 

The objectives of Section 4.12 to the DCP which relate to the setback requirements for excavation are:

 

“• To maintain or minimise change to the natural ground levels.

• To ensure excavation and backfilling of a site do not result in unreasonable structural, visual, overshadowing and privacy impacts on the adjoining properties.

• To enable the provision of usable communal or private open space with adequate gradient.

• To ensure earthworks do not result in adverse stormwater impacts on the adjoining properties.”

 

The proposed siting of the basement is the result of accommodating minimum internal dimensions to comply with Australian Standards for parking and vehicle manoeuvring as well as optimizing a consolidated area of deep soil planting and north-oriented private open spaces along the northern side of the building.  The proposed excavated basement will be contained within 500mm or less of the existing natural ground level which is considered to be consistent with the abovementioned objectives.  Standard conditions are recommended with regard to the structural engineering details required to be submitted with the Construction Certificate to address excavation and construction methods which maintain and protect the integrity of adjoining properties.  The proposal is compliant with the DCP requirements for maintaining adequate solar access to adjoining properties.  Planter beds are proposed along the southern and western edges of the basement suitable to to support the long term growth of hedge and climbing species to achieve privacy and physical separation along the site boundaries.  A deep soil planter bed is to be constructed in the south west corner of the site above the basement to support the growth of small canopy trees and enhance the visual amenity and microclimatic quality of the setback area.  The siting of the basement enables private open space areas for the new units to be combined with deep soil planting opportunities within the site which could potentially be continuous with planting on the neighbouring site with future redevelopment.  The proposed setback of the basement enables control and direction of stormwater away from neighbouring properties.

 

For these reasons the proposed setback of the basement to the southern and rear boundaries is considered appropriate for the site and consistent with the relevant objectives of Section 4.12 to the DCP.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development complies with the applicable LEP and DCP controls with the exception of the rear setback requirement, floor to ceiling height of the first floor level and the setback of the basement to the southern and rear boundaries.  Compliance with the objectives of the DCP controls is considered to be achieved despite the numeric non-compliances and the variations proposed to the DCP controls are considered to be appropriate to the site, context and setting subject to recommended design changes for deletion of the rear decks and additional skylights to improve cross ventilation.

 

The overall design and layout of the proposal including landscaping will be appropriate the context and setting of the site.  The proposal will not have any unreasonable adverse impact on the surrounding natural or built environment nor will it have detrimental impacts to the amenity of neighbours, the streetscape or the capacity of essential services and is worthy of support.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 859/2016 for demolition of existing house and shed; construction of 5 x two storey plus attic townhouses with underground parking, at No. 48 Chester Avenue, Maroubra, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.      The rear decks at first floor and attic level for Unit 5 shall be deleted and the glass sliding doors in the rear façade at first floor and attic level shall be replaced with windows with a minimum sill height of 1.2m.  Details of the design changes are to be indicated on the plans submitted with the Construction Certificate to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA).

 

b.      Openable skylights are to be added to the southern face of the roof at the top of the stairwell at the attic level of Units 2 to 5 inclusive to improve natural cross ventilation opportunities within the attic level and through the stairwell.  Details of the skylights are to be included in plans submitted with the Construction Certificate to the satisfaction of the PCA.

 

c.      Windows adjoining the non-trafficable roof areas to Units 3 and 4 at first floor level shall be of a sill height and design which prevents access to the roof area and prevents the space being used as a deck or balcony.  Details of the window schedule are to be included in the information submitted with the Construction Certificate to the satisfaction of the PCA.

 

d.     The external wall height shall be increased by 300mm to provide a minimum of 2.7m floor to ceiling height for the first floor. The maximum height must not change and the roof pitch shall be adjusted to accommodate the increased wall height.

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 48 Chester Avenue, MAROUBRA 

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                            13 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D49/17

 

Subject:              19 Howard Street, Randwick (DA/177/2016/A)

Folder No:                DA/177/2016/A

Author:                     Jonathan Blackmore, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                  Section 96 modification of the approved development by increasing the overall height of the building by 810mm, four new south facing dormer windows, and increasing the width of the easternmost eave from 400mm to 600mm.

                                  Original consent: Alterations and additions to the partially constructed building to create secondary dwelling at lower ground floor and dwelling at ground floor and new proposed first floor.

Ward:                        East Ward

Applicant:                Mr J Leszka

Owner:                     Mr Z Leszka, Mrs E Leszka and Mr K Leszka

Summary

Recommendation:   Refusal

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

Development Application Executive Summary Report

 

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

 

Proposal

 

The applicant seeks to modify the approved development by increasing the overall height of the building by 810mm, installing four new south facing dormer windows, and increasing the width of the easternmost eave from 400mm to 600mm.

Original consent: Alterations and additions to the partially constructed building to create secondary dwelling at lower ground floor and dwelling at ground floor and new proposed first floor.

 

Notes:

The assessing officer requested that the plans highlight the proposed modifications. The applicant supplied revised plans that outlined the additional dormer windows in red.    

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Howard Street, on the corner with Howard Lane.  The immediate context is zoned Low Density Residential – R2 and it contains a variety of dwelling styles including single dwelling houses, semi-detached dwellings and some residential flat buildings (fronting Perouse Road). The subject site contains a two storey single dwelling house and attached double garage with vehicle access off Howard Lane. Construction works associated with the previous DA are ongoing on the site (see fig. 1 below). The site slopes slightly down from its Howard Street frontage to its rear corner, where a swimming pool is present.

 

Figure 1. Photograph of the subject site and dwelling from the corner of Howard Street and Howard Lane.

 

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 will alter the nature of the approved development as it seeks to reinstate elements that were revised in the original assessment and which were fundamental in gaining approval. For the purposes of legislative requirements under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, it is both qualitatively and quantitatively not substantially the same development.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

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 has 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.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

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

 

Zone R2 – Low Density Residential

The site is zoned Low Density Residential R2 under the RLEP 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council's consent. The size and scale of the proposed development is incompatible with the existing and desired future character of the locality and will adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining properties in terms of visual bulk and over dominance. The proposed non-compliant floor space ratio, nine large dormers and 9.2m high wall height will dominate and detract from the dwelling and the low density residential character of the streetscape.

 

Maximum Height – Clause 4.3 of the RLEP 2012

The proposed modification does not exceed the height of building standard. 

 

Floor Space Ratio – Clause 4.4 of the RLEP 2012

The increase in roof height will increase the floor space ratio of the site due to more areas of the attic floor level meeting the definition of gross floor area. A floor space ratio of 0.74:1 was approved. A floor space ratio of 0.82:1 is now proposed. Clause 4.4 of the RLEP 2012 sets a maximum floor space of 0.75:1 for the site. A proposed exceedance of 0.07 or 9.3%.

 

The proposed floor space ratio will be inconsistent with the relevant objectives of clause 4.4 and the zonal objectives of the RLEP 2012, and will result in significant adverse impacts in terms of the residential amenity of adjoining sites and the character of the area. The scale and form of the development will be inconsistent with the character of the area and zone. The proposal will present as a large unrelieved three storey building with excessive and non-compliant wall heights (9.2m) and an overcomplicated roof form with nine dormer-like protrusions. The additional floor space is not contained within the approved built form and the additional bulk will be dominant on the site and in the streetscape. There are no examples of such high single dwelling buildings within the street. Therefore, due to the design and bulk, the proposal is considered to be inconsistent with the existing and desired future character of the context.

 

Development Control Plans

 

Wall Height – Sub-Section 3.2

A wall height of up to 9.2m is proposed (an increase of 810mm on that approved). The RDCP 2013 sets a maximum wall height of 7m.

 

The proposed additional wall height non-compliance will be inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the RDCP 2013 and will generate significant adverse impacts in terms of the residential amenity of the adjoining site to the west and the character of the surrounding area. The proposed wall height will be substantially higher than that of existing single dwelling houses within the immediate context and the walls will be prominently visible from the surrounding context due to the corner nature of the subject site and the extent of the non-compliances. The wall height exceedance is not proposed to just part of the dwelling, but will generally extend around its full perimeter, and includes dormer window wall projections. No relief or minimisation to the non-compliances have been proposed and the proposed non-compliance has not resulted from site slope changes or difficult site conditions but merely from inappropriate design. Further, the non-compliant wall height will also not comply with the side setback requirement of the RDCP 2013 in relation to the western boundary and the resulting massing and bulk close to the boundary will result in excessive bulk and dominance when viewed from the dwelling and private opens space of the adjoining site reducing their residential amenity.  

 

Roof Design and Dormers – Sub-Section 4.4

The proposed involves an additional four dormer-like projections. The proposed dormers do not meet any of the design controls of Sub-Section 4.4 of the RDCP 2013. In particular:

 

·     the dormers are proposed to exceed a height of 1.85m (max. permitted 1.5m)

·     the dormers do have the required setback of 500mm from the sides of the roof

·     they are not setback from the external face of the wall and are not positioned above the gutter of the roof

·     The dormers are not symmetrically arranged

·     The roof form of the dwelling will be dominated by dormers.

 

The proposed non-compliances are considered to be inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the RDCP 2013 and will generate significant adverse impacts in terms of the character of the surrounding area. The combination of roof features that include five gable end and nine dormers will overcomplicate the roof form and contribute to the proposal having a bulk and scale that is incompatible with the surrounding context. The proposed roof form and dormers do not reflect the original style of the dwelling on the subject site or roof forms on single dwelling houses within the surrounding area. The proposed roof form and dormers will contribute to the non-compliant wall heights, assessed against sub-section 3.2, above, where it they were deemed to be inconsistent with the relevant objectives. Further, the complicated roof design will be highly visible from the street and surrounding context due to the corner position of the site, and the overcomplicated roof form will draw the causal observer’s attention to the bulk and incompatibility of the building with the surrounding context.

 

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

 

The proposed modification will result in no significant adverse social or economic impacts. However, the proposal will result in significant adverse environmental impacts in terms of the residential amenity of the adjoining site to the west and the character of the streetscape (as detailed within assessment above).

 

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 does not comply with the relevant assessment criteria and will result in adverse impacts upon both the amenity of the adjoining premises and the character of the locality.

 

The application is, therefore, recommended for refusal for the reasons listed under the recommendation below.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuse consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modification seeking to increase the overall height of the building by 810mm, four new south facing dormer windows, and increasing the width of the eastern most eave from 400mm to 600mm, at No. 19 Howard Street, Randwick, for the following reasons:

 

1.     The proposed modification will not result in a development that is substantially the same as originally approved.

 

2.     The proposed development does not comply with the relevant objectives of R2 Low Density Residential Zone of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012. The size and scale of the proposed development is incompatible with the existing and desired future character of the locality and zone and will adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining properties in terms of visual bulk and scale. The proposed additional height and bulk and the additional dormers will dominate and detract from the character of the streetscape.

 

3.     The proposal exceeds the floor space ratio control of Clause 4.4 of the RLEP 2012. The proposal does not satisfy the objectives set out in the RLEP in that the size and scale of the proposed development is incompatible with the existing and desired future character and the built form will dominant the residential site to the west, reducing its residential amenity. 

 

4.     The proposal does not satisfy the controls and objectives set out in sub-section 3.2 - Building Heights of the Randwick Council Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP 2013) in that the height and scale of the proposed addition is inconsistent with and will dominate the built form of the existing dwellings in the locality and detract from the streetscape character.

 

5.     The proposed dormers do not satisfy the controls and relevant objectives of sub-section 4.4 of the RDCP 2013. A total of nine dormers are now proposed. The four additional dormers will be prominent from the street. The dormers overcomplicate the roof form and contribute to non-compliant wall heights and excessive building bulk. Such dormers are not a feature of the existing streetscape.    

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                            13 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D50/17

 

Subject:              173 Gale Road, Maroubra (DA/845/2016)

Folder No:                DA/845/2016

Author:                     Julia Hunt, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                  To legitimise the use of the unauthorised rear lower ground floor area of the dwelling as a gym, three (3) storage rooms, laundry and bathroom (variation to floor space ratio standard) 

Ward:                        Central Ward

Applicant:                Solutions Zane (Planning Services)

Owner:                     Mei Ting Wong

Summary

Recommendation:   Refusal

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=9a1edc28-e21a-4398-9e88-37d70b56cd26&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee as the variation to the Floor Space Ratio standard under Clause 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 is greater than 10%.

 

Proposal

 

The applicant proposes to gain planning approval to legitimise the use of the unauthorised floor area which was constructed by excavating the foundation subfloor area behind the garage of the existing dwelling and creating four (4) rooms, kitchen/laundry and bathroom.

 

Background

Council’s Senior Building Surveyor inspected the subject site and confirmed that the site contained unauthorised building works and was being used for unauthorised shared accommodation use and consequently sent a letter to the owner on 19 May 2016 advising that:

 

        “the following building works were carried out without prior consent of Council:

 

Extension of the lower ground floor level by excavation of the foundation area at the rear of the garage, construction of 4 separate rooms and a kitchen and bathroom in the approved passageway and laundry.

 

Further, it is noted that the lower ground floor level of the premises is being used as a place of shared accommodation for four (4) boarders which may also render you liable to a penalty under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.”

 

This prompted the owner of the dwelling to lodge a Development Application to seek to legitimise the unauthorised floor area which was previously used as four (4) boarding rooms and a shared kitchen and bathroom.  The applicant now seeks to gain planning approval to legitimise the use of the four (4) rooms as a gym, and three (3) storage rooms. They have removed the stove and oven from the kitchen to use it as a laundry, and they seek to continue to use the bathroom. The unauthorised building works have resulted in the dwelling having a total Floor Space Ratio of 0.83:1 which is a 10.46% variation to the allowable 0.75:1 FSR under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. 

 

Site

The subject site is located on the southern side of Gale Road. The subject site contains a three (3) storey dwelling house with double garage beneath. The site slopes from the rear (south) to the front (north). The subject site has a total area of 328.8sqm.

 

Submissions

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

 

Key Issues

 

Floor Space Ratio Standard –Clause 4.6 Variation:

The proposal contravenes the maximum floor space ratio development standards contained in clause 4.4 of RLEP 2012. The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012.

 

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

 

FSR

Proposal

0.83:1

LEP Development Standard

0.75:1

Excess above or less than the LEP Standard

10.46% in excess of control

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

In relation to the matters required to be demonstrated by 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 FSR standard are set out in clause 4.4 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 buildings are well articulated and respond to environmental and energy needs,

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

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

 

The applicant’s written justifications outline the following key arguments for the departure from the standard:

 

(a)    The proposed development involves the continued use of a lower ground floor area, entirely within the existing building envelope with no increase in bulk and scale, as such ensuring that the size and scale of development is compatible with the existing and desired future character of the locality.

(b)    All rooms have existing high set window openings to ensure that the continued use will adequately respond to environmental and energy needs according to their respective uses (i.e. gym/storage/laundry/bathroom).

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

 

Assessing Officers Comments:

It is considered that legitimisation of the existing unauthorised building works at the lower ground floor area would have an adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of loss of visual and acoustic privacy, as this floor area has great potential to be used again as boarding rooms with shared kitchen and bathroom.

Given that the proposal has only relabeled the existing unauthorised rooms which were previously used for boarding rooms as a gym, three storage rooms and laundry, there is concern that these rooms have great potential to continue being used as boarding house accommodation given the previous history use of the site. The only works done prior to lodging this application was the removal of the oven, stove and range hood in the kitchen.

 

The Building Code of Australia requires that 'habitable rooms' require permanent access to fresh air and natural light in the form of windows. This access must come through windows of a size not less than 10% of floor areas. The Building Code of Australia requires for the purpose of ventilation, an openable window or similar aperture is required to be at least 5% of the floor space in that particular area.

 

The scaled proposal plans prepared by CAI Design were used to calculate the size of the windows and floor areas. The calculations below show that the existing windows to the rooms do not comply with the required 10% of floor area’s for light, and are not compliant with the required 5% openable of floor area for ventilation under the BCA. Notably the rooms are partially below ground and do not have complaint access to natural light or cross ventilation.

 

 

The existing unauthorised rooms have the following floor area’s and window sizes:

 

·     The storage room which is 8.8sqm in floor area has a 0.28sqm size glass window area which equates to only 3% of the floor area, which does not comply with the BCA if it were to be used again as a habitable lodging room.

 

·     The storage room which is 7.9sqm in floor area has a 0.28sqm size glass window area which equates to only 3.6% of the floor area, which does not comply with the BCA if it were to be used again as a habitable lodging room.

 

·     The gym which constitutes a habitable room has a floor area of 9.and has a 0.36sqm glass window area which equates to only 3.7% of the floor area, which does not comply with the BCA.

 

·     The storage room which is 12sqm in floor area has a 0.5sqm glass window area which equates to 4.16% of the floor area, which does not comply with the BCA if it were to be used again as a habitable lodging room.

 

·     The laundry and hallway which constitute a habitable room has a floor area of 11.08sqm and a 0.15sqm glass window area which equates to 1.3% of the floor area which does not comply with the BCA.

 

·     The bathroom which constitutes a habitable room has a floor area of 3.23sqm and a 0.15sqm glass window area which equates to 4% of the floor area which does not comply with the BCA.

 

Based on the history of the abovementioned floor area being rented out to four (4) lodgers as boarding house accommodation with a shared kitchen and bathroom, Council has concern that there is great potential for these rooms to be used again as habitable rooms for an unauthorised boarding house use in rooms which are not compliant with the BCA for use as habitable rooms.

 

In conclusion, the applicant’s written request has not successfully demonstrated that compliance with the development standard in question is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

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

 

The applicant’s written request has not successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

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?

The objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (Zone R2 - Low Density Residential) are:

 

•     To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

 

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

 

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

 

•     To protect the amenity of residents.

 

•     To encourage housing affordability.

 

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

 

It is considered that the proposed development is not consistent with the objectives that are relevant because it will have unacceptable impacts on the amenity of residents, both neighbouring residents in terms of loss of visual and acoustic privacy, and future potential residents in terms of living in rooms which do not comply with the Building Code of Australia in terms of natural light and ventilation amenity.

 

The proposed development is not considered to be in the public interest because it is not consistent with the objectives of the standard and the relevant objectives for development within Zone R2 - Low Density Residential.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Comments:

Pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 08–003 (dated 9 May 2008) the concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed to the refusal of the development that contravenes the development standard for FSR in clause 4.4 of RLEP 2012.

 

The variation from the adherence to the FSR standard will be detrimental to the orderly use of the site and there is a public benefit to maintaining the development standard in this instance.

 

Non-compliance with Building Code of Australia – Natural light and ventilation requirements for habitable rooms

 

Natural light

The Building Code of Australia requires that 'habitable rooms' require permanent access to fresh air and natural light in the form of windows. This access must come through windows of a size not less than 10% of floor areas. The existing unauthorised rooms have the following floor area and window sizes:

 

·     The storage room which is 8.8sqm in floor area has a 0.28sqm size glass window area which equates to only 3% of the floor area, which does not comply with the BCA if it were to be used again as a habitable lodging room.

 

·     The storage room which is 7.9sqm in floor area has a 0.28sqm size glass window area which equates to only 3.6% of the floor area, which does not comply with the BCA if it were to be used again as a habitable lodging room.

 

·     The gym which constitutes a habitable room has a floor area of 9.and has a 0.36sqm glass window area which equates to only 3.7% of the floor area, which does not comply with the BCA.

 

·     The storage room which is 12sqm in floor area has a 0.5sqm glass window area which equates to 4.16% of the floor area, which does not comply with the BCA if it were to be used again as a habitable lodging room.

 

·     The laundry and hallway which constitutes a habitable room has a floor area of 11.08sqm and a 0.15sqm glass window area which equates to 1.3% of the floor area which does not comply with the BCA.

 

·     The bathroom which constitutes a habitable room has a floor area of 3.23sqm and a 0.15sqm glass window area which equates to 4% of the floor area which does not comply with the BCA.

 

Based on the history of the abovementioned rooms being rented out to four lodgers as boarding house accommodation with a shared kitchen and bathroom, Council has concern that there is great potential for these rooms to be used again as an habitable rooms for an unauthorised boarding house use in rooms which are not compliant with the BCA for use as habitable rooms. Notably due to the subject floor area being created through excavation of previous subfloor area, and the concrete retaining walls on the eastern boundary, the access to light and ventilation is further obstructed.

 

Ventilation

The Building Code of Australia requires for the purpose of ventilation, an openable window or similar aperture is required to be at least 5% of the floor space in that particular area. As already calculated above, the existing windows to the rooms do not comply with the required 10% size of floor areas, the existing windows are sliding style with half operable, and therefore are not compliant with the BCA 5% of floor area.

 

The proposed gym, laundry and bathroom are classified as habitable rooms, and do not comply with the BCA for light or ventilation.

 

While the other three (3) rooms are labelled to be used for storage, they have great potential to be used as habitable boarding rooms again given the use of these rooms previously as boarding rooms. Legitimisation of these rooms could lead to Council condoning the use of rooms which are not compliant as habitable rooms under the BCA.

 

Notably should Council decide to approve the floor area, suitable conditions would need to be included to upgrade the rooms to be compliant with all relevant BCA requirements including damp proofing, ventilation, natural light etc.

 

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 does not comply with the relevant assessment criteria and will result in adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality

 

The application is, therefore, recommended for refusal for the reasons detailed below.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council as the consent authority, refuse development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to Development Application No. 845/2016 to legitimise the use of the unauthorised rear lower ground floor area for a gym, three (3) storage rooms, laundry and bathroom at 173 Gale Road, Maroubra for the following reasons:

 

1.     The proposed development is inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the R2 – Low Density Residential zone under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in that the proposal does not protect the amenity of residents.

 

2.     The proposed development does not comply with the Floor Space Ratio standard under Clause 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the clause 4.6 exception is not well founded.

 

3.     The proposed development does not comply with the Building Code of Australia.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                            13 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D51/17

 

Subject:              225 Rainbow Street, Randwick (DA/912/2016)

Folder No:                DA/912/2016

Author:                     Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                  Ground and first floor alterations to existing dwelling, pool and decking at rear and associated works

Ward:                        East Ward

Applicant:                M Hodgson

Owner:                     M Hodgson & L Hodgson

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=b7b1dd27-fcbf-467f-a0a2-09f5e9ef5668&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

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

 

The main issue is the amenity impacts to the adjoining properties.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

Proposal

 

The application details alterations and additions to the existing dwelling to provide for a new upper level master bedroom suite, minor additions at ground level and the installation of a swimming pool and deck within the rear yard.

 

Site

 

The site is located on the southern side of Rainbow Street and has rear lane access to Bundock Lane. The site is rectangular in shape with a frontage of 9.145m, depth of 60.89m and area of 557m². The site falls steeply from the street to the rear with a difference in level of up to 5m.

 

Image 1: Subject site.

 

Image 2: At Rear

 

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Issues

Comments

223 Rainbow Street Randwick

 

-There are concerns with regards to privacy impacts upon their property with regards to a window in the west and northern side of the building.

 

-Clarification is sought that the privacy screen on the balcony will protect privacy for themselves and neighbours.

 

 

-The development will block sunlight into their rear yard.

 

86a Bundock Street Randwick 

 

-There are concerns that the proposed windows in the upper level of the building will overlook most of the backyard and rooms in their house.

 

17 Ellen Street Randwick

 

-There is concern regarding privacy impacts to their pool area and backyard.

 

 

-The rear balcony may result in noise issues.

 

 

 

 

 

-Their pool area and backyard will be overshadowed during the afternoon and evening.

 

 

 

 

 

The upper level western window is 1600mm above floor level and satisfies the DCP control with respect to privacy maintenance.

 

A condition of consent is included to require the privacy screens to the rear balcony to be designed and installed to satisfy the DCP controls.

 

The development will satisfy solar access controls of the DCP in relation to the private open space of the adjoining properties.

 

There is a significant setback from the rear upper level windows to the bedroom and living area, which includes the rear lane, and there will not be any direct overlooking into the properties at rear.

 

 

A condition is included to require the large panel to the stairwell to be modified to satisfy the DCP controls.

 

The rear balcony is very narrow in depth at 1m is off the rear master bedroom and parents retreat and is not large enough to enable it to be used for entertaining or accommodating a lot of people that could result in noise issues.

 

The proposal satisfies the DCP solar access requirements with the POS of the adjoining properties maintaining the minimum solar access as detailed in the DCP controls.

 

 

Key Issues

 

Height of swimming pool and rear decking

 

The proposal includes the installation of a swimming pool within the rear yard partially at ground level and to include a deck surrounding the swimming pool and off the rear of the dwelling which is at the ground floor level of the dwelling.

 

The elevated nature of the swimming pool and deck will result in the pool and deck being up to 880mm above existing ground level, which in combination with the deck being sited up to the eastern side boundary which will result in an adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties with respect to privacy. The proposed raising of the side and rear fencing to maintain privacy is a poor response as this will result in an unreasonably high boundary fence to the adjoining properties.

 

It is therefore recommended that a condition be included to require that the swimming pool and decking be lowered to a maximum level of RL 44.65. A condition of consent is also included to reduce the area of the deck off the rear family room to 1.2m in depth and 3.2m in width, with the stairs sited 900mm from the western edge of the deck and 2.2m in width.

 

Reference to the increase in fence height to the side and rear boundary fencing is also to be deleted from the plans.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 912/2016 for alterations and additions to the dwelling, and installation of swimming pool at at No. 225 Rainbow 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

 

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

 

a.      The finished level of the swimming pool and deck surround is to be reduced to a maximum level of RL 44.65.

 

b.      The size of the deck to the rear of the family room shall be a maximum of 1.2m in depth and 3.2m in width, with the stairs sited 900mm from the western edge of the deck and to be 2.2m in width. A privacy screen having a height of 1.6m above the deck level is to be provided to the western side of the deck

The privacy screen must be constructed with either:

 

·      Translucent or obscured glazing;

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

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

 

c.      Reference to increase in height of the existing side and rear fencing is to be deleted.

 

d.     The window to the stairwell (W6) on the eastern elevation must be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing and the opening of any awning window/s must not exceed 150mm.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 225 Rainbow Street, RANDWICK

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                            13 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D52/17

 

Subject:              91 Perouse Road, Randwick (DA/940/2016)

Folder No:                DA/940/2016

Author:                     Jonathan Blackmore, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                  Construction of hardstand car park space to the front of the existing semi-detached dwelling with associated works (Heritage Conservation Area).

Ward:                        East Ward

Applicant:                Mrs Coralie Chen

Owner:                     Mr Ian Chen and Mrs Coralie Chen

Summary

Recommendation:   Refusal

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive Summary Report

 

The subject application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Roberts, Stavrinos and Nash.

 

 

 

 

Proposal

 

The applicant proposes the construction of hardstand car park space to the front of the existing semi-detached dwelling with associated works.

Revisions

The Applicant was advised as part of the preliminary assessment:

 

1.  That it would not be possible to provide a driveway in the originally proposed location without compromising the root system of the Brush Box street tree.

 

2.  That the proposed 2.6m wide vehicle layback would not meet the Council’s minimum standard width of 3m.

 

In response the applicant undertook the following changes:

1.  Moved the driveway and hardstand space closer to the site’s southern boundary and further away from the tree.

 

2.  Widened the layback to 3m.

 

3.  Provided written confirmation from Telstra that it would be willing to relocate a bollard, which would be too close to the proposed crossing, to an alternative location and supplied a cost estimate from Telstra for the relocation.

 

Council’s heritage planner also raised issues with the proposed car space. In particular, that the proposed carspace will be inconsistent the controls relating to Garages, Carports, Carspaces and Driveways contained in the Heritage section of Randwick DCP 2013. The proposed carspace will devalue the heritage contribution of the existing dwelling, will dominate the setting of the dwelling in terms of loss of planting and fencing, and will visually impact on the streetscape of The Spot heritage conservation area. 

 

The Applicant has not specified any design changes to address the preliminary heritage concerns, but the two wheel strips of the proposed hardstand that were to be sandstone are now proposed to be a “BodPave 85” porous paving system, which can allow grass to grow.

 

The revisions did not require re-notification as they were generally within scope of the original proposal.

Site

 

The subject site is located in the Spot Heritage Conservation area on the eastern side of Perouse Road, between Barker Street and St Pauls St.  The site is occupied by half of a detached Federation-style cottage which retains much of its original character including face brick walls, slate roofing with terracotta ridge tiles and finials, roughcast chimneys and timber windows. The front of the site slopes very gently up from the street. It is mostly grassed and also contains a front entry pathway in tessellated tiles, and a low red brick frontage fence (see fig. 1 below). Three small trees originally within the front yard were approved for removal under DA/749/2016. Sites along this side of this section of Perouse Road generally do not have parking or vehicle access. The adjoining semi (No. 93 Perouse Road) contains a single hardstand space within its front yard, however, there is no record of when this was consented or established. A carport at No. 105 Perouse Road was originally consented to in 1978.

 

 

Figure 1. Photograph of the front of 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:

6/60 Howard Street

Issue

Comment

1.   Against the chopping down of the street tree. Believe that enough trees have been removed within the area for the light rail etc. The tree is probably home to wild life.          

1.   The tree is proposed to be retained and the Council’s landscape officer is now satisfied that the works can be undertaken without damaging the tree’s health.   

9/60 Howard Street

Issue

Comment

1.   Against the chopping down of the street tree because the tree is probably home to wild life and its removal will create a gap within a row of trees. Note that two trees within the front yard of the site have already been removed.           

1.   The tree is proposed to be retained and the Council’s landscape officer is now satisfied that the works can be undertaken without damaging the tree’s health. A DA (ref: DA/749/2016) was approved 31 Oct 2016 for the removal of three trees within the front yard of the site.

 

Key Issues

 

Heritage Planner Referral Comments

 

The Council’s heritage planner makes the following comments concerning the proposal:

 

The Site

The site is within The Spot heritage conservation area and is occupied by half of a detached Federation style cottage which retains much of its original character including face brick walls, slate roofing with terracotta ridge tiles and finials, roughcast chimneys and timber windows.  It appears that an original detached cottage has subsequently been subdivided into two separate occupancies.  Immediately to the north of the site is no.85 Perouse Road, a Federation house listed as a heritage item under Randwick LEP 2012.  On the opposite side of Perouse Road is no.82 – 84 Perouse Road, a grand Edwardian mansion also listed as a heritage item.  The Statement of Significance for The Spot heritage conservation area notes the aesthetic significance of the residential areas which contain representative groupings of buildings from the Victorian, Federation and Inter-War periods, with residential buildings from the Federation period being the most common.  The dwelling contributes to the heritage value of The Spot HCA through its scale, form materials and detailing. 

 

Background

The original application proposed to provide a hard stand car space within the front building line of the property.  Engineering concerns were raised that the proposed concrete vehicular footpath crossing was of insufficient width to allow safe and effective access to the proposed car space. 

 

Heritage concerns were raised that the proposed carspace would be inconsistent the Controls relating to Garages, Carports, Carspaces and Driveways contained in the Heritage section of Randwick DCP 2013, would devalue the heritage contribution of the existing dwelling, dominate the setting of the dwelling in terms of loss of planting and fencing, and visually impact on the streetscape of The Spot heritage conservation area. 

 

Proposal

Amended drawings have been received which have widened the driveway to the south by relocating a footpath telecommunications bollard, at a cost to the applicant of $45,000.  Amended drawings have also changed the proposed surface of the carspace. 

 

Submission

The application was accompanied by a Statement of Environmental Effects which includes a brief Heritage Impact Statement.  The SEE noted that the dwelling is believed to have been constructed around 1907 and subdivided into two dwellings in the 1920s.  The SEE argued that the proposed development is considered negligible as it will not alter the façade or require the removal of any significant streetscape features, and suggested that the materials have been chosen to retain the heritage character of the home, with existing materials to be reused and incorporated into the landscaping design. 

 

Controls

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

 

Clause 5.10(4) of Randwick LEP 2012 requires Council to consider that effect of a proposed development on the heritage significance of the heritage conservation area. 

 

In relation to Garages, Carports, Carspaces and Driveways, the Heritage section of Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 includes relevant Objectives and Controls in clause 2.9.  The DCP includes Objectives of minimising visual impact of carparking on streetscapes and ensuring parking structures and paved areas are visually discreet and do not dominate or compete with original character buildings.  The DCP included Controls that open hard stand carspaces provided within the front building line must be located adjacent to a side boundary and must not dominate the setting of the building in terms of loss of planting, fencing or retaining walls. 

 

In relation to Carparking, The Spot section of the DCP (clause 4.9.4) notes that on site carparking is generally not able to be provided to narrow properties with minimal front setbacks and no rear lane access. 

 

Comments

The building comprising nos.91 and 93 Perouse Road includes a low dark face brick fence with bulky end piers and bullnosed capping.  No.93 is set back from its southern side boundary and includes a car space adjacent to the side fence.  No.91 retains an original tessellated tiled path, and the existing front garden includes a generous grassed area. 

 

In order to avoid removal of the brush box street tree, the car space is located in front of the existing entry porch, resulting in the removal of the tessellated tiled path and creation of a new pedestrian entry adjacent to the northern side boundary with a diagonal pathway angling across the garden area in the direction of the porch, providing a constrained access between the vehicle and the front porch.  Around 2.5m of the existing brick fence was also to be removed.  The proposed car space will occupy around 40% of the frontage of the property. 

 

The original application proposed a pair of sandstone paved wheel strips with a central tessellated tiled path (useable only when the vehicle is not parked in the car space).  Heritage concerns were raised that the provision of the car space would involve replacement of the existing front garden with several planters, resulting in a loss of around 20m2 of soft landscaped area. 

 

The current application proposes to replace the wheel strips and central path with a semi-permeable sub-base (similar to Bodpave) to the car space.  It is noted that manufacturer’s information in relation to Bodpave 85 advises that it is suitable for occasional and not regular vehicular use.  It is likely that with regular use the Bodpave surface would degenerate to an appearance of dirt or highly degraded grass with an embedded plastic cellular grid. 

 

The existing front garden and front fencing makes an important contribution to the streetscape of the heritage conservation area.  It is considered that the proposed car space will impact on front garden setting of the dwelling, its original front path and its early front fence.  It is considered that the dimensions of the site and the siting of the existing dwelling do not allow for the provision of on-site parking without significant impact on the dwelling and the streetscape of Perouse Road. 

 

The proposed carspace will be inconsistent the Controls relating to Garages, Carports, Carspaces and Driveways contained in the Heritage section of Randwick DCP 2013.  The proposed carspace will devalue the heritage contribution of the existing dwelling, will dominate the setting of the dwelling in terms of loss of planting and fencing, and will visually impact on the streetscape of The Spot heritage conservation area. 

 

Recommendation

The proposal should be refused on the following grounds:

 

·     The proposed car space will devalue the heritage contribution of the existing dwelling, will dominate the setting of the dwelling in terms of loss of planting and fencing, and will visually impact on the streetscape of The Spot heritage conservation area. 

 

·     The proposed carspace would be inconsistent with the Controls within the Heritage section of Randwick Development Control Plan 2013, in relation to Garages, Carports, Carspaces and Driveways. 

 

Development Engineering Referral Comments

 

Previous reports for this application detailed that it could not be supported due to the insufficient setback that was provided to the mature, 12m tall Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) located on the Perouse Road footpath, along with the presence of services in this same that would need to be relocated, which are not under the control of Council.

 

However, the amended rev B plans (dwg ARK888-1-2) now show that the offset between its trunk and the northern edge of the crossing has been increased out to 1613mm (taken from the centre of its trunk), with measurements taken on-site confirming that this would be roughly in line the southern edge of the existing tree square/porous in-fill, which terminates about 1100mm from the outside edge of its trunk.

 

While this may be deemed closer than ideal (given that several major structural roots are already evident in this area), this particular species is one of the most hardy and resilient of all trees, and has demonstrated an ability to withstand canopy and root pruning, and being able to thrive in restricted growing environments.

 

This tree is already surrounded by impervious concrete surfacing, and as excavations for formwork for new crossings only need to extend to a depth of about 100mm below surface level, this should not result in major root damage as it will simply be replacing like for like, and only on one side of its root plate.

 

However, in order for Council to ensure this asset in not adversley affected, conditions require that following removal of the existing surfacing, and prior to forming up for the new crossing, that Council be contacted for an inspection, and if major root pruing is required, this will need to be performed by Council at that time, wholly at the applicant’s cost, with other protection measures also included.

 

Telstra have now provided written confirmation (D02922185) that they are willing to relocate the existing pillar outside of the zone of the proposed crossing, wholly at the applicant’s cost, with the Development Engineer no longer regarding this component as an issue.

 

Deep Soil Permeable Surfaces (Sub-Section 2.4 of the RDCP 2013)

 

Sub-Section 2.4 of the RDCP 2013 requires a minimum deep soil permeable surface of 20%. A deep soil permeable surface of 28% is proposed and is therefore compliant.

 

Car Parking and Access (Sub-Section 6 of the RDCP 2013)

 

Sub-Section 6.2 of the RDCP 2013 requires parking facilities to be located off rear lanes, a secondary street or be behind the front façade alignment of the dwelling. The subject site arrangement does not allow for any of these parking solutions. Sub-Section 6.2 of the RDCP 2013 allows for an uncovered single hard space within the front yard where the provision of parking facilities behind the front façade are not feasible and where landscaping is still incorporated into the site frontage. A hard stand space is proposed forward for the front façade of the dwelling but insufficient landscaping is proposed within the site frontage. The hard stand space will meet the minimum dimension of Sub-Section 6.7 of the RDCP 2013, being 2.4m X 5.4m.

 

The proposal is inconsistent with the relevant objectives of Sub-Section 6 of the RDCP 2013. The hardstand will become the dominant feature of the front yard due to its size relative to the size of the front yard and because there is no opportunity to screen it with fencing, a gate or vegetation. The proposed hard stand space and associated access will occupy close to half of the site’s front yard and the remaining area of landscaping will be fragmented by three proposed pedestrian pathways. The landscaped appearance of the front of the site will be inconsistent with the neighbouring front yards to the north and the general character of the streetscape. The proposed use of the “Bodpave 85” porous pavers to the wheel strips of the hard stand space is not a practical solution as information from the manufacturer advises that it is suitable for occasional and not regular vehicular use, like that proposed.  It is likely that with regular use the Bodpave surface would degenerate to have a highly undesirable appearance of dirt or highly degraded grass with an embedded plastic cellular grid.

 

The proposed hard stand space does not fit with the architectural expression of the dwelling on the site as it will obstruct the dwelling’s front entry and porch, remove original tiled pathways to the front entry and obstruct views of the Federation-style dwelling from the street.

 

Randwick LEP 2012

 

The site is zoned Residential R2 Low Density under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

No development standards of the RLEP 2012 are applicable to the proposal.

 

79C Matters for Consideration

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

The site is zoned Residential R2 Low Density under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent. There are no development standards relevant to the proposal.

 

The proposal is inconsistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and hard stand car space will not enhance or protect the residential amenity of surrounding residents or the character of the street and locality.

 

The proposal is inconsistent with the specific objectives concerning heritage conservation in that the proposed hard stand does not conserve the fabric and setting of the heritage conservation area. Original frontage fencing and the entrance path, and landscape front yard area are proposed for removal. A car in front of the dwelling will obstruct views from the street to the original features of the dwelling. Further, hard stand car spaces in front of dwellings are not a characteristic feature of the Spot Heritage Conservation Area.

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

Nil.

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

The proposal does not satisfy the objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. See key issues discussion above.

 

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

 

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

 

The environmental impacts of the proposed have been considered in this report.

 

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

The site is not considered suitable for the proposed development given its location within a conservation area.

 

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

 

Submissions are discussed and addressed above. 

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

The proposal contravenes the objectives of the zone and will result in significant adverse environmental impacts on the locality and will propagate the development of incompatible parking facilities within the front yards of sites within the Spot Heritage Conservation Area.  Accordingly, the proposal is considered not be in the public interest.

 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

Conclusion

 

The proposal does not comply with the relevant assessment criteria and will result in adverse impacts upon both the amenity of the adjoining premises and the character of the locality.

 

The application is, therefore, recommended for refusal for the reasons listed under the recommendation below.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuse development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to Development Application No. DA/940/2016 for the cconstruction of hardstand car park space to the front of the existing semi-detached dwelling with associated works (Heritage Conservation Area) at 91 Perouse Road, Randwick for the following reasons:

 

1.        The proposal is inconsistent with the specific objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone in that the proposed activity and hard stand car space will not enhance or protect the residential amenity of surrounding residents or the character of the street and locality.

 

2.        The proposal is inconsistent with the specific objectives concerning heritage conservation of the RLEP 2012 in that the proposed hard stand does not conserve the fabric and setting of the heritage conservation area. The original frontage fencing and entrance path, and a significant portion of the landscaped front yard area are proposed for removal. A car parked forward of the dwelling will obstruct and detract from views from the original features of the dwelling. Further, hard stand car spaces in front of dwellings are not a characteristic feature of the Spot Heritage Conservation Area.

 

3.        The proposed carspace is inconsistent with the controls and objectives of Sub-Section 6 – Car Parking and Access – of the Low Density Residential section of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013.

 

4.        The proposed carspace is inconsistent with the controls and objectives of the Heritage section of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013, in relation to garages, carports, carspaces and driveways. 

 

5.        The proposal is considered to not be in the public interest as it will result in significant adverse environmental impacts and will facilitate the propagation of similar hard stand parking spaces within the front yard of sites within the Spot Heritage Conservation Area.    

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                            13 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D53/17

 

Subject:              181 Oberon Street, COOGEE (DA/221/2017)

Folder No:                DA/221/2017

Author:                     Willana Associates, Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                  Construction of spa pool to rear of existing dwelling with associated works.

Ward:                        East Ward

Applicant:                Mr C Tzarimas

Owner:                     Mr C Tzarimas & Mrs A M Dosler

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=59c8b2ca-6297-4f5e-b578-18cb3635b2c0&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is assessed by external planning consultant and referred to the Planning Committee for determination as an owner of the property is a Randwick City Council employee.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal seeks to carry out the construction of a spa pool to the rear of the existing dwelling which fronts Clifford Street, with associated works.  The proposal includes the excavation and installation of a 2.82m by 2.48m, 13500 litre, spa pool with a skimmer box to the southern side and pool fencing around the perimeter. The proposal includes the construction of a 1.2m concrete wall along the northern side of the spa pool. 

 

Site

 

The site is located at No 181 Oberon Street and is legally defined as Lot 4 in DP900168. The property has dual street access at the front to Oberon Street and Clifford Street at the rear. The frontage to Oberon Street is 7.84m while the frontage to Clifford Street is 7.873m.  The site has a depth of 33.325m along the western boundary and 33.860m along the eastern. The allotment is 263.6m2 in area. The site currently contains a two storey dwelling, with a pitched roof and a detached garage, with access from Clifford Street.

 

The allotment falls approximately one metre from the Clifford St frontage to Oberon Street. Vehicle access is from Clifford Street with parking onsite on an elevated terrace.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Key Issues

 

Deep Soil Permeable Surfaces

 

Section 2.4 (i) of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan requires 20% of the site to be provided as deep soil permeable surface. The proposal will represent a net reduction in the amount of deep soil permeable surfaces on the site.  Despite this, the reduction is acceptable given that the modest size of the spa pool will only account for a reduction of approximately 7m2.

 

Visual and acoustic privacy

 

Section 5.4 (i) of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan requires that spa pools are not located immediately adjacent to the bedroom windows of the adjoining dwellings.  The proposed spa pool has been located at the rear of the existing property, within the rear setback.  The pump will be appropriately treated as per the conditions of consent and as such any potential acoustic or visual impact has been acceptably addressed in this instance. 

 

 

 

 

Comments from Council’s Swimming Pool Compliance Officer

 

No objections were raised and no additional recommendations were provided other than recommended conditions for any approval which have been included accordingly in this report. 

 

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.

 

Section 79C Environmental Assessment

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Consolidation).

The site is zoned Residential R3 Medium Density under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent. See table below for compliance with development standards.

 

The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will provide for the housing needs of the community whilst enhancing the aesthetic character and protecting the amenity of the local residents.

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

Nil.

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

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

 

 

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

The environmental impacts of the proposed development on the natural and built environment have been addressed in this report.

 

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

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

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

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

 

No submissions were received.

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

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

 

Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013

 

C1 Table:  Low Density Residential

 

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

 

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

 

Section

Complies

2.4

Landscaping and Permeable Surfaces

 

Deep soil permeable surfaces include areas used for the

growing of plants (including grasses, shrubs and trees)

and areas occupied by loose gravels upon soil at the

ground level of the site.

Deep soil permeable surfaces do not include swimming

and spa pools, paved areas, planter boxes, or planted

areas above basements, podiums, roofs or slabs.

 

i)     Deep soil permeable surfaces must be provided in accordance with the table below – 20%.

The proposal will result in a net loss of deep soil permeable area. Despite this, the size of the spa pool and associated decking has been limited and the remaining rear setback will be retained as a deep soil permeable area.  The site is constrained in terms of area and it is reasonable that the residents would want a spa pool, hence the reduction of the permeable surfaces for this reason is acceptable in this instance. 

No - acceptable

5.4

Acoustic Privacy

 

i) Dwellings must be sited and designed to limit the potential for excessive noise transmission to the sleeping areas of adjacent dwellings. Accordingly, main living room windows, barbeques, swimming pools and spa pools must not be located immediately adjacent to the bedroom windows of the adjoining dwellings.

The proposed location of the spa pool at the rear of the property will be appropriate to reduce any potential nose impact on the adjoining property at 183 Oberon Street. 

Yes

7.5

Swimming pools and Spas

 

i)   Locate behind the front building line

ii)   Minimise damage to existing tree root systems on subject site and adjoining.

iii)  Located to minimise noise impacts on the adjoining dwellings.

iv)  Pool and coping related to site topography (max 1m over lower side of site).

v)  900mm minimum coping from rear and side boundaries.

vi)  Incorporate screen planting (min. 3m mature height unless view corridors affected) between setbacks.

vii) Position decking to minimise privacy impacts.

viii)   Pool pump and filter contained in acoustic enclosure and away from the neighbouring dwellings.

The proposed spa pool is located appropriately behind the front building line.

 

The enclosure of the proposed spa pool below high concrete/masonry boundary walls and its small size minimises noise impacts on the adjoining dwellings.

 

The proposed location of the spa pool is suitable as the topography of the rear private open space area is level and comprised of sand.

 

While no screen planting has been incorporated, the positioning of the spa pool behind and below high concrete/masonry walls minimises the likelihood of visual and acoustic privacy impacts occurring between properties.

 

In addition, the pool pump and filter is sufficiently enclosed along the eastern side-boundary to ensure noise generation is at acceptable levels.

Yes

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal, for a spa pool at the rear of 181 Oberon Street Coogee has been assessed against the relevant controls.  The key issues identified in relation to the proposal, including the reduction of deep soil permeable surfaces and visual and acoustic privacy have been considered. In this case, the proposal has adequately addressed the relevant council controls and has provided a proposal that will have an acceptable impact.  The proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria.

 

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. 221/2017 for the Construction of a spa pool to the rear of the existing dwelling with associated works, at No. 181 Oberon Street, Coogee, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS

 

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

 

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

 

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

A 4000

DK

April 2017

A 4001

DK

April 2017

A 4003

DK

April 2017

 

REQUIREMENTS BEFORE A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE CAN BE ISSUED

 

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

 

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

 

Consent Requirements

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

 

3.       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 legislative requirements is an offence and may result in the commencement of legal proceedings, issuing of `on-the-spot` penalty infringements or service of a notice and order by Council.

 

4.       Prior to the commencement of any excavation or building works, a construction certificate must be obtained from Council or an accredited certifier, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

A copy of the construction certificate, the approved plans and development 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

 

5.       Prior to the commencement of any works, the person having the benefit of the development consent (ie owner) must:-

 

i)       appoint a Principal Certifying Authority for the building work, and

ii)      appoint a principal contractor for the building work, or in relation to residential building work, obtain an owner-builder permit in accordance with the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989, and notify the Principal Certifying Authority and Council accordingly in writing, and

iii)     unless the person having the benefit of the consent is the principal contractor (i.e. owner-builder), notify the principal contractor of the required critical stage inspections and other inspections to be carried out, as specified by the Principal Certifying Authority, and

iv)     give at least two days notice to the Council, in writing, of the persons intention to commence building works.

 

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

 

The Principal Certifying Authority must specify the relevant stages of construction to be inspected in accordance with section 81A (2) (b1) (ii) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and a satisfactory inspection must be carried out, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to proceeding to the subsequent stages of construction or finalisation of the works (as applicable).

 

Documentary evidence of the building inspections carried out and details of compliance with Council’s consent is to be maintained by the Principal Certifying Authority.  Details of critical stage inspections carried out and copies of certification relied upon must also be forwarded to Council with the occupation certificate.

 

The principal contractor or owner-builder (as applicable) must ensure that the required critical stage and other inspections, as specified in the Principal Certifying Authority’s “Notice of Critical Stage Inspections”, are carried out to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority and at least 48 hours notice (excluding weekends and public holidays) is to be given to the Principal Certifying Authority, to carry out the required inspection, before carrying out any further works.

 

Sydney Water

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

·     Building plan approvals

·     Connection and disconnection approvals

·     Diagrams

·     Trade waste approvals

·     Pressure information

·     Water meter installations

·     Pressure boosting and pump approvals

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

REQUIREMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

 

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

 

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

 

Compliance with the Building Code of Australia

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

 

 

Stormwater Drainage

9.        Surface water from new building work and structures must be drained in accordance with the following requirements (as applicable), to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be included in the construction certificate:-

 

a)      Surface water/stormwater drainage systems are required to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia (Volume 2);

 

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

 

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

 

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORKS

 

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

 

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

 

Certification, PCA & other Requirements

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Home Building Act 1989

11.     In accordance with clause 98 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition, that in the case of residential building work, a contract of insurance must be obtained and in force, in accordance with the provisions of the Home Building Act 1989.

 

Where the work is to be done by a licensed contractor, excavation or building work must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA):

·    has been informed in writing of the licensee’s name and contractor number; and

·    is satisfied that the licensee has complied with the insurance requirements of Part 6 of the Home Building Act 1989, or

 

Where the work to be done by any other person (i.e. an owner-builder), excavation or building work must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority:

·    has been informed of the person’s name and owner-builder permit number, or

·    has been given a declaration, signed by the owner of the land that states that the market cost of the labour and materials involved in the work does not exceed $5,000.

 

Details of the principal building contractor and compliance with the provisions of the Home Building Act 1989 (i.e. Details of the principal licensed building contractor and a copy of the Certificate of Insurance) are to be submitted to Council prior to the commencement of any works, with the notice of appointment of the PCA / notice of intention to commence building work.

 

Construction Noise & Vibration

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

 

A construction noise and vibration management plan must be developed and if the building and site work is likely to cause a noise nuisance and/or implemented vibration, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

Construction Site Management Plan

13.      A Construction Site Management Plan must be developed and implemented throughout the site works, to the satisfaction of Council.  The construction site management plan must include the following measures, (as applicable):

 

·             temporary site fencing or hoardings;

·             location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

·             location of building materials for construction;

·             provisions for public safety;

·             dust control measures;

·             site access location and construction

·             details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

·             protective measures for tree preservation;

·             provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

·             location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

·             details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

·             provisions for temporary stormwater drainage;

·             details of proposed temporary pool fencing.

 

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

 

REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION & SITE WORK

 

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

 

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

 

Inspections During Construction

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

 

Site Signage

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

 

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

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

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

 

Restriction on Working Hours

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

 

Activity

Permitted working hours

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

·   Monday to Friday - 7.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

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

 

·   Monday to Friday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - No work permitted

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

 

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

 

Demolition Work Requirements

17.      The demolition of buildings must be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures and the relevant requirements of WorkCover NSW, Randwick City Council’s Asbestos Policy and the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

 

Public Safety & Site Management

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

 

a)      Public access to the building site and materials must be restricted by existing boundary fencing or temporary site fencing, to Council’s satisfaction.  Temporary site fences are to have a minimum height of 1.8 metres and be constructed of cyclone wire fencing.

 

Temporary site fences are also required 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.

 

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

 

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

 

d)     All building and site activities (including storage or placement of materials or waste and concrete mixing/pouring/pumping activities) must not cause or be likely to cause ‘pollution’ of any waters, including any stormwater drainage systems, street gutters or roadways.

 

Note:  It is an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 to cause or be likely to cause ‘pollution of waters’, which may result in significant penalties and fines.

 

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

 

f)      Site fencing, building materials, bulk bins/waste containers and other articles must not be located upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time without the prior written approval of the Council. 

 

1.       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 (as applicable):

 

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

 

2)     Demolition, excavation and building work 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, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

If necessary, 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, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority. 

 

3)     The adjoining land and buildings located upon the adjoining land must be adequately supported at all times. If an excavation associated with the erection or demolition of a building extends below the level of the base of the footings of any building located on an adjoining allotment of land, the person causing the excavation must:

 

·        preserve and protect the building /s on the adjoining land from damage; and

·        if necessary, underpin and support the building and excavation in an approved manner; and

·        at least seven (7) days before excavating below the level of the base of the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land (including a public road or public place), provide details of the proposed works to the owner of the adjoining land.

 

Notes

 

This condition / 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 principal contractor or owner-builder must obtain:

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

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

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

d)    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).

 

4)     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.

 

5)     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 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.

 

The public safety provisions and temporary fences must be in place prior to the commencement of any demolition, excavation or building works and be maintained throughout construction.

 

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.

 

6)     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.

 

Support of Adjoining Land, Excavations & Retaining Walls

19.      Excavations and adjoining land must be adequately supported at all times and the following requirements must be satisfied:

 

a)      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.

 

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

 

Where necessary, retaining walls, shoring or piling must be provided to support land which is excavated, to prevent the movement of soil and to support the adjacent land and buildings and adequate provisions are also to be made for drainage.

 

Details of any 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.

 

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

 

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

·       as otherwise required by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

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

 

EQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Occupation Certificate Requirements

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

 

Swimming Pool and Spas Safety

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure compliance with the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and to maintain public safety and amenity:

 

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

 

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

 

Gates to pool area must be self-closing and latching at all times and, the gate is required to open outwards from the pool area and prevent a small child opening the gate or door when the gate or door is closed.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Spa Pool Safety

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

 

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

 

Swimming Pool & Spa Pool Requirements

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

 

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

 

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

                   

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

 

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

 

Notification of Swimming Pools & Spa Pools

24.      The owner of the premises must ‘register’ the swimming pool [or spa pool] on the NSW Swimming Pool Register, in accordance with the Swimming Pools Act 1992.

 

The Swimming Pool Register is administered by the NSW Office Local Government and registration on the Swimming Pool Register may be made on-line via their website www.swimmingpoolregister.nsw.gov.au.

 

Registration must be made prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate for the pool and a copy of the NSW Swimming Pool Certificate of Registration must be forwarded to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council accordingly.

 

Council’s Infrastructure & Vehicular Crossings

25.      External civil work to be carried out on Council property (including the installation and repair of roads, footpaths, vehicular crossings, kerb and guttering and drainage works), must be carried out in accordance with Council's Policy for “Vehicular Access and Road and Drainage Works” and to the satisfaction of Council and details of proposed existing civil works must be submitted to and approved by Council before carrying out such works.

 

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.

 

Plant & Equipment – Noise Levels

26.      The operation of 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.

 

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

 

Swimming/Spa Pools

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

 

The operation of swimming pool/spa pool pump and equipment is restricted, if the noise emitted can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises, the equipment shall not be operated during the following hours, or, as otherwise specified in relevant Noise Control Regulations:

 

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

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

 

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 legislative requirements is an offence and may result in the commencement of legal proceedings, issuing of `on-the-spot` penalty infringements or service of a notice and order by Council.

 

A2       All new building work (including alterations, additions and building renovations) must comply with the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and relevant Australian Standards and details of compliance must be provided in the Construction Certificate application.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Planning Committee                                                                                                            13 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Miscellaneous Report No. M1/17

 

Subject:              Report variation to Development Standard under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 (SEPP1) and clause 4.6 between 01 February to 31 May 2017

Folder No:                F2008/00122

Author:                     Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment      

 

Introduction

 

The NSW Department of Planning (DOP) released a Planning Circular in November 2008 advising Councils to adopt additional procedures in relation to the administration of variations to development Standard. The additional measures are largely in response to the ICAC inquiry into Wollongong City Council. Those additional measures are:

 

·         Establishment of a register of development applications determined with variations in standards under SEPP1 and Clause 4.6;

 

·         Requirement for all development applications where there has been a variation greater than 10% in standards under SEPP1 and Clause 4.6 to be determined by full council (rather than the general manager or nominated staff member);

 

·         Providing a report to Council on the development applications determined where there had been a variation in standards under SEPP1 and Clause 4.6;

 

·         Making the register of development applications determined with variations in standards under SEPP 1 and Clause 4.6 available to the public on council’s website.

 

This report is in response to point 3) above. A table is attached to this report detailing all SEPP1s and Clause 4.6 exceptions approved in the period between 01 May 2017 to 31 May 2017 – fourteen (14) were approved during this period by Planning Committee Meeting, Ordinary Council Meeting, and under Delegation.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction 4b:     New and existing development is managed by a robust framework.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

The NSW Department of Planning (DOP) released a Planning Circular in 2008 advising of additional requirements Councils are required to adopt in relation to SEPP1 objections and Clause 4.6 exceptions. This report is in response to one of those

 

Recommendation

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Clause 4.6 - MAY 2017

 

 

 

 


Clause 4.6 - MAY 2017

Attachment 1

 

 

 

SEPP 1 AND CLAUSE 4.6 REGISTER BETWEEN 1 FEBRUARY TO 31 MAY 2017

Council DA reference No.

Lot No.

DP No.

Apt/ Unit No.

Street No.

Street name

Suburb/Town

Post-code

Category of develop-ment

Environ-mental planning instru-ment

Zoning of land

Development standard to be varied

Justification of variation

Extent of variation

Concur-ring authority

Date DA determined

Appro-ved by

DA/660/2016             

19

8936

 

38

Jennings Street

 MATRAVILLE

2036

 3: Residential - New second occupancy

RLEP 2012

R2 - Low Density Residential

Clause 4.4  - FSR = 0.5:1

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

 

FSR increased to 0.521  or 4% 

NSW Dept of Planning

10/2/17

Delegated

DA/787/2016             

23

244997

 

15

Kain Avenue

MATRAVILLE

2036

 3: Residential - New second occupancy

RLEP 2012

R2 - Low Density Residential

Clause 4.4  - FSR = 0.5:1

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

 

FSR increased to 0.53:1  or 6% 

NSW Dept of Planning

7/2/17

Delegated

DA/833/2016             

A

444886

 

79

Clovelly Road

RANDWICK

2031

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 2012

R2 - Low Density Residential

Clause 4.3  - Building height of 9.5m

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

 

Building height is 10.27m increased by 770mm or 8.1%

NSW Dept of Planning

7/2/17

Delegated

DA/865/2016             

A

402063

 

44

Sackville Street

 MAROUBRA

2035

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 2012

R2 - Low Density Residential

Clause 4.3  - Building height of 9.5m

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

 

Building height is 10.19m increased by 690mm or 7.3%

NSW Dept of Planning

7/2/17

Delegated

DA/847/2016             

A

965171

 

185

Boyce Road

 MAROUBRA

2035

 3: Residential - New second occupancy

RLEP 2012

R2 - Low Density Residential

Clause 4.4  - FSR = 0.5:1

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

 

FSR increased to 0.519:1  or 3.8% 

NSW Dept of Planning

22/2/17

Delegated

DA/779/2016             

68

9734

 

62

Australia Avenue

MATRAVILLE

2036

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 2012

R2 - Low Density Residential

Clause 4.4  - FSR = 0.5:1

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

 

FSR increased to 0.55:1  or 10% 

NSW Dept of Planning

2/3/17

Delegated

DA/98/2017              

27

244471

 

37

Meehan Street

MATRAVILLE

2036

 3: Residential - New second occupancy

RLEP 2012

R2 - Low Density Residential

Clause 4.4  - FSR = 0.5:1

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

 

FSR increased to 0.51:1  or 2.79% 

NSW Dept of Planning

1/3/17

Delegated

DA/675/2016             

A

443205

 

17

Brook Street

COOGEE

2034

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 2012

R2 - Low Density Residential

Clause 4.3  - Building height of 9.5m

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

 

Building height is 9.715m increased by 215mm or 2.26%

NSW Dept of Planning

3/3/17

Delegated

DA/830/2016             

12

4333

 

38

Arcadia Street

COOGEE

2034

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 2012

R2 - Low Density Residential

Clause 4.4  - FSR = 0.65:1

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

FSR increased to 0.68:1  or 4.1% 

NSW Dept of Planning

13/3/17

Delegated

DA/653/2016             

379

36814

 

20

Chicago Avenue

 MAROUBRA

2035

 4: Residential - New multi-unit < 20 dwellings

RLEP 2012

R2 - Low Density Residential

Clause 4.4  - FSR = 0.75:1

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

 

FSR increased to 0.783  or 4.4% 

NSW Dept of Planning

24/3/17

Delegated

DA/907/2015             

A

436463

 

11

Hooper Street

RANDWICK

2031

 4: Residential - New multi-unit < 20 dwellings

RLEP 2012

R2 - Low Density Residential

Clause 4.4  - FSR = 0.75:1

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

 

FSR increased to 0.77:1  or 2.67% 

NSW Dept of Planning

28/3/17

OCM

DA/958/2016             

10

12218

 

19

Mermaid Avenue

 MAROUBRA

2035

 2: Residential - Single new dwelling

RLEP 2012

R2 - Low Density Residential

Clause 4.3  - Building height of 9.5m

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

Building height on the Southern side 10.05m increased by 550mm or 6%
Building height on the Northern side 12.06m-13.16m increased by 2.56m - 3.66m or 27% - 38%

NSW Dept of Planning

28/3/17

OCM

DA/127/2017             

2

15285

2

225

Carrington Road

COOGEE

2035

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 2012

R2 - Low Density Residential

Clause 4.4  - FSR = 0.75:1

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

 

FSR increased to 0.78:1  or 4% 

NSW Dept of Planning

13/4/17

Delegated

DA/679/2016             

1458

752011

 

44

Willis Street

KINGSFORD

2032

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 2012

R2 - Low Density Residential

Clause 4.3  - Building height of 12m

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

 

Building height is 12.275m increased by 275mm or 2.29%

NSW Dept of Planning

10/5/17

Delegated

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                            13 June 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Miscellaneous Report No. M2/17

 

Subject:              Impacts of the AHSEPP within suburbs of Randwick City

Folder No:                F2009/00315

Author:                     Elena  Sliogeris, Senior Environmental Planning Officer - Strategic Planning     

 

Introduction

 

This report responds to two resolutions of the Council on the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) (AHSEPP).

 

On the 24 May 2016, the Council resolved:

 

That Council, in recognising the increased use of the State Environmental Policy Affordable Renting Housing (AHSEPP) within suburbs of Randwick City and the interest such developments are generating within the community conduct a review and report on;

 

a)     The concerns developments utilising the AHSEPP are generating within the community;

b)     The effectiveness of the AHSEPP in meeting its objectives; and

c)     Actions the Council might consider to improve the application of the AHSEPP.

 

And on the 28 April 2015, the Council resolved:

 

That Council bring back a report and conduct a survey on all boarding houses approved under the State Affordable Housing Policy that are currently operating, to determine the parking demand generated by these developments.

 

In response to the above resolutions, Council officers have conducted a review of the AHSEPP within Randwick LGA and have outlined the findings in the discussion below. It is intended that this report be sent to the Department of Planning and Environment for their consideration and review of the SEPP to improve the planning policy’s application and address community concerns.

 

Background

 

The Affordable Rental Housing SEPP (AHSEPP) was introduced in July 2009, designed to increase new affordable housing and protect existing affordable housing. The AHSEPP introduced secondary dwellings, new generation boarding houses, and density bonuses for infill affordable housing and new generation boarding houses where residential flat buildings are permitted (R3 Medium Density Residential zone and the B1 Neighbourhood Centre and B2 Local Centre zones).

 

These provisions (designed to increase new affordable rental housing) are outlined in Part 2 of the AHSEPP and also includes development by Land and Housing Corporation (i.e social housing), supportive accommodation and group homes. Part 3 of the AHSEPP outlines provisions for the retention of existing affordable rental housing. These reflect those of the former SEPP 10 – Retention of Low Cost Accommodation, which the AHSEPP repealed.

 

A desktop audit of development approved under Part 2 of the SEPP was undertaken.

The table and graph below lists the development approved including the number of rooms and/or dwellings approved for each financial year since the SEPP was introduced in 2009. Note these numbers may vary subject to any subsequent modifications of consent.

 

 

Financial year

Secondary Dwellings

Boarding House (no. of rooms (approved)

Infill Affordable Housing (no. of units)

Group homes (no. of rooms)

Development under LAHC (no. of units)

2009/10

5

16

 

 

52

2010/11

18

121

 

 

13

2011/12

17

35

 

 

 

2012/13

21

28

 

 

 

2013/14

6

77

6

 

 

2014/15

16

73

 

5

 

2015/16

38

177

 

 

 

Total

121

527

6

5

65

 

As the table and graph above illustrates, both secondary dwellings and new generation boarding houses are the most popular form of development uptake under the AHSEPP in Randwick City. Given the number of boarding house applications under the AHSEPP being received in Randwick, this report addresses issues relating to new generation boarding houses in accordance with the council resolutions and considers the effectiveness of the AHSEPP in meeting its objectives in relation to this type of housing.

 

Boarding houses

Boarding houses are a form of residential accommodation which has traditionally been permissible across all residential zones.  In the Randwick LEP 2012, they are defined as:

 

“means a building that:

(a)    is wholly or partly let in lodgings, and

(b)    provides lodgers with a principal place of residence for 3 months or more, and

(c)    may have shared facilities, such as a communal living room, bathroom, kitchen or laundry, and

(d)    has rooms, some or all of which may have private kitchen and bathroom facilities, that accommodate one or more lodgers,

but does not include backpackers’ accommodation, a group home, hotel or motel accommodation, seniors housing or a serviced apartment.

 

Note. Boarding houses are a type of ‘residential accommodation’—see the definition of that term in the Standard Instrument Dictionary.

 

Boarding houses add to the diversity of housing and historically, they have provided low cost shared accommodation particularly in inner city areas, for single people on low incomes and in some instances for those with disabilities. Boarding houses are also flexible in terms of length of stay, are often furnished and have minimal or no set up costs (bonds and arranging utility connections) which can be prohibitive for low income earners/pensioners and those with disabilities.

 

Over the last 30 years, boarding houses experienced decline in inner city areas due to issues of financial viability, ageing stock and through the conversion into single dwellings (i.e. gentrification). However, since the AHSEPP was introduced, the number of boarding houses within Randwick City has steadily increased, reversing this trend of decline.

 

Boarding houses approved under the AHSEPP

Since the AHSEPP was introduced, more than 500 boarding house rooms have been approved mostly in the north of Randwick City (as shown in the map below). Many of the new boarding houses in Randwick City have been constructed and/or redeveloped in proximity to the University and hospital precinct and close to the town centres. The median number of boarding house rooms approved is 13 rooms. Anecdotal evidence suggests that these boarding houses are meeting a demand for student accommodation being located close to the UNSW.

 

While the AHSEPP permits traditional boarding houses with shared facilities, it also encourages new generation boarding houses which provide a range of self-contained rooms with their own kitchenettes and bathrooms. These new generation boarding houses are more akin to self-contained studios (i.e; 175 Avoca St, Randwick– see rental advertisement below) in terms of their visual appearance, size, and provision of kitchenettes and bathrooms and in some cases balconies.

 

The AHSEPP provides minimum floor areas for each bedroom in a boarding house (min 12 sqm – max 25 sqm). It outlines non-discretionary standards including FSR, building height, landscape treatment and car parking which mean that council cannot refuse boarding house developments if these standards are met. A bonus FSR of 0.5:1 applies to a boarding house under the SEPP on land where residential flat buildings are already permitted (i.e R3 Medium density residential zone, B1 Neighbourhood centre and B2 Local centre zones). Boarding house accommodation cannot be strata subdivided and therefore new accommodation must be maintained in the form of rental accommodation (under single ownership). In accordance with the Boarding Houses Act 2012, Council carries out an initial compliance investigation within 12 months of a boarding house being registered with the Department of Fair Trading to ensure compliance with the terms of the Act (in relation to fire safety and building standards). 

 

Location map of AHSEPP boarding houses approved and/or under assessment (April 2017)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Generation Boarding House at 175 Avoca St, Randwick advertised on domain.com.au (in March 2017) as a furnished studio for $500 per/week

 

While tariffs/rents for boarding houses are not regulated by the SEPP, affordable accommodation is encouraged by virtue of the size of the rooms being provided (i.e a maximum of 25 sqm). However, as discussed further in this report rental levels being achieved from these new generation boarding houses are considerably higher than traditional boarding house accommodation and beyond the reach of lower income earners.

 

These new type of boarding houses are attractive for developers as the AHSEPP offers a number of key advantages which aims to facilitate this type of development, being:

 

·     A FSR bonus on land where residential flat buildings are permitted.

·     The ability to construct boarding house rooms as small studio apartments (i.e. rooms can be far smaller than the 35sqm required for studios under SEPP 65) Note State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings does not apply to boarding houses.

·     The non-discretionary standards in the SEPP give developers a reasonable level of certainty that if they design to those standards, the consent authority will be unable to refuse their application on those grounds.

·     Steady long term rental returns (because boarding houses cannot be strata subdivided, they are held under the single title and provide steady long term rental returns to the owner).

Issues

 

Community concerns

New generation boarding houses under the AHSEPP have generated community concerns which mostly relate to:

 

·     The proliferation of new generation boarding houses within an area, i.e several boarding houses being developed in the single street, changing the character, amenity and streetscape of the area, and ‘increasing density by stealth’;

·     Provision of a density bonus which exceeds the permitted FSR in the local LEP -inequitable;

·     Lack of parking;

·     Transient population and antisocial behaviour;

·     Not providing genuine affordable rental accommodation to those in need.

Impact on local streetscape and character

A number of areas in Randwick now have several boarding houses within the same street such as Houston Road, Kingsford and Botany Street, Randwick and along Anzac Parade within the Kensington and Kingsford town centres. While this concentration of new boarding houses is generating community concerns, it should be noted, that these streets are in close proximity to the University and contain a mix of residential housing forms including single dwellings and multi- unit buildings of around 3-4 storeys.

 

Furthermore, the provision of a density (FSR bonus under the SEPP (in some instances) allows for greater bulk and scale leading to the perception that building densities have increased in these areas (although the maximum building height limit must still be adhered to). Accordingly, some community members describe this as ‘increasing density by stealth’. 

 

Councils are required by legislation to apply the FSR incentive available under the SEPP; and any amendments to the AHSEPP are the responsibility of the state government. Despite this, there are a number of local area provisions within the assessment process which need to be considered to address local streetscape impact and character.

 

Under the AHSEPP, proposals for boarding houses must also meet the ‘character of local area’ test as outlined in clause 30A of the AHSEPP. This clause states that:

 

‘A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.’

 

An assessment under this clause by the consent authority must consider as to whether a proposed development would be in harmony with the buildings around it. In addition to the AHSEPP, the provisions within Council’s LEP and DCP are also considered together in the assessment. For example, Randwick DCP 2013 section B1 Design, requires a detailed site and context analysis to be provided as part of any development application, including boarding houses. This is vital to achieving good urban design and is particularly important in Randwick City, with most development occurring in established neighbourhoods. Moreover, development adjacent to or in the vicinity of a heritage item or heritage conservation area, such as the West Kensington heritage conservation area, also needs to be considered for its likely effect on heritage significance and setting of the item and/or area.

 

Randwick DCP 2013 also contains specific controls for boarding houses under section C4 ’Boarding Houses’. These controls supplement the AHSEPP provisions and include design guidelines and operational requirements which aim to ensure quality yet affordable accommodation, effective on-going management and suitable living environment for both occupants and neighbours. However, these provisions could be strengthened if they were contained within the SEPP rather than the DCP.

 

Parking

The provisions within the AHSEPP state that if a proposed boarding house is within an “accessible location” (i.e 400m from a bus or light rail stop/ regular bus service or 800m to a railway station) the parking requirement under the AHSEPP allows for 1 space for every 5 bedrooms (0.2 per room) plus 1 space for a caretaker to be provided on the site. If a site is located further than 400m (less accessible) the parking requirement is higher, namely 2 spaces for every 5 rooms (0.4 spaces per room). The AHSEPP further stipulates that a council cannot refuse an application for a boarding house if the proposal complies with this car parking ratio (as well as the other design requirements under the SEPP). These current standards were incorporated following amendments to the SEPP in 2011 which (amongst other things) introduced higher parking requirements for boarding houses (previously 1 space per 10 rooms or 0.1 space per room).

 

Requirements for on-site parking impact considerably on the cost, layout and access arrangements for new development. Given that the Policy’s intent is to increase the supply and diversity of affordable rental housing, any increase in the parking requirement is likely to impact on the viability of boarding house construction and therefore undermine the intent of the Policy. 

 

Parking demands

The resolution of Council on 28 April 2015 sought that Council conduct a survey on all boarding houses approved under the AHSEPP that are currently operating, to determine the parking demand generated by these developments. Several matters are important to consider in response to Council’s resolution to carry out a parking survey of boarding houses approved under the SEPP. Firstly, Council does not have the details of people residing in these premises. As such the parking survey would need to rely on valid responses being received from owners and/or occupants. Secondly, conducting any type of field investigations to identify how many occupants leave/arrive home using private vehicles may be invalid particularly if the occupants parked far away from the premise. Moreover, even if Council was able to obtain the information it would be of limited benefit in terms of planning controls as Council is unable to adopt alternative parking requirements in our LEP or DCP which override the SEPP.

 

Based on these points, a more realistic and considered option is for the Council to write to the Minister for Planning requesting that the State Government carry out independent research on parking demand generated by boarding houses approved under the AHSEPP to determine if there are locational variations in parking demand across Sydney e.g. boarding houses located close to public transport compared to boarding houses located in less accessible locations.  It would also show any variations between new age boarding houses and older, more traditional boarding houses.  This approach would enable a more reliable survey sample size and provide more accurate information to assist in determining the need for changes to the parking controls under the AHSEPP. In addition, given that the SEPP has been in place for close to 8 years, a broader review of the operation and effectiveness of the AHSEPP is also timely (and required by legislation 5 years after its commencement). This could include post occupancy surveys which provide a snapshot of the operation and nature of boarding houses completed under the SEPP. This is discussed in more detail below under ‘next steps’. 

 

Lack of genuine affordable accommodation

The AHSEPP does not require boarding house accommodation to be leased at affordable and/or subsidised rents and are not required to provide housing assistance to specific target groups i.e very low to low income household groups.  However, as they are not able to be strata subdivided it does provide an increased supply of rental housing which can potentially impact the cost of rental housing.

 

A survey of rentals (in March-April 2017) for boarding house accommodation has shown that single rooms in older boarding houses  with shared facilities (no kitchenettes/bathrooms) are in the range $200- $250 per week.  Some of the boarding houses are furnished.  New generation boarding houses with their own kitchenettes and bathrooms range from $390-$500 per week.  By comparison, the Department of Planning’s table of low rental dwellings[1] median rent for bedsits in Randwick LGA is $360/week. The median market rent for a one bedroom unit in Randwick LGA for the Dec 2016 quarter was $520 per week (Rent and Sales Report Issue 118), see table below of comparable rents including student housing.

 

Table of market rents for Randwick LGA – Dec 2016 Quarter

 

One bedroom

Two bedroom

Median rent per/week

$520

$650

Source:http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/about-us/reports-plans-and-papers/rent-and-sales-reports/issue-118

 

Table of comparable rents – student housing at UNSW

 

Basser College

New College

Village

Warrane College

Weekly rent

$496*

$375

$463*

Source: http://www.housing.unsw.edu.au/node/164

*Note – weekly meals provided

 

Even these rents are not considered affordable for those households in the very low and low income bands (which could afford to pay a maximum of $244 - $390/week on rent respectively to be considered as affordable[2]).

 

The effectiveness of the AHSEPP in meeting its objectives

The aims of this Policy are as follows:

 

(a)    to provide a consistent planning regime for the provision of affordable rental housing,

(b)    to facilitate the effective delivery of new affordable rental housing by providing incentives by way of expanded zoning permissibility, floor space ratio bonuses and non-discretionary development standards,

(c)    to facilitate the retention and mitigate the loss of existing affordable rental housing,

(d)    to employ a balanced approach between obligations for retaining and mitigating the loss of existing affordable rental housing, and incentives for the development of new affordable rental housing,

(e)    to facilitate an expanded role for not-for-profit-providers of affordable rental housing,

(f)     to support local business centres by providing affordable rental housing for workers close to places of work,

(g)    to facilitate the development of housing for the homeless and other disadvantaged people who may require support services, including group homes and supportive accommodation.

 

These aims address the development options made permissible under the AHSEPP including secondary dwellings, supported accommodation, infill affordable rental accommodation, development for and behalf of Land and Housing Corporation, group homes and boarding houses. It also identifies the following key target groups including not-for-profit housing providers, workers, the homeless and other disadvantaged people.

 

In relation to new generation boarding houses (the focus of this report), it is questionable as to whether the new generation boarding houses under the AHSEPP can be defined as ‘affordable rental housing’ given the rents charged i.e. up to $500/week. As outlined above, these rents are not considered affordable to the key target groups (i.e very low, low and moderate income household groups) in need of affordable accommodation; and as such are better described as lower cost accommodation rather than ‘affordable rental accommodation’.

 

Moreover, given the strong development interest of boarding houses under the AHSEPP it demonstrates that not only the financial returns to the developers are favourable (some sources quote a 6.5%[3] - 8-9% [4] return on investment) but that there is strong demand for this type of housing; and it shows that boarding houses are filling an important gap in the local housing market i.e. between serviced apartments (which is an expensive form of short term accommodation) – and long term residential tenancy through a lease with the landlord. This type of accommodation may also be better suited to students who travel back home during the term breaks and as such do not have to enter into long term leases.

 

Improving the AHSEPP in relation to new generation boarding houses

However, based on the discussion above the following points are suggested to improve the planning policy’s operation and application in relation to boarding houses. They are:

 

·     Remove the density bonus and/or tie the density bonus towards an obligation of providing affordable rental accommodation i.e a proportion of the rooms be let out at affordable rents.

·     Implement an affordable rental scheme for all new generation boarding houses (i.e that a proportion of the rooms should be made affordable to the very low to moderate income households); and

·     Include amenity provisions within the SEPP for occupants within these buildings i.e. number of daylight hours etc.

It is understood that the Department of Planning and Environment is currently reviewing the AHSEPP; and as such it is timely that the Council officers submit the findings of this report and reiterate the need for the Department to conduct a detailed review of the AHSEPP including a post occupancy review. 

 

This review would include:

 

·     An audit of boarding houses approved under the AHSEPP, location and number of rooms approved.

·     A detailed post occupancy survey of these boarding houses, who are the tenants and rents charged;

·     Design and impact of the new generation boarding houses on the local streetscape including a review of the FSR incentive provided – is this really needed given the strong development interest and demonstrated financial returns;

·     A parking review including demand;

·     Strengthening amenity and design provisions for occupants; and

·     Importantly, mechanisms to secure genuine affordable housing outcomes for those who need it. As a minimum, any density bonuses provided to new generation boarding houses should be linked to genuine affordable housing outcomes i.e, proportion of boarding house rooms should be let out at affordable rental levels and be managed by a community housing provider to target those who need it most.

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.

 

Outcome 6:       A liveable city.

Direction 6e:     Enhance housing diversity, accessibility and adaptability to support our diverse community.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

A State Government planning policy which aims to increase affordable rental housing for the community is strongly supported. Boarding house developments is by far the most popular form of development uptake under the SEPP and is also the most contentious with the community. While this report has demonstrated that there is strong development interest in boarding houses and that these types of developments are meeting a demand in the local housing market; it has also shown that they are not providing affordable accommodation to those in need and/or as the AHSEPP promotes. Moreover, key aspects within the policy which aim to promote boarding house developments such as the density bonus are questionable.

 

It is important to note that Councils cannot amend and/or override a State Government planning policy as such the Department of Planning and Environment are best placed to conduct a comprehensive review of the AHSEPP and amend the policy to improve its application and operation. Given that the AHSEPP has been in operation for close to 8 years and the level of community concern, it is essential that the Department conduct and consult with councils as part of this review.

 

Recommendation

 

That the Council:

 

a)     seek the Department of Planning and Environment’s feedback on matters raised in this report including community concerns; and

 

b)     request the Department of Planning and Environment to conduct a comprehensive review the effectiveness of AHSEPP in meeting its objectives in consultation with councils. 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

    

 



[1] http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/planning-for-affordable-housing - AHSEPP Part 3 information ‘table of low rental dwellings (current)

[2] that is a maximum of 30% of household income

[3] http://www.afr.com/leadership/entrepreneur/housing-investors-turn-to-boarding-homes-to-boost-returns-20130807-jye4w

[4] http://www.thefifthestate.com.au/innovation/building-construction/tone-wheeler-on-the-boarding-house-boom-and-an-investment-opportunity/77728