RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

Tuesday 11 July 2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Centre 30 Frances Street Randwick 2031

Telephone: 1300 722 542

Fax: 02 9319 1510

 council@randwick.nsw.gov.au

www.randwick.nsw.gov.au


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                             11 July 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Planning Committee Meeting

 

Notice is hereby given that a Planning Committee Meeting of the Council of the City of Randwick will be held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, 90 Avoca Street Randwick on Tuesday, 11 July 2017 at 6:00 p.m.

 

 

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

 

Quorum:                             Eight (8) members

 

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

 

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Planning Committee Meeting - 13 June 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.

D54/17     353-355 Anzac Parade, Kingsford (DA/4/2017)........................................ 1

D55/17     9 Seaside Parade, South Coogee (DA/303/2013/B)................................. 21

D56/17     2 Robey Street, Maroubra (DA/785/2016)............................................... 43

D57/17     159 Arden Street, Coogee (DA/455/2015/B)........................................... 51

D58/17     133 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee (DA/173/2017) ...................................... 59

D59/17     23-23S Gilderthorpe Avenue, Randwick (DA/769/2016).......................... 81

D60/17     1 Coogee Street, RANDWICK (DA/555/2016) (Deferred)....................... 115

Miscellaneous Reports

Nil   

Closed Session (record of voting NOT required)

M3/17       AST Services Pty Ltd 1-59 Beauchamp Road, Matraville

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (g) Of the Local Government Act, as it deals with advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

  

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil  

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Planning Committee                                                                                                             11 July 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D54/17

 

Subject:              353-355 Anzac Parade, Kingsford (DA/4/2017)

Folder No:                DA/4/2017

Author:                     Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment      

 

Proposal:                  Integrated development for demolition of the existing structures, construction of shop top housing integrated development comprising a part 7 storey, part 4 storey development in 2 building forms retails fronting Anzac Parade, with 5 residential levels above, 1 retail level with 3 residential levels fronting Houston Lane, comprising 18 dwellings, basement parking for 28 vehicles (variation to height control). Consent is also required from Water NSW.

 

Ward:                        West Ward

Applicant:                MKD Architects Pty Ltd

Owner:                     N G Farah Real Estate

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=d89e325d-ebbc-4304-9f80-4f65cc966b20&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as it is values at over $2 million.

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

Proposal

 

The development application proposes the construction of a mixed-use development comprising a podium level with two tower elements above, over basement parking. The ground level is proposed to be built to all site boundaries and will contain commercial floor space and an atrium garden. One tower element is located at the front of the site and is oriented to Anzac Parade and the other is situated towards the rear of the site and is oriented to Houston Lane. The development contains 18 apartments comprising a combination of studio, single, two and three bedroom apartments.

 

Site

 

The site is located on the western side of Anzac Parade in Kingsford, in the block bounded by Borrodale Road and Southern Cross Close and is located within the Kingsford Commercial Centre. The subject site consists of a single, slightly irregular allotment. The site has a frontage (east) to Anzac Parade of 13.395 metres and a western boundary to Houston Lane of 13.41 metres. The northern boundary of the site measures 51.57 metres and the southern boundary 50.94 metres yielding a total site area of 689.9m². The site falls from west to east (rear to the front) approximately one metre.

 

The site is currently occupied by a two storey brick and tile building which fronts Anzac Parade. The existing building on the site is located approximately 30 metres from the rear boundary and has a detached single garage and hardstand parking area without significant planting to the rear. An existing driveway crossover exists on the western boundary providing rear lane access to Houston Lane.

 

Development in the locality is characterised by a mix of uses due to the range of zonings in the area. Several sites in the vicinity of the subject site have been redeveloped in accordance with the Business zoning along Anzac Parade. Sites to the north have been redeveloped for large, multistorey (up to 9 storey) mixed use buildings with commercial uses on ground floor level and residences above. To the north these larger buildings are interspersed with commercial/ residential buildings of 1-2 storeys in scale. Sites to the south of the subject site are also generally 1-2 storeys in scale and are also yet to be redeveloped. Directly north of the site at 345-351 Anzac Parade and further to the south of the site at 367-373 Anzac Parade are buildings noted as having contributory facades in the Kingsford Commercial Centre DCP. Sites to the rear of the subject site are zoned R3 and this area is characterised by 2-4 storey residential flat buildings, many with garages to Houston Lane. Directly opposite the site is 88-90 Houston Road, a surface public carparking area owned by Council.

 

 

Figure 1 : Subject site

 

Figure 2: Adjoining buildings to the north

 

 

Figure 3: Adjoining buildings to the south

 

 

Figure 4 : Mixed use building at 343 Anzac Parade, Kingsford

 

 

Figure 5: Rear lane frontage of the subject site

 

 

Figure 6: Council car park to the west of Houston lane

 

Figure 7: Eastern side of Houston lane looking north

 

Figure 8: Eastern side of Houston lane looking south

 

 

Figure 9: residential garage and church building to the south west

 

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.

 

Key Issues

 

Clause 4.6: Variations to a Development Standard

 

Height of Buildings

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

 

Proposed height of building

24.7 metres

Maximum height of building

24 metres

Height exceeding LEP control

700mm (3%)

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

 

In assessing whether the Applicants’ Clause 4.6 exception to the building height standard is well founded the following matters must be addressed:

 

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.  The objectives of the Height of Buildings standard are as follows:

 

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

 

Assessment:

The proposed development will result in a minor breach to the height of building development standard of 700 mm occurring at the lift overrun area for the building fronting Anzac Parade. The variation does not result in any adverse amenity impacts and the size and scale of the building will be consistent with the desired future character anticipated by the height standard. The exceedance of the lift overrun by 700 mm will not be visible from the streetscape given it is substantially setback from the front property boundary by approximately and will not be appreciated from Anzac Parade.

 

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 building adopts a street wall height of four storeys in recognition of the lower scaled facades of the contributory buildings neighbouring the subject site and will be suitably scaled within the existing streetscape.

 

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

 

Assessment:

 

·     The proposed scheme will not result in any adverse visual privacy impacts to the immediate neighbouring dwellings. The proposed layout for the buildings ensures that living areas are concentrated mainly internal to the site or to the street. Any proposed balconies are also oriented away from adjoining living spaces. The proposed building also incorporates louvers, planter boxes and blade walls that are effective in mitigating any privacy impacts.

 

·     The extent of the solar access impacts to the neighbouring buildings are acceptable. The proposed built form and its resultant shadow impacts are not a result of poor design but due primarily to the east west orientation of the site in relation to the adjoining development. The properties to the south & west would still receive an acceptable level of solar access given the density and height that is applicable with the zone. In this regard, the proposed building height and density are considered to be compatible with the desired future character and the additional impact associated with the non-compliant lift overrun would be negligible when compared with a complying height. In the morning, the overshadowing will fall onto Houston Lane and the garage structures associated with development fronting Houston Road. Throughout the middle of the day, shadow will be cast over adjacent development to the south, including the upper level north-facing windows of the adjacent building.

Overall, it is considered that an adequate level of sunlight will be retained and the proposed overshadowing will not detract from the amenity of the neighbouring properties. 

 

·     The additional building height does not contribute to adverse view loss impacts to the neighbouring buildings as the building volumes will be situated within the prescribed buildings zones on the site.

 

 Consistency with the objectives of the zone:

 

·     To provide a range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses that serve the needs of people who live in, work in and visit the local area.

 

The proposed development incorporates retail on the ground level addressing both the street frontages. The proposed retail uses will provide services to the local residents, visitors and employees.

 

The first floor level on the Anzac Parade building only has a floor to ceiling height of 2.7m which would not be suitable should there be a demand for first floor commercial in the future. A suitable condition is included that will require a 3.0m floor to ceiling height for this level to allow ongoing flexibility of building use. The increased height to the building of 300mm would be imperceptible and would not contribute in any significant amenity impacts to the streetscape or on neighboring properties.

 

Similarly, the proposal only provides for two adaptable apartments where four are required. A condition is included to identify two additional apartments that are capable of being adapted for a person with a disability to ensure an equitable supply of a variety of housing types within the town centre.

 

·     To encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations.

 

The proposed retail uses and increase in residential occupancy on the site will generate employment opportunities.

 

·     To maximize public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

 

The site is located within walking distance from public bus & the light rail service. The proposal will create a resident population, commercial patronage and employees that maximize usage of public transport. The development scheme has included adequate bicycle parking facilities to encourage sustainable modes of transport.

 

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

 

The proposal will introduce a residential population that contributes to the demand and economic viability of the local services and businesses.

 

·     To facilitate a high standard of urban design and pedestrian amenity that contributes to achieving a sense of place for the local community.

 

The ground floor retail will activate the Anzac parade and Houston lane frontages and the residential apartments above will offer casual surveillance of the surrounding public domain. The development will improve the pedestrian amenity, community safety and sense of place of the town centre. 

 

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

 

The proposal will provide for appropriately sized and scaled buildings that minimise the impacts to nearby residents, by placing the taller building on Anzac Parade and then transitioning to a lower building towards Houston lane.

 

·     To facilitate a safe public domain.

 

The ground floor retail suite will activate both street frontages and the residential apartments above will offer casual surveillance of the surrounding public domain.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Comments:

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

 

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

 

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

 

Site Consolidation

 

The proposal has a 13.4m frontage and FSR of 3.1 which does not comply with the requirement that a minimum site area of 800 square metres and a minimum frontage width of 18 metres are required for development seeking the maximum FSR and height allowable under the RLEP. Development on a site that does not comply with these controls should not exceed a maximum FSR of1.5:1.

 

The relevant objectives of the control are;

 

Objectives

 

·     To ensure development achieves an appropriate scale and form that enhances the streetscape.

 

·     To encourage site amalgamations and avoid ad-hoc or fragmented development that affects or limits development potential of adjacent sites.

 

The proposed scale & form of the buildings to both street frontages achieve an appropriate streetscape presentation. The development scheme adopts a height and scale which is compatible with the emerging character of the Kingsford Town Centre. The proposed design of the building on Anzac Parade has adequately addressed the objectives of the DCP in providing for a clear separation between a lower building volume with a human scale that defines the street edge and a higher element that is setback above. The first two storeys of the building on Anzac Parade will then transition to a higher element that is setback from the lower volume whilst still reinforcing the street hierarchy. The building will be of high architectural quality in terms of its massing, proportions and façade composition. The facades have a depth and solid to void ratio that is effective in reducing the bulk associated with a higher building. They exhibit a balance between vertical and horizontal sections whilst still maintaining a coherent architectural language. The pattern of balconies, screening devices and a combination of external treatments to all elevations also serves to create visual interest. The proposed buildings will provide a suitable infill development that adopts a height and scale which is compatible with the desired future character of the Kingsford Town Centre.

 

The neighbouring sites would not be isolated by the proposed development and have the opportunity to consolidate to create larger development parcels.

 

Rear Setback

 

The proposed building height for the rear block must not exceed a 45- degree sloping plane projected from a point 8 metres above ground level (existing) at the rear boundary. The proposed height of the rear block does not comply with his requirement for a distance of approximately 2.5m at its upper level.

 

The relevant objectives of the control are;

 

·     To ensure development achieves adequate level of solar access, ventilation, privacy and open space for the occupants.

 

·     To create a transition in building scale from the main streets towards the adjoining and nearby residential zones, overshadowing of those zones.

 

The proposed height of the rear block achieves the transition in scale from Anzac Parade to Houston lane as anticipated by the control. The less than required setback for the upper level is largely offset by the greater than required 2.5m increase in the rear setback for the entirety of the Houston Lane building. This will provide a greater overall spatial separation with the neighbouring properties across the lane and improves the amenity for the occupants of the Houston Lane building. The additional overshadowing from the reduced upper level setback will be minimal and falls mostly onto Houston Lane and the garage structures associated with development fronting Houston Road. Throughout the middle of the day, shadow will be cast over adjacent development to the south, including the upper level north-facing windows of the adjacent building. However, the resultant overshadowing associated with the non-compliant upper level setback would be negligible when compared with a complying setback and the shadow cast by the higher building on Anzac Parade.

 

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 clause 4.6 exception lodged with respect to the non-compliance with the maximum height standard is considered to be well founded in the circumstances.

 

The proposed building is appropriate on the site given the desired future character of the area, the objectives contained within SEPP 65, RLEP 2012 and the relevant requirements of RDCP 2013. The development proposes a building envelope, height and façade treatment that generally meet the criteria and fulfils these objectives.

 

The proposal will not have a significant impact on surrounding properties and the non-compliances with statutory and policy controls will not exacerbate impacts in an unacceptable manner. The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clause 4.3 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to Height of Buildings, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clause, 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. 4/2017 for Integrated development for demolition of the existing structures, construction of shop top housing integrated development comprising a part 7 storey, part 4 storey development in 2 building forms retails fronting Anzac Parade, with 5 residential levels above, 1 retail level with 3 residential levels fronting Houston Lane, comprising 18 dwellings, basement parking for 28 vehicles, at No. 353-355 Anzac Parade, KINGSFORD, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.  The floor ceiling height at the first floor level of the Anzac Parade Building must be 3.0m.

 

b.  Four (4) apartments must be identified on the floor plans pursuant to Condition No. 1 of this consent as being “adaptable dwellings” in accordance with Australia Standard 4299 Adaptable housing.

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DACompliance Report - 353-355 Anzac Parade, KINGSFORD

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                             11 July 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D55/17

 

Subject:              9 Seaside Parade, South Coogee (DA/303/2013/B)

Folder No:                DA/303/2013/B

Author:                     Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                  Section 96 modification of approved development by alteration to setbacks, some decks, internal changes, new pedestrian entry with canopy, vehicle entry forecourt, alterations to car hoist, garage and plant room, alteration to stair and some boundary walls, new planter on level 3, extend roof over level 2 patio, alter swimming pool, alter level 2 planter, external stairs, provide pizza oven to level 2 terrace, new deck in garden, new arches between pool and planter on level 1. Original consent: Demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of a new part 2 and part 4 storey dwelling house with garage, swimming pool and associated landscape works (variation to floor space ratio control).

Ward:                        East Ward

Applicant:                MHN DESIGN UNION

Owner:                     Mr N Kotzohambos & Mrs P Kotzohambos

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=484f44fb-34e9-40cb-bbcb-d6c35a2a26b4&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan


 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

Proposal

 

The Section 96 application seeks to modify the approved development as follows:

 

Height of building:

 

Increase roof level by 500mm (excluding lift overrun) from RL31.40 to RL31.90 inclusive of the following:

 

·     Increase level 5 by 300mm from RL28.30 to RL28.60

·     Increase level 4 by 300mm from RL25.00 to RL25.30

·     Increase level 3 by 200mm from RL22.00 to RL22.20

·     Reduce level 2 by 100mm from RL19.00 to RL18.90

·     Reduce level 1 by 220mm from RL15.62 to RL15.40

 

 

Western elevation fronting Seaside Parade: The proposed changes at the front western elevation relate to moving the enclosed car stacker building to the right hand side of the site behind landscaping, and an increase in the height of the roof by 500mm.

 

Floor area:

 

The modification application increases floor area by 18sqm from the approved 0.75:1 up to 0.78:1. The additional floor area is sought over the following areas of the development:

 

·     Levels 2 to 5: Extend stairwell by 400mm (for a length of 4m) to align with the main southern side elevation of the approved.

·     Level 4 & 5: Extend en-suite by 400mm (for a length of 3.35m) at rear south-eastern corner to align with the main rear building line. 

·     Level 4: Include 12sqm of floor area associated with the enclosed car hoist area as this area whilst for usually excluded parking area is in this instance included as the RDCP requires that any area for parking above that required by the provisions in Part B7 is included as floor area.

 

Level 5 (First floor above street level):

 

·     Replace flat roof over car hoist with a green roof.

·     Narrowing of stair-well and installation of Privacy screening across its surface

·     Modified window openings including:

o Three new north facing windows to bedroom 03;

o New privacy screen to altered north facing en-suite;

o New north facing window to master bedroom

o New south facing en-suite window;

o Reduced size of stairwell windows (including over level 4);

o New south facing bedroom 2 window (including reduction in size of south facing window to bedroom 2)

·     Rear balcony 928mm extension to be in line with the northern side elevation of the building;

·     Pergola roof extension at level 5 floor level to cover level 4 deck below;

               

Level 4 (Street level):

 

·     Relocate enclosed structure car hoist to the south western corner with a height of between 3.73m – 3.92m. Note: Amended plans received by Council on 23 February 2017 increase landscaping within the front setback;

·     Reduce width of rear deck by 685mm (for a length of 2.609m) to align with the dining room column behind.

·     Extend rear balcony by 496mm to be 3.105m deep (note: the S96 “A” application determined by the Land and Environment Court (the ‘Court’) required in condition 2iii a reduction in depth to a maximum of 2.610mm). This modification application effectively seeks to reduce the Court required 600mm down to 105mm for a 3.105m deep balcony.

·     Amend condition 2iii in S96 “A” requiring a 1.5m high lightweight privacy screen at northern side of rear balcony to allow for full height privacy louvre screens.

·     Install a new 1.8m high boundary wall and stairs along a portion of northern side boundary including an approximate increase in land level along the northern side passageway by around 250mm. The impacts are considered in relation to the proposed development for 7 Seaside Parade under DA/15/2017.

 

Level 3:

 

·     Extend by 631mm the rear balcony floor to provide roof covering over level 2 deck below.

·     Delete Condition 2v in S96 “A” requiring a 1.5m high and lightweight privacy screen at northern side of rear balcony to allow for full height privacy louvre screen.

·     New planter boxes to the northern side passageway in front of the reconfigured stairwell and bedroom 4.

·     Install a new 1.8m high boundary wall and stairs along a portion of northern and southern side boundary including an approximate increase in land level along the northern side passageway by around 250mm and along the southern side boundary by around 450mm.

·     Delete condition 2vii allowing for extension of the level three terrace to align with the terrace approved at No. 7 Seaside Parade.

·     Reconfigured internal layout

 

Level 2 (includes pool surface):

 

·     Reconfigured internal layout

·     Install new 1.8m high boundary fence along portion of the southern side and northern side boundary and reposition stairs along the side passageways;

·     Enclose previously open sides to the rear patio and extend roof covering by 631mm. Note the side walls will along the rear patio;

·     Relocate rear stairs from centre of the yard to the northern side passageway and reconfigure landscaping

·     Extend pool to the north and east to incorporate infinity edge design. Note: the extension of the pool remains behind the infinity pool approved at No. 7 Seaside Parade under DA/851/2016.

 

Level 1 (lower level):

 

·     Install stone clad walls and arches to allow for open space under pool;

·     Reduce the rear yard level by 220mm from RL15.62 to RL15.40

·     Install rear deck cantilevering 1.572m over the rock cliff face and water below (in line with cantilevered pool at the rear of No. 7 Seaside Parade approved under DA);

·     Amend garden turf area introducing permeable paving

 

Application history:

 

Original application: Approved by Council at the Planning Committee meeting on 3 December 2013. Demolition of existing dwelling, construction of part 2, part 4 storey dwelling with garage, swimming pool and associated works.

 

Section 96 “A” application: Approved by Council at the Planning Committee meeting on 14 October 2014 with three non-standard conditions.

 

·     Condition 2iii: required reduction in the depth of the level 4 rear deck to 2.610 and installation of a 1.5m high privacy screen along the northern side of the deck.

 

·     Condition 2iv required deletion of the privacy screens at the sides of the level 5 deck

 

·     Condition 2v: required a light weight privacy screen to the northern side of the level 3 deck.

 

This section 96 application seeks to alter conditions 2iii and 2iv with no changes affecting condition 2iv. In relation to condition 2iii, this s96 application seeks a 3.105m deep deck instead of the 2.610m deep deck required and to install a full height privacy screen instead of the lightweight 150mm high privacy screen; In relation to condition 2iv, this section 96 application seeks to install a full height privacy screen. This application also seeks to increase the depth of level 3 terrace effectively seeking to delete condition 2vii.

 

Site

 

The subject site is described as Lot 4 in DP 9452 and Lot A in DP 366853, No. 9 Seaside parade, South Coogee. The site is located on the eastern side of Seaside Parade, opposite its intersection with Edgecliff Avenue. The site has a significant fall from the street to the rear with a cross fall of approximately 9.5m. The rear boundary of the site is defined by the mean high water mark.

The site currently accommodates an empty allotment by virtue of the previous house being demolished as part of the original consent.

 

The adjoining site to the north is No. 7 Seaside Parade, also a site currently vacant by virtue of development consent issued for the demolition of the dwelling and construction of a new dwelling. It is noted that approvals issued are under DA/822/2013 and amended by DA issued under: DA/924/2014 & DA/851/2015; the subject application (DA/15/2017) is also an amending DA.

 

The adjoining site to the south is No. 11 Seaside parade, containing a two storey dwelling of older housing stock.

                                

Aerial view of subject site and objector’s site at No. 10 Seaside Parade.

 

Section 96 Assessment

 

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

 

Substantially the Same Development

 

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

 

The proposed modifications will not result in a significant change to the essence of the approved development as a dwelling house. Whilst quantitatively there are numerous changes, they are mostly minor detailing matters and don’t cumulatively transform the approved development into a subtantially different development. It is considered that the section 96 application will remain substantially the same development as that originally approved and an assessment is carried out against the proposed modifications.

 

 

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 submission was received as a result of the notification process from the property on the adjacent corner at No. 10 Seaside Parade:

 

Issue

Comment

View loss from the proposed modifications

See view sharing assessment in the key issues section of this report.

 

 

S79C Assessment

 

The site has been inspected and the application has been assessed having regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended. The key issues associated with the proposed S96 application are considered in the key issues section below.

 

Key Issues

 

The key issues associated with the proposed section 96 application seeking to modify the current consent includes:

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under Randwick LEP 2012. The proposal modifications to the development remain classified as a residential flat building and permissible in the zone. The following clauses of RLEP 2012 are relevant to the proposed development:

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum) (Cl4.4(2A))

0.6:1

0.78:1;

 

S96 “A” FSR: 0.75:1

Original FSR:  0.65:1;

No; see key issues section of report - a merit assessment is carried out against the objectives of the FSR standard in the key issues section below

Note: a Clause 4.6 request to vary Standard is not required for S96 applications. However, a clause 4.6 request was lodged with the original DA and it was determined acceptable.

Height of Building (Maximum) (Cl4.3)

9.5m

9.45m

Yes

Foreshore building line (FBL)/scenic protection area?

Limits development within the area beyond the FBL.

Modification works to the swimming pool, landscaping and exterior stairs are proposed beyond the FBL.

Yes, the modifications do not significantly alter the scale of development beyond the FBL and will not significantly alter the approved scale or topography within this area. The materials remain consistent with the originally approved colours and materials

 

·     R2 Low Density Residential (Land use in RLEP 2012

 

The subject site is located in the R2 zone and an assessment is required against the following relevant objectives of the R2 low density residential zone that seek:

 

·     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.

 

Streetscape

 

The modification application namely the additional floor space associated with the relocated car hoist from the northern side to the southern side of the site at the front has additional bulk and is located in close proximity to the front yard of No. 11 Seaside Parade. In terms of streetscape character, the location of the car hoist will generally be consistent with the garage and balcony above located at the front of No. 1 Seaside Parade (photo shown below). It is also noted that amended plans received by Council have reduced the dominance of the car hoist by design elements such as a green roof and greater front setback inclusive of landscaping. Further, properties along Seaside Parade (No. 11, 13 & 15 Seaside Parade including the majority on the opposite side) contain garages located forward of the main dwellings front building line.

 

Photo of garage and balcony above at the front of No. 1 Seaside Parade.

 

 

Overall, in terms of streetscape character the proposed relocation of the car hoist closer to the front boundary and to the southern side of the site will satisfy the relevant R2 zone objective.

 

Amenity of neighbouring properties

 

The key part of the development affecting the amenity of neighbouring properties relates to the relocation of the car hoist structure to the southern side boundary adjoining No. 11 Seaside Parade. In particular, the car hoist has a nil southern side setback and does not meet the 1.2m minimum side setback control under the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (RDCP) 2013. In relation to neighbour’s amenity, there will be a shadow cast over the neighbour’s front yard, however it is not considered that there will be any appreciable difference in shadowing on this neighbour’s front yard than that which would be caused by a compliant setback. Further, as indicated earlier there is a consistency of front garages with nil side boundary setbacks along both sides of Seaside Parade and more importantly the neighbour’s front yard is not their principle area of private open space and nor is it associated with their main living space both of which are located at the rear of the site not affected appreciable by the proposed modifications.

 

Overall, in terms of protecting the amenity of residents it is considered that the proposed modifications will reasonably protect their amenity.

 

·     Height of buildings (cl4.3 of RLEP 2012):

 

The proposal seeks to increase the height of the approved development in the following manner:

 

A 500mm increase in height of the development

 

The modification application has a height of 9.45m remaining below the 9.5m maximum overall height standard under the RLEP 2012. Although the development remains below the maximum, an assessment against the objectives of the standard is required to assess whether the proposed increase in height will be consistent with the desired future character of the streetscape and whether the environmental impacts on the neighbouring properties such as overshadowing, view loss, and visual amenity will be suitable.

 

In relation to views, a more detailed assessment is carried out in relation to the impact on No. 10 Seaside Parade:

 

·     Visual amenity and streetscape character.

 

The modification to the height will not be immediately discernable from the neighbouring properties or attain a height that would present as excessive bulk or scale especially considering that the proposed heights will be below the maximum height Standard in the RLEP. The proposal also has a height (RL31.90) is lower than the height of other developments along Seaside Parade having particular regard to No. 5 (RL33.48) & No. 7 Seaside Parade (RL33.07). In terms of streetscape character, as indicated in the preceding section it is considered that the modification application will satisfy the streetscape objectives. In relation to visual amenity, it is considered that the modification application (except for the increase in height to privacy screens and side passageways and associated fencing) the modification application will not result in any appreciable difference in impacts on the neighbouring properties.

 

·     Overshadowing

 

No submissions were received from the neighbouring properties in relation to additional shadow impacts on their properties. Notwithstanding, the fact that the site and blocks along this side of Seaside Parade are configured on an east west axis it means that the southern neighbour is particularly vulnerable and therefore there is a level of unavoidable overshadowing from the modification application. The difference between the overshadowing caused by the approved development and the modification application is very minor and as indicated the overall height remains below the maximum under the RLEP.

 

Overall, the proposed modifications will not result in any unreasonable levels of shadowing to the neighbouring properties.

 

·     Views

 

View sharing assessment is carried out in the RDCP section further below.

 

·     Floor space ratio (Cl4.4 of RLEP 2012)

 

The proposal seeks an additional 18m2 of floor area to the site resulting in an FSR of 0.78:1 which is substantially over the 0.6:1 maximum permitted under the RLEP 2012. The proposed modifications further exceed the maximum floor space ratio applying to the site under Cl 4.4 of the RLEP 2012. A clause 4.6 exception to a development standard is not required for a Section 96 modification a Clause 4.6 request was lodged with the original application and it was determined satisfactory.  However an assessment against the objectives of the standard and the zone is required. In this respect the key objectives requiring assessment are whether the proposed increase in floor area will be consistent with the desired future character of the streetscape and whether the environmental impacts such as overshadowing, view loss, and visual amenity will be suitably minimised. These are addressed as follows:

 

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

 

As indicated in the previous section relating to the R2 low density zone, the bulk and scale of the proposed modifications are generally consistent with other development in the locality. The modifications maintain a two storey envelope, and a contemporary architectural style and generally remains consistent with the existing and likely future style of development in the area.

 

In terms of bulk and scale along the rear, the proposed modifications do not alter the continuance of stepping down to the rear following the natural slope of land towards the sea. In seeking to remove stepped in elements that appear haphazard and disjointed the additional floor area will provide clear horizontal lines across the façade and considered to provide a coherent built form that more readily contributes to the architectural language of the development along the foreshore.

 

In terms of FSR, the modification application is similar to the FSR of other development along this side of Seaside Parade whereby a large portion of floor area is contained below ground level existing. In addition, the large portion of the developments floor area remains below ground level existing contained in a small part of level 3 and most of the whole of Level 2. If the area associated with these aspects of the development were to be excluded from the FSR calculations there would be a sizable reduction in the apparent FSR across the site down to around 0.65:1.

 

Overall, in terms of desired future character of the locality, the modification application remains a two storey development at the front and a five level stepped down building mostly following the natural fall of land and the proposed modifications are considered to achieve a more coherent design outcome and will satisfy this objective.

 

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

 

The modification application remains well articulated for the purposes of environmental needs and an amended BASIX certificate has been submitted with the application. In particular, the additional window openings predominately to bathrooms and bedrooms which serve to minimize reliance on artificial lighting. This objective is considered to be satisfied.

 

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 neighbour’s amenity will generally be well protected as the additional floor area is predominately located at the front of the site and where there is additional floor area at the rear it is very minor and unlikely to have any significant impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

 

·     Foreshore scenic protection area (Cl 6.7) and foreshore building line (Cl.6.6)

 

The RLEP 2012 contains provisions that seek to ensure development is appropriate for the location and does not detract from the scenic qualities of the coast.

 

The most pronounced modifications affecting the foreshore scenic protection area and foreshore building line relate to the lower level. These include extending the infinity edge of the pool, a new cantilevered deck and use of stone clad walls and arches.

 

These modifications will be consistent with the foreshore building line and foreshore scenic protection area provisions for the following reasons:

 

These modifications overall do not add any significant bulk to the development and as indicated previously provides for a more streamlined built form facing the foreshore which translates into a better outcome in terms of a coherent architectural language;

The modifications to the pool and new cantilevered light weight deck are in keeping with the general scale of development already approved on the neighbouring properties at No. 7 and No. 5 Seaside Parade respectively.

The redesigned undercroft pool area providing an undercroft area of POS and landscaping uses durable material, follows the approved and natural fall of land

 

Overall, the modifications will not dominate the site and nor will they detract from the qualities of the foreshore scenic protection area or the foreshore building line.

 

Randwick Development Control Plan (RDCP) 2013

 

The DCP provisions are structured into two components, Objectives and Controls. The Objectives provide the framework for assessment under each requirement and outline key outcomes that a development is expected to achieve. The controls contain both numerical standards and qualitative provisions. Any proposed variations from the controls may be considered where the applicant demonstrates that an alternative solution could satisfy the relevant objectives.

 

·     Front and side setbacks

 

The location of the car hoist in relation to the front and side setbacks has been assessed in the previous section of this report under the R2 zone objectives. This assessment concludes that the forward location and nil southern side setback of the car hoist structure are considered acceptable having regard to the objectives that seek to ensure the development is consistent with the established and desired future streetscape character and will not result in any significant impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring properties – both of which are key objectives under the RDCP for setbacks.

 

·     Privacy

 

An assessment of privacy from windows and balconies is carried out against the relevant RDCP privacy objective which seeks:

 

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

 

·     Windows

 

The modification application seeks changes to the size of window openings and to install new windows and as follows:

 

Level 5 (First floor above street level):

 

·     Modified and new window openings including:

Three new north facing windows to bedroom 03;

New privacy screen to altered north facing en-suite;

New north facing window to master bedroom

New south facing en-suite window;

Reduced size of stairwell windows (including over level 4);

New south facing bedroom 2 window (including reduction in size of south facing window to bedroom 2)

 

Level 3:

 

New north facing window to Guest bedroom

New south facing windows to laundry and bathroom and bedroom 4

 

The above modifications to window openings are associated with bedrooms and bathrooms that is low use rooms. These bedrooms and bathrooms generally contain their own privacy measures, and are not used for entertaining purposes which would lend it to adverse privacy impacts on the neighbouring properties. Therefore, it is not considered that there are any additional privacy measures required to be imposed on modifications to windows.

 

·     Balconies and decks

 

The application seeks modification of balconies as follows:

 

Level 5 (First floor above street level):

 

Rear balcony 928mm extension to be in line with the northern side elevation of the building;

Pergola roof extension at level 5 floor level to cover level 4 deck below;

 

Level 4 (Street level):

 

Extend rear balcony to the rear by 496mm to be 3.105m deep (note: the S96 “A” application determined by the Land and Environment Court (L&EC) required this rear deck to be a maximum depth of 2.610mm requiring a 600mm reduction – condition 2iii). This modification application effectively seeks to reduce the 600mm reduction required by the Court determined S96 “A” application.

Reduction down to 105mm to a maximum depth of 3.105m.

Reduction in width of rear deck by 685mm (for a length of 2.609m) to align with the dining room column behind.

Extend privacy louvre screening into full height screens at northern side of rear balcony. Note: Condition 2iii of the L&EC determination of S96 “A” required a 1.5m high and lightweight privacy screen along the northern side of the balcony and this modification seeks to effectively delete this condition.

 

Level 3:

 

Extend privacy louvre screening into full height screens at northern side of rear balcony. Note: Condition 2v of the L&EC determination of S96 “A” required a 1.5m high and lightweight privacy screen. This proposal effectively seeks to remove this condition.

Delete condition 2vii to allow for extension of level three terrace to align with the terrace at No. 7 Seaside Parade.

 

Level 1 (lower level):

 

Install rear deck cantilevering 1.572m over the rock cliff face and water below (in line with cantilevered pool at the rear of No. 7 Seaside Parade approved under DA);

 

Assessment comments:

 

Balconies proposed within the modification application are exposed allowing for views across to neighbouring properties. This outcome is not dissimilar to the configuration of balconies at the rear of dwellings along this side of Seaside Parade or those located along the eastern seaboard. The reason is to retain as expansive as possible of the ocean up and down the coast which has a greater expectation than privacy protection between neighbouring properties. Given that the change to the privacy screens at the northern side of rear balconies on level 3 and 4 will result in some view loss from the rear balcony of No. 11 Seaside Parade it is recommended that condition 2iii  and 2v be retained.

 

The modification application seeking to extend balconies at levels 4 (and pergola) & 5 will not result in any unreasonable privacy impacts.

 

The modification seeking to delete condition 2vii will allow for a consistent alignment of built form along the rear of the subject site as well as that approved at No. 7 Seaside Parade and the land level at No. 11 Seaside Parade which has a rear yard adjoining at RL21.99 and not dissimilar to the level 3 terrace which is at RL22.10 and not dissimilar to the existing land levels at the rear at RL21.99. The proposed deletion of condition 2vii. 

 

Aerial photo: shows the rear alignment of terraced open spaces at the rear of dwellings along Seaside Parade. The levels are relatively similar to the proposed level 3 terrace area.

 

View sharing assessment

 

The modification application results in the loss of views from the following properties:

 

·     No. 10 Seaside Parade (upper level) made a submission to Council

·     No. 11 Seaside Parade (rear first floor level balcony towards Wedding Cake Island (no submission received);

 

An assessment of view sharing (and loss) is considered against Council DCP provision and the applicable 4 step process provided by 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 (quality of views). 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.

 

10 Seaside Parade:

 

Ground level:

The ground level view is across the face of buildings on the opposite side of Seaside Avenue. The view is not of high quality being limited to small slither of the horizon above the existing dwellings and in between. In fact, the additional height will not result in any further loss of views from the ground level of No. 10 Seaside Parade and no further consideration having regard to steps 2 to 4 will be undertaken.

 

First floor level:

The view from the upper level is from living rooms including lounge, dining and kitchen as well as a front balcony. Photo 1 below shows the expansive ocean view taking in the horizon and to the south east the interfacing ocean with headland. Some of these views are inter by trees. These ocean views are moderately valuable given they are horizon views and the interfacing ocean and headland views are of higher value however the value is somewhat reduced by the interrupting vegetation.

 

Photo: view from first floor level living areas of No. 10 Seaside Parade. The red line indicates the eave height of the development at No. 5 Seaside Parade– white building in the photo. A review of documentation submitted as part of other applications reveals that the development will have a roof height similar to the eave height of No. 5 Seaside Parade.

 

11 Seaside Parade

Photo: Taken during assessment of original DA application. The view is in a northerly sideways direction across the rear of the site and takes in views of Wedding Cake Island and northern headland of Coogee Bay.

 

 

The view is considered highly valuable.

 

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.

 

10 Seaside Parade

 

There is a reasonable expectation of view retention from the upper level of No. 10 Seaside Parade as it’s directly from the front. This is off course subject to the extent of the impact and reasonableness of the development.

 

11 Seaside Parade

 

The northerly view is a sideways view and from an underdeveloped site, however as indicated in previous sections buildings along the foreshore are designed to retain an expansive a view as possible up and down the coast. In this respect, the key control relevant to whether there is a reasonable expectation of view retention relates mainly to the rear building line and whether the proposed modifications to the privacy screen are considered reasonable the subject of assessment in step 4 of this assessment of view sharing.

 

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.

 

10 Seaside Parade

 

Direct easterly view above the development

 

The impact of the modification application to the direct easterly horizon view of the ocean above the development will be moderate retaining a smaller view of the ocean in the horizon.

 

Easterly and south easterly view

 

There will be no impact on views moving south-east that take in the views of the interfacing ocean and headland which are considered to be more valuable than the preceding view above the development in a direct easterly direction.

 

11 Seaside Parade

 

The views lost from the rear balcony at No. 11 Seaside Parade will be greater than those views that were sought to be retained by the requirement for light weight privacy screens and to be a maximum of 1.5m in height;

 

 

 

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 neighbour’s. 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.

 

10 Seaside Parade

 

Height of the building

 

The proposed development is considered to meet the reasonability test for the following reasons:

 

·     The height remains below the height of buildings standard in the RLEP; The proposal also has a height (RL31.90) is lower than the height of other development’s along Seaside Parade having particular regard to No. 5 (RL33.48) & No. 7 Seaside Parade (RL33.07).

·     High quality views will still be retained to the north and south easterly direction

·     The views over the top of buildings as demonstrated in photo in step 1 is only every a narrow view of the ocean in the horizon which is on balance considered to be of relatively low value.

·     The majority of higher value views retained to the south east of the interfacing ocean with the headland.

 

Overall, the proposed 500mm high extension to the roof will not result in any significant impacts on views from No. 10 Seaside Parade.

 

11 Seaside Parade

 

·     Modifications to privacy screens

 

The proposed changes to louvre screens at the northern side of level 3 & Level 4 balconies changing from light weight 1.5m high screens with full height screens will result in loss of views from their rear balcony. A review of the subsequent section 96 determination reveals that the reasons Conditions 2iii and 2v (in Court determined S96 DA/303/2013/A) requiring 1.5m high lightweight privacy screens was to retain sideways view of Wedding Cake Island and headland beyond. As previously indicated, the design of rear balconies is to achieve as expansive a view as possible of the coastline and that this sometimes occurs at the expense of privacy from rear balconies along the coastline. In this respect, the proposed modifications to privacy screening does not appear to provide any greater level of privacy to the occupants of approved development and yet will result in additional impact in terms of view loss from the rear balcony of No. 11 Seaside Parade. Moreover, the proposed full height privacy screens will also add much greater visual bulk along the northern side elevation projecting much further to the rear tan structures on the approved development at No. 7 Seaside Parade. Therefore it is not considered that there is a reasonable development expectation for these full height privacy screens and it will not achieve a good planning outcome,

 

Therefore, recommendation is made that conditions 2iii and 2v retain the requirement for a 1.5m high light weight privacy screen.

 

·     Extension of level 4 balcony and new pergola over

 

The proposed extension of level 4 rear balcony and pergola over is minor and will not significantly obstruct views from the rear balcony of No. 11 Seaside Parade subject to the requirement for retention of light weight 1.5m high privacy screens.

 

·     Fencing (boundary walls) and altered side passageways

 

The proposed modifications seek to increase land levels by between 250mm and 450mm and install 1.8m high side boundary fencing along the southern and northern side boundaries. This will result in 2.25m high fence along the side passageways.

 

There is a concern that the proposed increase in land levels and fencing atop will result in loss of views from the rear balcony of No. 11 Seaside Parade. In the same vain as the recommendation to retain the 1.5m high light weight privacy screens for the retention of views from the rear balcony of No. 11 Seaside Parade it is recommended that the following amendments be made to the side passageways levels and the maximum height of the side boundary fencing:

 

Southern side boundary: land level beyond the south eastern corner of the development to be reduced by 450mm (RL21.75) and a 1.8m fence on top;

Northern side boundary: land level to be reduced by 250mm and a 1.8m high fence on top of finished land level;

 

A condition is also included requiring suitable treatment of the fencing facing the neighbouring properties. As such condition 2ii shall be amended to reflect approval of fencing and requirement for suitable treatment.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed modifications in relation to the location of the car hoist are, as conditioned, suitable for the site given the reasons outlined in the body of this report and having particular regard to the context of the surrounding area.

 

The proposed modifications that do not satisfy the relevant objectives having regard to visual amenity and views relate to the replacement of the northern side privacy screens to rear terraces and the resultant view loss from the rear of No. 11 Seaside Parade looking towards wedding cake island and the headland beyond. Similarly, the proposed increase in land level along the southern side passageway inclusive of proposed fencing also has the potential to result in view loss. As such, the conditioned retention of lightweight privacy screens, reducing both land levels and fence height limit views lost from the rear of No. 11 Seaside Parade.

 

The proposed Section 96 application as conditioned complies with key relevant assessment criteria and will not result in significant adverse impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining premises and the desired character of the area. In short the proposed development meets the key objectives of the R2 Low Density zone and the key objectives of the FSR standard.

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/303/2013 to modify the approved development by alteration to setbacks, decks, internal changes, new pedestrian entry with canopy, vehicle entry forecourt, alterations to car hoist, garage and plant room, alteration to stair and some boundary walls, new planter on level 3, extend roof over level 2 patio, alter swimming pool, alter level 2 planter, external stairs, provide pizza oven to level 2 terrace, new deck in garden, new arches between pool and planter on level 1 at No. 9 Seaside Parade, Coogee NSW 2034, 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

 

·            Amended Condition No. 1 to read:

 

1.        The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans and documents listed below, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application,

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

DA2002B

MPR

3/10/13

4/10/13

DA2003B

MPR

3/10/13

4/10/13

DA2004C

MPR

7/11/13

7/11/13

DA2005B

MPR

3/10/13

4/10/13

DA2006B

MPR

3/10/13

4/10/13

DA2007B

MPR

3/10/13

4/10/13

DA2008C

MPR

7/11/13

7/11/13

DA2009B

MPR

3/10/13

4/10/13

DA2010B

MPR

3/10/13

4/10/13

DA2011B

MPR

3/10/13

4/10/13

DA2012B

MPR

3/10/13

4/10/13

DA2013B

MPR

3/10/13

4/10/13

DA2014B

MPR

3/10/13

4/10/13

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

483625S

21 May 2013

22 May 2013

 

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

 

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

DA 02 (B-a)

MHNDUnion

16.11.2016

23 February 2017

DA 03 (B-a)

16.11.2016

23 February 2017

DA 04 (B-a)

20.02.2017

23 February 2017

DA 05 (B)

16.11.2016

18 November 2016

DA 06 (B)

16.11.2016

18 November 2016

DA 07 (B)

16.11.2016

18 November 2016

DA 08 (B)

16.11.2016

18 November 2016

DA 09 (B-a)

16.11.2016

23 February 2017

DA 10 (B)

16.11.2016

18 November 2016

DA 11 (B)

16.11.2016

18 November 2016

DA 12 (B)

16.11.2016

18 November 2016

DA 13 (B-a)

20.02.2017

23 February 2017

DA 22 (B)

20.02.2017

23 February 2017

DA 23 (B)

20.02.2017

23 February 2017

LPDA 17 – 146/1 Rev B

Conzept

15.11.16

18 November 2016

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

483625S_02

17 November 2016

18 November 2016

 

except as may be amended  by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

Amend condition 2 to read:

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

i.    The following window/s must have a minimum sill height of 1.6m above floor level, or alternatively, the window/s are to be fixed and be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing below this specified height:

 

·         North-facing windows of bedroom 3 (level 5)

·         North facing window of living room (level 5)

 

Alternatively, external privacy screens may be attached to the windows nominated to a minimum height of 1.6m above the internal floor level. The external privacy screens must be configured to restrict overlooking into the habitable rooms and rear yard of the neighbouring dwellings.

 

The external screens shall be designed as follows:

 

•     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.

 

Treatment of the all windows and approved privacy screens must be installed prior to the issue of any occupation certificate.

 

Condition 2ii is amended to read:

ii.    The treatment of the fence along the northern and southern side boundary shall be carried out to good workmanship to ensure consistency with the material and colour scheme of the neighbouring dwellings. Details of colours and materials and finishes for fencing shall be submitted to Council’s Manager of Development Assessment for approval prior to an construction of the side boundary fencing/walls encompassed within this application.

 

        Condition 2iii is amended to read:

iii.   A light weight privacy sceren to a height of 1.5m shall be erected along the northern edge of the rear level 4 deck. Details must be submitted to and approved by Councils Manager Development Assessment for approval prior to issuing an amended Construction Certificate and prior to installation of the privacy screen.

·    

iv.   Condition 2iv is deleted.

 

v.   Conditoin 2v is retained.

 

Amend Condition 2vi to read:

vi.   The land levels along the southern side passageway shall be reduced by 450mm down to RL21.75 and the southern side boundary wall/fence shall be no higher than 1.6m above the finished land level of RL21.75.

 

vii.  Condition 2vii is deleted.  

 

viii. The Banksia Serata in the rear yard shall be located 3m from the northern side boundary adjoining No. 7 Seaside Parade. 

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                             11 July 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D56/17

 

Subject:              2 Robey Street, Maroubra (DA/785/2016)

Folder No:                DA/785/2016

Author:                     Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                  Alterations to an existing secondary dwelling.

Ward:                        Central Ward

Applicant:                Carolyn Phillis

Owner:                     Carolyn Phillis

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=bdf7eeb2-c1e7-4c1e-a837-943369509361&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 


 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Council for determination as the proposal is a variation to the floor area standard in the State Environmental Planning Policy – Affordable Rental Housing by more than 10%.

 

Proposal

 

The application details an addition to the rear of the existing secondary dwelling by the enclosure of an existing covered patio with glass louvres and the demolition of existing wall and windows between the patio and living area.

 

Site

 

The site is on the western side of Robey Street on the corner of Walsh Avenue and has an irregular shape with a site area of approximately 437m². The site contains an existing dwelling and secondary dwelling. The secondary dwelling was approved under Development Application 514/2013. The existing building is a heritage item listed in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan.

 

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 response has been received.

 

Key Issues

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) - Affordable Rental Housing 2009

 

The SEPP was introduced on 31 July 2009 to increase the supply and diversity of affordable rental and social housing in NSW. The SEPP was amended on 20 May 2011 to require new in-fill development; low rise development; boarding houses, and Housing NSW proposals to be subject to a local character test to ensure that developments are consistent with the design of the local area and the affordable housing component being provided as a percentage of the total floor space. The amendment does not change provisions for other types of accommodation such as granny flats, group homes and supportive accommodation.

 

This application has been submitted seeking consent under Division 2 of the SEPP: Affordable housing 2009 for Secondary dwellings and its provisions will not be affected by the abovementioned review. Under Division 2 the following clauses are relevant:

 

Clause 19 Definition

The proposed development falls within the scope of the definition of a secondary dwelling in that it entails development for the purposes of a secondary dwelling by use of a structure which is not an individual lot in a strata plan or community title scheme.

 

Clause 20 Land to which this division applies

This subject site is located on Zone R2 Low Density Residential identified under the SEPP Affordable Rental Housing 2009 and the development for the purposes of a secondary dwelling is permissible on the land.

 

 

Clause 21 Development to which Division applies

The proposed development for a secondary dwelling may be carried out with consent under this SEPP subject to Clause 22 below.

 

Clause 22   Development may be carried out with consent

Under Subclause 3(a) & (b) the following criteria apply:

 

(a)      the total floor area of the principal dwelling and the secondary dwelling must be 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.

 

The proposal complies with the LEP for dwelling houses with a combined floor space ratio of 0.39:1. The proposed floor area of the secondary dwelling does however exceeds the 60m² allowable in the SEPP for Affordable Housing, being 68m². An exception to the development standard has been lodged for consideration, see discussion below.

 

Clause 23   Complying development

The proposed development is not complying development as defined under the SEPP as it forms part of the proposed development of the existing structures which are detailed in a Development Application.

 

Clause 24   No subdivision

The proposed development does not result in any subdivision of the lot on which development for the purposes of the secondary dwelling has been carried out under this Division.

 

Exception to Development Standard

 

Clause 4.6 of the Randwick LEP 2012 details exceptions to development standards and includes objectives which seek to;

 

(a)      Provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development.

(b)      Achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.

 

Development consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument. However, this clause does not apply to a development standard that is expressly excluded from the operation of this clause.

 

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.

 

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

 

(a)      The consent authority is satisfied that:

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

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

 

(b)      the concurrence of the Director General has been obtained.

 

In deciding whether to grant concurrence, the Director General must consider:

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

(b)      the public benefit of maintaining the development standard, and

(c)      any other matters required to be taken into consideration by the Director General before granting concurrence.

 

The proposal contravenes the maximum floor area development standard as details in the SEPP – Affordable Rental Housing. The applicant has submitted a written request that seeks to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LEP.

 

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Floor Area

Proposal

68m²

Development standard

60m²

Excess above or less than the standard

11.4% excess (8m²)

 

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 underlying objectives of the FSR of buildings standard SEPP Affordable Housing are to control the visual bulk and scale of the secondary dwelling and to ensure that it is subservient to the principal dwelling house on the land.

 

The applicant’s written justifications state that the proposed will still meet the objectives of the development standard for the following reasons:

 

i.  The additional building envelope is consistent with the desired future character of the locality.

ii.  The proposed form contributes to a well articulated building form.

iii. The additional volume is concealed from the view of the public domain and adjacent site.

iv. The scale of the development will not result in detrimental impacts to the adjacent sites or public domain, being a single storey envelope and the scape of the current application simply seeks to enclose an existing space. As such there is no additional potential for overshadowing, or impacts on acoustic or visual privacy.

v. The overall floor space for the site is compliant under the Randwick LEP.

vi. As the objectives of the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP seeks to increase the affordability of quality housing consideration should be made in regards to the amenity of such dwellings, this proposed floor area greatly improves the amenity for the occupants whilst having no impact on surrounding sites.

The applicant’s argument has merit and it is considered that the proposal is satisfactory and strict compliance with the floor area standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case for the following reasons:

 

The resultant floor area of the secondary dwelling will not result in any adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining residents with respect to overshadowing, loss of privacy or visual outlook.

 

It therefore cannot be argued that concurrence to this variation is in conflict with the objectives of the standard as the resultant floor area will not result in any unreasonable impact to the amenity of the local residents because the floor area of the secondary dwelling remains consistent with the existing and adjoining buildings and satisfies the objectives in the FSR in the RLEP standard in that the size and scale of the development is compatible with the desired future character of the locality. The low floor space ratio achieved on the site also demonstrates that the size of the secondary dwelling is appropriate to the proportions of the site and will remain subservient to the principal dwelling house on the site.

 

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that allowing for a departure from the floor area standard would not result in any unreasonable amenity impacts on the adjoining properties.

 

The proposal in its current form will be in the public interest as it will remain consistent with the objectives of the floor area standard and the zoning objectives.

 

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

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

 

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

 

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 FSR standard. 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 provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

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

•     To protect the amenity of residents.

•     To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives that are relevant because it is sympathetic to the existing residential environment and built form and would have an acceptable impact on the amenity of residents and is compatible with the desired future character of the locality.

 

The proposed development is considered to be in the public interest because it is 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.

 

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 granting of  development consent to the development that contravenes the development standard for height of buildings in clause 4.3 of RLEP 2012.

 

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

 

The proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical standard will not be necessary, in this case, for maintaining the low density housing forms in the locality, including dwelling houses and semi-detached housing, and the like, where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development.

 

The proposed development satisfies the provisions of Clauses 4.6(3) and (4) of the RLEP 2012. Therefore, the applicant’s written justifications for contravening the FSR standard is considered to be well founded and is supported.

 

Heritage

 

The existing dwelling is a Post War dwelling with typical period features such as stepped brickwork on gable overhangs, terracotta tile, textured brick and decorative use of brickwork. The dwelling is listed under Part 1 of Schedule 5 of the Randwick LEP as ‘Post war style residence’.

 

The proposal has been referred to Council’s Consultant Heritage Planner for comment and advice has been provided that as the addition is sited to the rear of the site there will be no physical or visual impact upon the historical fabric of the heritage item and will not be visible from the public domain, and therefore the proposal are acceptable from a heritage perspective.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed alterations and additions to the existing secondary dwelling will not result in any adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties and will satisfy the relevant objectives in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the Randwick Development Control Plan – Low Density Residential.

 

 

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 the Floor Area Standard as detailed in the State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) – Affordable Rental Housing 2009 on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above RLEP 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. 785/2016 for alterations and additions to the existing secondary dwelling at No. 2 Robey Street Maroubra subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - DA/785/2016 - 2 Robey Street, MAROUBRA 

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                             11 July 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D57/17

 

Subject:              159 Arden Street, Coogee (DA/455/2015/B)

Folder No:                DA/455/2015/B

Author:                     Plandev Pty Ltd, Thomas Mithen     

 

Proposal:                  Section 96 modification of approved development by alteration to car parking and to address deferred commencement condition 1.  Original consent: Alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building including new rear and upper floor additions to create a total of 6 dwellings (1 x 2 bedroom, 5 x 3 bedroom), 8 car spaces and solar panels on roof

Ward:                        North Ward

Applicant:                ASA Architects Pty Ltd

Owner:                     The Owners - Strata Plan No. 77817

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=36372fbb-e345-44fd-bf80-a7fedfb3ecdc&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan


 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application was assessed by external planning consultant and is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as one of the owners in the strata plan for 159 Arden Street, Coogee is a friend of a Randwick City Council employee.

 

1.        Proposal

 

·     On 13 April 2016, Council approved alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building, including new rear and upper floor additions to create a total of six dwellings (1 x 2 bedroom, 5 x 3 bedroom), 8 car spaces and solar panels on the roof (DA/455/2015).

 

·     On 2 February 2017, Council approved a Section 96 modification to delete deferred commencement condition number 2 relating to building height and condition numbers 2c, 2d and 2e relating to privacy screening (DA/455/2015/A).

 

·     A Section 96(1A) application has been received which seeks to modify the approved development by deleting deferred commencement condition number 1 relating to the terms of a Right of Carriageway (ROC) created in favour of the subject site at 159 Arden Street over the adjoining property at 155-157 Arden Street. The ROC has been approved separately following negotiations between the affected landowners. It permits vehicular access to the basement through the adjoining property at 155-157 Arden Street.

 

A Section 88b instrument establishes the terms of the ROC, which includes a restriction on parking of no more than 6 vehicles in the basement of the subject site. However, the approved development includes parking for 8 vehicles in the basement. Therefore, Council imposed a deferred commencement condition requiring a variation to the terms of the ROC allowing the parking of 8 vehicles consistent with the approved development.

 

The following deferred commencement condition was subsequently imposed by Council:

 

2.        Amendment to the 88B Instrument

 

1.  The Terms of Right of Carriageway variable width (A) referred to in Part 2 (TERMS) of the Section 88B Instrument shall be amended to reflect the number of car spaces within the approved plans. An amended 88B instrument must be registered with the NSW Land and property Information and provided to Council.

 

The proposed modification seeks to convert two approved car spaces into storage areas for bicycles, motorcycles and trailers, resulting in 6 car spaces in the basement, which is two car spaces less than originally approved (refer to Figure 1). On that basis the applicant now seeks to delete deferred commencement condition 1 as the terms of the ROW restricting the number of car spaces to a total of 6 no longer needs to be varied.

 

654321Right of CarriagewayNew storage spaces for bicycles, motorcycles and trailersNo.155-157 Arden Street

Figure 1Basement Layout Plan (proposed)

Key Issues

 

·     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:-

 

·     Minimal Environmental Impact

The proposed modification seeks to convert 2 approved car spaces in the basement into storage areas for bicycles, motorcycles and trailers, resulting in a total of 6 car spaces on the site. The applicant therefore seeks to delete deferred commencement condition number 1 requiring the terms of the ROW to be varied in accordance with quantum of car parking approved on the site.

 

Despite the proposed reduction in car parking the development will continue to satisfy the parking demand in accordance with Council’s car parking requirements. There will be no physical changes to the approved development as a result of the proposal with the exception of a minor increase in width of the subject parking spaces. On that basis the proposal will be of minimal environmental impact.

 

·     Substantially the Same Development:

The proposed modification does not change the built form or appearance of the development or result in any significant adverse parking impacts on the surrounding area. On this basis, the proposal would result in development that is substantially the same as the originally approved development.

 

3.        Submissions

 

The owners of the adjoining property at 155-157 Arden Street, Coogee were notified of the proposed development.  As a result of this notification, the following submission was received:-

 

Boskovitz & Associates acting on behalf of the owners of the Strata Plan 87413 at 155-157 Arden Street.

 

Issue

Comment

Car Parking

The reduction in car parking does not comply with Council’s parking controls and will have an adverse impact on parking congestion in the surrounding streets.

The proposal should rely on Council’s parking requirements for new development and not the parking requirement relating to an extension to an existing development.  

 

The proposal complies with the parking requirements in Part B7 of Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP 2013).

In accordance with Section 3.2 of Part B7 the car parking required by extending an existing development only requires the additional parking be provided to cater for the additional demands arising from the increase in floorspace. This aspect was relied upon in the assessment of the originally approved development and is applicable to the modification application.

Right of Carriageway

The applicant has not made reasonable attempts to negotiate a satisfactory outcome between the parties in relation to any changes to the terms of the ROC.

 

The negotiations regarding the variation to the terms of the ROC is a private matter between the affected parties and not a matter for consideration by Council in the assessment of this Section 96 application.

The deferred commencement condition was originally imposed to ensure the terms of the ROC were consistent with the approved development in terms of car parking before it operated. However, as the approved development is now proposed to be modified by reducing the number of car spaces to a total of six, there is no need to vary the terms of the ROC, and the deferred commencement condition is no longer warranted.

 

4.      Referrals:

 

4.1     Development Engineers

The following comment was provided by Council’s Development Engineer in relation to car parking:

 

The reason for the deletion of the Deferred Commencement Condition is that the Terms of Right of Carriageway variable width [A] referred to in Part 2 (TERMS) of the Section 88B Instrument allows for 6 motor vehicles. The applicant originally showed 8 proposed parking spaces but appears to not of been able to amend the Terms of the Right of Carriageway for the 8 parking spaces.

The submitted plan for this Section 96 application, by ASA Architects, Dwg DA-100 – Revision 6, dated 06/04/2016, now shows 6 car parking spaces with 2 storage areas along the eastern end of the basement carpark. Development Engineering recommends that the car spaces located either side of the proposed storage spaces located in the basement car park be increased in width to a minimum 2.90.m from outside edge of the structural columns.

 

Parking Comments/Calculations for S96 Application

Development Engineering advises that the existing site consists of 4 x 1 bedroom plus 1 x 2 bedroom unit generating an existing parking demand of 6.45 car spaces, there are currently no parking spaces located within the site thus giving the site a 6.45 car space credit.

 

The subject DA for 6 units comprising of 5 x 3 bedroom units + 1 x 1 bedroom would create a parking demand as follows:

 

Parking demand     = (5 x 1.5) + (1 x 1) + 6/4 (visitor)

                             = 8.5 + 1.5(visitor)

                             = 10 spaces

 

Subtracting the 6.45 car space credits from the required 10 spaces leaves a parking requirement of 3.55 car spaces. The development now proposes 6 car spaces which is greater than the 3.55 car spaces required.

 

6.        Section 79C Assessment:

 

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

 

6.1     Environmental Planning Instruments

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

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

There are no specific provisions LEP 2012 that are relevant to the proposed modification

 

Development Control Plans

 

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013

General Controls - Part B7 Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access

 

The car parking rates applicable to the proposal are:

·  1.2 spaces per two bedroom

·  1.5 spaces per three bedroom

·  1.5 visitor spaces

 

The approved development generates a parking demand for 10 car spaces. However, a credit is applied for the existing floorspace, resulting in a demand for 6 car spaces on the site.

 

The proposed modification seeks to reduce the number of car spaces by 2 to a total of 6, which complies with the car parking requirements.

 

Condition 8 of the development consent requires each unit to be allocated one car space.

 

As there are 6 units on the site, the proposal remains in accordance with the parking requirements in the development consent.

 

6.2   Site Suitability

Despite the reduction in the number of car spaces, the approved development would continue to satisfy Council’s car parking requirements. The site is therefore suitable for the proposal.

 

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 seeks to reduce the number of approved car spaces by 2 to a total of 6. Despite the reduction in the number of car spaces in the basement, the proposal would continue to satisfy the parking requirements under Part B7 of RDCP 2013.

 

The proposed reduction in the number of car spaces is consistent with the terms of the ROC, which permits a maximum of 6 spaces in the basement. The deferred commencement condition was originally imposed to ensure the terms of the ROC were consistent with the approved development in terms of car parking before it operated.

 

However, as the approved development is now proposed to be modified by reducing the number of car spaces to a total of six, there is no need to vary the terms of the ROC, and the deferred commencement condition is no longer warranted.

 

The proposed modification is therefore supported.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council as the consent authority, grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended to modify Development Consent No DA/455/2015/B for permission to delete deferred commencement condition number 1 for 159 Arden Street in the following manner:

 

1.        Deferred Commencement Conditions – Condition 1 is deleted in its entirety.

 

2.        General Conditions – Condition 1 is amended by the insertion of the bold and underlined words/numbers and deletion of struck out words/numbers as follows:

 

1.        Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

 

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

 

Plan

Drawn By

Dated

Received

DA100 (Revision 056)

ASA Architects

09/09/16

06/04/17

 

DA101 (Revision 03)

ASA Architects

09/09/16

 

DA102 (Revision 03)

ASA Architects

09/09/16

 

DA300 (Revision 03)

ASA Architects

09/09/16

 

DA301 (Revision 04)

ASA Architects

09/09/16

 

 

3.        Requirements before a Construction Certificate can be Issued – insertion of the following new condition:

 

Car Space Dimensions

“8.      a.      Prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate the plans are to be amended to show both car spaces at the eastern end of the basement car park, either side of the proposed storage areas, with a minimum width of 2.90m. Details of compliance are to be to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.”

 

4.        Requirements prior to issue of an Occupation Certificate – insertion of the following new conditions:

 

Strata Plan Amendments

“53.    a.      Prior to the issuing of any form of an Occupation Certificate the Strata Plan is to be amended to reflect the allocation of the 6 car spaces (1 car space for each unit) as well as floors, external walls and ceilings as constructed. The amended strata plan/s must correspond to those structures depicted in the approved building plans for the site.

 

Signposting Storage Areas

b.     Prior to the issuing of any form of an Occupation Certificate the storage areas at the eastern end of the car park are to be clearly signposted as “No Parking for Motor Vehicles”. The Certifying Authority is to ensure compliance with this requirement.”

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                             11 July 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D58/17

 

Subject:              133 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee (DA/173/2017)

Folder No:                DA/173/2017

Author:                     Chahrazad  Rahe, Senior Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                  Addition of two lower level bedrooms in existing residential flat building with new windows on eastern side.

Ward:                        East Ward

Applicant:                Solutions Zane Land Use Planning Services

Owner:                     Strata Plan 5997

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.png?guid=3654b7d7-fbb5-46dc-b460-9c7cad330806&contentType=image%2Fpng

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the proposal seeks a variation to Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio by more than 10%.

 


 

1.        Background

 

In 2015, unauthorized works were carried out in the form of excavating an area under Lot 2 SP 5997 (known as Unit 2) to create a habitable space, replacement of lining of walls, ceiling, floor, bathroom and kitchen (without a fire safety schedule), removal of internal  walls, replacement of internal walls and installation of 3 beams.

 

The sub-floor/basement area was subsequently stripped and access was covered over to preclude access from the upper level Unit 2, to this area.

 

Council issued a letter on 4th April 2016 to the owner of the property advising the intension not to take any further action in relation to the matter and that any future use of the respective area be the subject of a development consent and construction certificate as requires under the Environmental Planning Assessment Act 1979.

 

The current application seeks to legitimize this area and convert for habitable use. The illegal works currently constructed on the site do not form part of this approval.

 

2.        Proposal

 

The application is seeking approval for minor internal and external changes to the existing residential flat building and conversion of an existing sub-floor basement area for habitable use.  The proposal will involve the attachment of the northern section of the excavated area for use as a bedroom in conjunction with the existing unit 1 and rear southern portion of the excavated area for use as a bedroom in conjunction with Unit no. 2 at the ground floor level. The proposed works specifically include the following:

 

·     Minor construction of new internal wall.

·     Internal fit outs to include wall linings, bathroom and bedroom to unit 1 and bedroom to unit 2.

·     Internal doorway and stairs from existing unit 1 into new area.

·     Internal stairs from existing unit 2 to basement area.

·     External windows as indicated on the plan.

 

The proposal will involve an increase of 33.8m² resulting in a total floor area of 708.4m² equating to a floor space area of 1.09:1.

 

3.        Site description & surround development

 

The subject site is known as 133 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee and is formally described as Lot SP5997. The subject site is regular in shape and has a frontage width of 17.919m to Carrington Road, depth of 36.271m to the western side boundary and a total site area of 649.9m².  The land slopes from the rear southern boundary down to Coogee Bay with a fall of approximately 5m over the entire length of the site representing a gradient of approximately 14%.

 

Existing on the site is a part 3 and part 4 storey residential flat building containing 7 x 2 bedroom units. An existing detached outbuilding containing 4 garages in located to the rear southern and eastern boundaries.

 

Adjoining the site to the east is a 3 storey residential flat building, to the west a part 3 and part 4 storey shop top housing development and to the south a 3 sotrey residential flat development fronting Byron Street.

 

The locality is predominantly occupied by a mix of residential development comprising older and newer residential flat development, shop top developments near Coogee Public School on the corner of Byron Street and Coogee Bay Road, detached dwellings and semi- detached dwellings.

 

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. The following submission was received as a result of the notification process:

 

Unit 1/136 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee

Issue

Comment

Adequate egress and fire safety concerns.

The application has been referred to Council’s Building Fire Safety team to upgrade the fire safety in the entire building.

 

5.        Key Issues

 

5.1     Request to vary development standard

 

Clause 4.6 - Exceptions to development standards

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

 

Then proposal contravenes the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) development standard of Clause 4.4: Floor Space Ratio, contained within RLEP 2012. The applicant has submitted a written justification that seeks to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6. The variation is addressed as follows:

 

Clause 4.4 - Floor Space Ratio Control

Clause 4.4 (2) states that the maximum floor space ratio for a building on any land is not to exceed the floor space ratio shown for the land on the Floor Space Ratio Map.  The FSR indicated on the map for the land is 0.9:1.

 

The existing building has a maximum FSR of 1.04:1 and currently exceeds the maximum 0.9:1 FSR development standard set out in RLEP 2012.  The existing development, as proposed to be amended, has an FSR of 1.09:1 (or gross floor area of 708.4m²).  The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

Site area

649.9m²

Existing FSR

FSR of 1.04:1 (gross floor area of 674.6m²).

% Existing variation to development standard

15.33% (or 89.69m²)

Proposal

FSR of 1.09:1 (gross floor area of 708.4m²). 

LEP development standard

0.9:1 (or 584.91m²)

% Proposed variation to development standard

21.11% (or 123.49m²)

 

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 floor space ratio buildings standard are set out in clause 4.4 (1) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

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

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 buildings are well articulated and respond to environmental and energy needs,

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

 

 

Applicant’s submission

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

 

 

 

 

Assessing officer’s comment:

It is considered that the proposed development and variation from the minimum floor space ratio standard is satisfactory in this instance. The submitted Clause 4.6 variation is well founded for the following reasons:

 

·     The proposed increase in floor space will not alter the height, bulk or scale of existing residential building.  The proposal makes use of the sub-floor area to improve the internal amenity of Units 1 & 2.

 

·     The existing residential building, as proposed to be altered, remains consistent with the existing and future character of the area.

 

·     The proposed increase in floor space does not manifest in any adverse environmental impact in terms of visual bulk, overshadowing, view loss or privacy impacts to adjoining and neighbouring land on the basis that:

 

-     The new two (2) bedrooms are to be accommodated within the building envelope of the existing residential flat building.  The streetscape presentation of the existing building to Coogee Bay Road is not altered as the additional two window openings are located to the eastern side of the façade and are not significantly noticeable from the streetscape.

-     The height, front and side setbacks, bulk and scale of the building when viewed from Carrington Road will remain unchanged.

-     The proposed development does not result in any additional overshadowing or privacy impacts.

-     The bedrooms have been design with good natural cross ventilation and access to sunlight for the amenity and liveability for the occupants of the units.

 

·     Non-compliance with the FSR standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning.

 

·     The proposed development is consistent with the zone objectives.

 

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

 

On the basis of arguments made by the applicant and the supplementary discussion provided above, the proposed development satisfies the provisions of Clauses 4.6(3) and (4) of the RLEP 2012. Therefore, the applicant’s written justifications for contravening the FSR standard is considered to be well founded and is supported.

 

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

 

Sufficient environmental planning grounds exist to justify departure from the development as the proposed development will not be altering the existing built form on the site and will not result in any adverse impacts on surrounding properties.  The proposed development provides additional internal amenity for the units and will contribute to a greater variety of housing types within the locality.

 

The applicant’s written request has 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?

 

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the FSR standard which 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 privacy, overshadowing and views

 

Consistency with the objectives of the R3: Medium Density Residential Zone Objectives of zone:

 

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

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

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

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

·    To protect the amenity of residents.

·    To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

Assessment:

 

The proposed development will continue to provide medium density residential accommodation and will improve the internal amenity for the residents of the subject units.

 

The variations to the FSR development standard will have no adverse impact on the bulk and scale of the subject building and will continue to be consistent with the size and scale of the adjoining buildings. The proposed works are wholly contained within the existing building envelope and therefore, will not result in any amenity impacts with regards to visual privacy, overshadowing and views to neighbouring properties.

 

The proposed development is considered to be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the standard and the relevant objectives for development within Zone R3 – Medium 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 granting of development consent to the development that contravenes the development standard for floor space within clause 4.4 of RLEP 2012.

 

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

 

The proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical standard will not be necessary in this case, for additional bedrooms, does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development.

 

5.2     State Environmental Planning Policy No.65: Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

 

The proposed development involves the conversion of an existing sub-floor/basement area for habitable usage in conjunction with Units 1 & 2 of the existing residential flat building. 

 

Given the nature of the proposed development in particular that the proposed development will not be altering the existing external built form of the building other than the inclusion of 2 minor window openings which are not visible from the street or surrounds, the provisions of the SEPP do not apply to the proposed development.

 

Notwithstanding the above, the proposed development provides adequate amenity for the new bedrooms with respect to solar access, natural ventilation and energy efficiency and will improve the internal amenity of Units 1 & 2. 

 

It is noted in the documentation that the colour and tone of materials and finishes will match or blend with the existing window openings on this façade. 

 

5.3     Randwick Comprehensive DCP

 

Part B7 - Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access

 

There are 4 existing carspaces located at the rear of the site within the garages and this is not proposed to be altered with the proposed development.

 

The existing residential flat building currently contains 7 x 2 bedroom apartments. Under the parking rates specified in Part B7 of the DCP, this would generate a parking demand of 10.15 spaces, which is currently a deficiency of 6.15 spaces.

 

The proposed development will be increasing the number of bedrooms in two of the apartments (units 1 & 2) from a 2 bedroom unit to a 3 bedroom unit which increases the parking demand by 0.6, resulting in a further deficiency of 6.75 spaces.

 

Refer to comments made by Council’s Development Engineers below in relation to the carparking deficiency on the site.

 

Part C2 - Medium Density Residential

 

Sub-section - External Wall Height & Ceiling Height

 

The DCP requires a minimum ceiling height of 2.7m for all habitable rooms.  The proposed bedrooms have a floor to ceiling height of 2.4m not complying with the DCP control.  The ceiling height is considered to be acceptable in this regard as it meets the BCA requirements for ceiling height, solar access and ventilation and given that the proposed usage relate to bedrooms only being a low use room (as opposed to main living areas) a floor to ceiling height of 2.4m is sufficient to carter the purpose of the use.

 

Sub-section 5.3 - Visual Privacy

 

Objectives

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

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

 

There will be no acoustic or privacy impacts from the two new window openings on the eastern elevation as they are highlight windows with sill heights greater than 1.6m.

 

6.        Referrals

 

Development Engineers

 

The application has been referred to Council’s Development Engineers for comments. The following comments have been made on the parking provision:

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·     Architectural Plans by ys architects dated March 2017;

·     Statement of Environmental Effects by Solutions Zane dated March 2017

·     Strata Plan 5997 (registered 24th January 1972)

 

General Comments

There are no objections to the application subject to the comments and conditions provided in this report. 

 

Strata Comments

There is an existing strata scheme operating on the site under SP 5997. The proposed new bedrooms will be located in areas currently depicted as common property on the strata plan, hence new strata plans will need to be prepared for the site to incorporate the new habitable floor area into the strata lots. The new strata plans shall also include the parking allocation requirement described below.  A condition requiring the strata subdivision of the existing strata lots and common property be undertaken prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate has been included in this report.

 

Parking Comments

The site is currently occupied by a part 3/part 4 story residential flat building comprising of 7 x 2 bedroom apartments. Under the parking rates specified in Part B7 of the DCP, this would generate a parking demand of 10.15 spaces.

 

The proposed development will be increasing the number of bedrooms in two of the apartments (units 1 & 2) from 2 to 3, hence parking demand will also increase as follows:

 

Parking Demand (Proposed Development)    = (5 x 1.2) + (2 x 1.5) + 7/4 (visitor)

                                                                   = 6 + 3 + 1.75

                                                                   = 10.75

       

Increase in Parking Demand = (10.75 -10.15) = 0.6 spaces

 

There are 4 existing carspaces located at the rear of the site within brick garages and this is not proposed to be altered with the proposed development, hence the parking deficiency of around 6 spaces (10-4) currently being experienced by the site will increase marginally by 0.6 spaces.

 

The parking shortfall has not been acknowledged or addressed in the Statement of Environmental effects, however in consideration of the minor nature of the shortfall and proximity to public transport and Coogee Town centre shortfall is minor no objections are raised, subject to the provision that two of the existing 4 garaged carspaces shall be allocated to the new 3 bedroom apartments.

 

 

 

Parking Allocation – Existing Strata scheme

The existing strata scheme (SP 5997) operating on the site shows the carspaces as separate strata lots (now known as utility lots) and so do not form part of any of the residential strata lots. This arrangement is generally no longer supported by Development Engineering as it does not ensure adequate parking allocation to the owners of the residential apartments. A title search of the utility lots indicates that 2 of the lots (lots 8 & 11 in SP 5997) are owned by the same owners as Units 1 and Unit 2 being the subject two units of this application. This is Development Engineering’s preference since the number of bedrooms within these units will be increasing to 3 and have therefore increased their parking demand. To ensure this preferred parking allocation continues, Development Engineering will require that when new strata plans are prepared for the site, the affected carspaces shall form part of the new residential strata lots, rather than individual utility lots.

 

As parking demand on the site is increasing, it is considered a nexus can be established between this requirement and the proposed development. It will ensure the 3 bedroom apartments, which will create the highest demand for parking on the site, are each allocated a single carspace. Suitable conditions have been included in this report.

 

Landscape Comments

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

 

Building (BCA, fire safety)

 

The application has been referred to Council’s Building Fire Safety team for comments. The following comments have been made:

 

Comments:

It is noted that Council officers have taken regulatory action in relation to unauthorised work associated with this DA and the building has been referred to Council’s Fire Safety team to upgrade the fire safety in the entire building.

 

7.        Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

8.        Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

9.        Conclusion

 

The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under RLEP 2012 and the proposed development is permissible with development consent within the R3 zone.  The proposal involves minor internal and external changes to the existing residential flat building and convert and legitimize the existing sub-floor basement area for habitable use.  No change to the overall height, bulk and scale of the existing residential flat building is proposed.

 

The existing building has a maximum FSR of 1.04 and currently exceeds the maximum 0.9:1 FSR development standard set out in RLEP 2012.  The existing development, as proposed to be amended, has an FSR of 1.09:1.  The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the proposed variation of the FSR development standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012.  The proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning and strict compliance to the numerical standard is considered unreasonable and unnecessary in this case.

 

The application has been assessed having regard for Section 79C (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, together with the provisions of Randwick Local Environmental Plan and all relevant Council DCPs. Following detailed assessment it is considered that Development Application No. DA/173/2017 may be supported.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to Floor Space Ratio, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above 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/173/2017 for addition of two lower level bedrooms in existing residential flat building with new windows on eastern side, at No. 133 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee, subject to the following standard conditions contained in 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

01 Site Plan

YS Architects

March 2017

02 Ground Floor Plan

YS Architects

March 2017

03 First Floor Plan

YS Architects

March 2017

04 Levels 2 & 3

YS Architects

March 2017

05 North Elevation

YS Architects

March 2017

06 East Elevation

YS Architects

March 2017

07 N-S Section

YS Architects

March 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 an Accredited Certifier or Randwick City Council.  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.

 

Long Service Levy

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

 

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

 

Sydney Water Requirements

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

REQUIREMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

 

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

 

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

 

 

Building Code of Australia & Fire Safety

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

 

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

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORKS

 

The following conditions of consent must be complied with prior to the commencement of any works on the site.  The necessary documentation and information must be provided to the Council or the ‘Principal Certifying Authority’ (PCA), as applicable.

 

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

 

Certification, PCA & other Regulatory Requirements

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Demolition Work & Removal of Asbestos Materials

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

A copy of Council’s Asbestos Policy is available on Council’s web site at www.randwick.nsw.gov.au in the Building & Development section or a copy can be obtained from Council’s Customer Service Centre.

 

Construction Noise & Vibration

8.        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.

 

Public Utilities

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

 

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

 

REQUIREMENTS 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.

 

Building Inspection Requirements

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

 

Excavations & Support of Adjoining Land

12.      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.

 

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

 

Permitted Working Hours

14.      Building, demolition and associated site works must be carried out in accordance with the following requirements:

 

Activity

Permitted working hours

All building, demolition and site work, including site deliveries (except as detailed below)

·   Monday to Friday - 7.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

Excavating of rock, use of jack-hammers, pile-drivers or the like

 

·   Monday to Friday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - No work permitted

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

Additional requirements for all development (except for single residential dwellings)

·   Saturdays and Sundays where the preceding Friday and/or the following Monday is a public holiday - No work permitted

 

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

 

Construction Site Management

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

 

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

·      name, address, contractor licence number and telephone number of the principal contractor, including a telephone number at which the person may be contacted outside working hours,

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

All works within or upon the road reserve, footpath, nature strip or other public place are to be completed to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate for the development. For further information, please contact Council’s Road / Asset Opening Officer on 9399 0691 or 9399 0999.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

 

The following conditions of consent must be complied with prior to the ‘Principal Certifying Authority’ issuing an ‘Occupation Certificate’.

 

Notes:  An Occupation Certificate must be obtained from the PCA prior to occupation and use of the premises.

 

           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

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

 

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

 

Fire Safety Certificate Requirements

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

 

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

 

18.      The applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to repair/replace any damaged sections of Council's footpath, kerb & gutter, nature strip etc which are due to building works being carried out at the above site. This includes the removal of cement slurry from Council's footpath and roadway.

 

19.      All external civil work to be carried out on Council property (including the installation and repair of roads, footpaths, vehicular crossings, kerb and guttering and drainage works), must be carried out in accordance with Council's  "Crossings and Entrances – Contributions Policy” and “Residents’ Requests for Special Verge Crossings Policy” and the following requirements:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Strata Plans

20.      Prior to the issuing of any form of an Occupation Certificate, new strata plans are to be prepared for the site to incorporate the additional floor area into the affected strata lots. The new strata plans must also demonstrate compliance with the following;

 

a)  Both of the 3 bedroom units (Units 1 & 2) must be allocated a carspace that shall form part of the newly formed strata lots. Utility lots will no longer be permissible. This is to ensure the 3 bedrooms units are allocated an appropriate amount of parking.

 

b)  All floors, external walls and ceilings depicted in the new strata plans must be constructed.

 

c)  The applicant shall create suitable right of carriageway, easements for services and internal stormwater lines, as required.

 

21.      A formal application for a strata certificate is required to be submitted to and approved by the Council or accredited certifier and all strata plan conditions of this development consent are required to be satisfied prior to the release of the strata subdivision plans.

 

GENERAL 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 requirements.  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.

 

A3       Building owners and occupiers should consider implementing appropriate measures to prevent children from falling from high-level window openings and balconies (e.g. by installing window locking devices; installing heavy-duty screens to window openings; limiting the dimensions of any openings to 125mm; ensuring balustrades to balconies are at least 1m high and; locating fixtures, fittings and furniture away from high-level windows and balconies).

 

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

 

A4       Underground assets (e.g. pipes, cables etc.) may exist in the area that is subject to your application. In the interests of health and safety and in order to protect damage to third party assets please contact Dial before you dig at www.1100.com.au or telephone on 1100 before excavating or erecting structures (This is the law in NSW). If alterations are required to the configuration, size, form or design of the development upon contacting the Dial before You Dig service, an amendment to the development consent (or a new development application) may be necessary. Individuals owe asset owners a duty of care that must be observed when working in the vicinity of plant or assets. It is the individual’s responsibility to anticipate and request the nominal location of plant or assets on the relevant property via contacting the Dial before you dig service in advance of any construction or planning activities.

 

A5       The applicant is to advise Council in writing and/or photographs of any signs of existing damage to the Council roadway, footway, or verge prior to the commencement of any building/demolition works.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                             11 July 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D59/17

 

Subject:              23-23S Gilderthorpe Avenue, Randwick (DA/769/2016)

Folder No:                DA/769/2016

Author:                     Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                  Demolition of all structures on site and construction of a new 3 storey residential flat building containing 6 dwellings over a basement car park for 8 vehicles, associated site and landscape work and strata subdivision.

Ward:                        North Ward

Applicant:                Mr E Archibald

Owner:                     Mr J M Lehane

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 proposed FSR exceeds the maximum standard by more than 10%.

 

 

 

Proposal

 

Demolition of all structures on site and construction of a new 3 storey residential flat building containing 6 dwellings over a basement car park for 8 vehicles, roof top communal terrace, associated site and landscape work and strata subdivision.

 

Amended plans:

 

Several amendments have been received by Council addressing various issues of concern in relation to the development application. The last set of amended plans received 24 April 2017 incorporate the following key amendments:

 

·     Reduction of Floor space from 1.05:1 down to 1.02:1 by opening up the circulation spaces– an amended Clause 4.6 variation to the 0.9:1 maximum standard has been submitted;

·     Reduction in wall height by lowering the basement level and ground level to be closer to natural ground;

·     Deletion of lift at top level replacing it with a stair lift removing the need for the originally submitted Clause 4.6 variation to the 12m maximum overall height standard in the RLEP 2012;

·     Amend aesthetics and façade of development removing dominant elements such as the blast wall, lift and stairwell and introduction of front balconies to better compliment and be more cohesive with the adjacent buildings and the street;

·     Reconfiguration of roof top level removing unnecessary storage areas, air conditioning condensers and clothes line which add unnecessary bulk when viewed from along Gilderthorpe Avenue;

·     Additional details of car lift to allow for more detailed assessment by Councils Development Engineer;

·     Reconfigure internal layout to provide greater dimensions for bedrooms.

 

Site

 

The sites are located at the northern side of Gilderthorpe Avenue in Randwick. Gilderthorpe Avenue runs in an east west direction with Park Avenue to the East and intersection of Market Street and Clovelly Road to the west.

 

The sites include the larger site containing the existing building and a substation site the majority of which has been purchased by the owner of the main site. A substation will remain at the south eastern corner of the site closest to the Gilderthorpe Road frontage.

 

The site is rectangular in shape with a western frontage of 13.965m, a rear width of 14.02m and a side boundary depth of 40.095m and a total site area of 562.1sqm.

 

The neighbouring site to the west is smaller in area and contains a two storey terrace house (No. 21 Gilderthorpe Avenue) which adjoins westward a similarly design terrace house. Beyond the terrace houses is a small park accessible off Gilderthorpe Avenue and Figtree Avenue from the north. Adjoining the site to the east (No. 27 Gilderthorpe Avenue) is a part two part three storey flat building containing three units (comprised of a two units at the front located over semi basement parking and a two storey unit at the rear). An aerial view of the subject site and adjoining properties is shown below.

 

Aerial view: Subject site bounded in green, strata titled buildings bounded in blue (Note: several strata titled four storey flat buildings are located further east along Gilderthorpe Avenue);

 

This side of Gilderthorpe Avenue is zoned R3 medium density residential and the opposite side of the Avenue is zone R2 low density residential.

 

Photo of the subject site and adjoining developments. Also show further east two examples of four storey flat buildings at 29-31, 53-55, 57 and 59-61 Gilderthorpe Avenue.

 

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012

 

·     Height of buildings (Cl 4.3 of the RLEP 2012)

 

The original development had a height of 13.2m and required a Clause 4.6 exception to the development standard maximum of 12m. Amended plans have been received removing the lift effectively reducing the height at the front from 13.2m down to 10.2m and at the rear from 11.41m down to 10.99m. The rear of the building is unavoidably higher due to the lower land level at the rear of the site.

 

·     Floor space ratio (FSR) Cl 4.4 of the RLEP 2012

 

The proposed development has a floor space ratio of 1.02:1 and does not meet the relevant 0.9:1 maximum floor space ratio (FSR) standard in Clause 4.4 of the RLEP 2012. The proposed variation to the FSR standard is summarised in the table below:

 

 

FSR and variance

Development Standard

0.9:1

Proposal

1.02:1 – see below Clause 4.6 exception to the standard sought by the applicant

Excess above RLEP Standard

13.3%. Note: Conditions requiring the deletion of bedrooms 2 at first and second floor level at the eastern and western elevations reducing the variance to 9.7%

Table 2: Variation to the FSR standard

 

Clause 4.6 Exception to Development Standards

 

Request to vary FSR development standard

 

Pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012, the applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the maximum floor space ratio standard contained in clause 4.4 of RLEP 2012. Amendments reduce the floor area of the development from 1.02:1 and have been provided in an amended Clause 4.6 exception to the FSR development standard.

 

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 sub clause (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. These steps are addressed as follows:

 

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 applicant has provided the following arguments (addressing both the objectives of the standard and the R3 medium density zone) in support of the Clause 4.6 exception (following is a planning assessment of the objectives of the FSR standard and the R3 medium density zone):

 

Applicants Clause 4.6 Exception to the Development Standards

 

 


 

 

Assessment comments:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clause 4.6 assessment:

 

The main considerations is whether the additional floor area across the whole of the site satisfies the key objectives of the R3 zone and the FSR standard, whether it is unreasonable and unnecessary to strictly apply the standard on the basis of there being sufficient environmental planning grounds having regard to the objectives of the standard and zone. All of these considerations are addressed as follows and where relevant throughout the body of this report:

 

R3 Zone Objectives

 

The key objectives of the R3 zone are listed as follows:

 

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

 

The proposed development provides 6 apartments in the R3 medium density zone which is the dominant housing form in the R3 medium density zone.

 

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

 

The varying and generous size of the two and three bedroom apartments provides good housing choice that varies from the minimum sizes required under the ADG and offers a good variety in housing choice.

 

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

 

The proposed development amended in several iterations now contains suitable articulation at the front elevation within a modern contemporary design that is considered to both contribute to the existing character, with particular regard to the terrace housing to the west, and the desired future character of the area. The provision of a three storey scale is consistent with the bulk and scale of development envisaged by the height and setback standards in the R3 Medium density residential zone and the controls in the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (RDCP) 2013. It is noted that this side of Gilderthorpe Avenue also contains medium density development of a larger 4 storey scales and the development is well below the allowable overall height permitted for the site under the RLEP which is largely a result of the amendments made during the assessment of the application. It is not considered that an argument can be made that the proposed bulk and scale of the development in relation to the streetscape will be inconsistent with the desired future character of the area. However, the building as it presents to its side boundaries requires amendment as discussed below.

 

•       To protect the amenity of residents.

 

The key issues sections of this report having particular regard to views, privacy and visual amenity outlines that in general the amenity of residents is reasonably protected in relation to the proposed floor area.

 

However there are elements of the development which can be amended via condition in order to both improve non-compliant levels of shadowing to neighbouring properties and to lessen the visual bulk along the eastern and western side elevations.

 

In relation to overshadowing of neighbouring properties, further discussion is contained in the key issues section. In short, an analysis of shadowing shows that the front unit that is 2/27 will be overshadowed and only retains one hour of solar access to its kitchen window. Whilst this window is located at the southern end of the western elevation, it is considered that solar access can be improved by requiring a reduction in floor area in the middle of the development which will also break up the building length along the eastern elevation.  A suitable condition is included to that effect, requiring bedroom 2 be deleted at first and second floor level and a reduction in the parapet height down to RL71.68 in this area. This allows for two hours of solar access to unit 2/27 Gilderthorpe Avenue and removes around 18sqm of floor area reducing the FSR down to 0.98:1 which represents a variance of 9.7%.

 

It is also considered that visual amenity and articulation can also be further improved along the western elevation. In a similar vein it is considered that by requiring deletion of bedroom 2 at first and second floor level in the middle will relieve the excessive visual length and massing of the development along this elevation. This conditioned amendment reduces the floor area by a further 18sqm resulting in a reduction of the FSR across the site down to 0.94:1 representing a variance of 5.3%.

 

The demand for parking is short by one visitor car space and has the potential to result in greater demand for on street parking; the conditioned reduction of floor area and therefore unit makeup into (2 x 1 bedroom apartments and 4 x 2 bedroom apartments) will achieve a compliant parking arrangement whereby the development requires and provides 8 parking spaces.

 

•       To encourage housing affordability.

 

The proposed provides additional supply of housing. No affordable housing is provided as part of this application.

 

FSR objectives

 

The key objectives of the FSR standard are listed and assessed as follows:

 

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

 

As indicated earlier, the size and scale of the development as conditioned is compatible with the desired future character of the locality. The proposed development from street level presents as a three storey development above the footpath having a wall height of around 10.2m, which is generally consistent with the massing of development envisaged by the RDCP. The overall height is well below the 12m maximum overall height standard. The development also has front, side and rear setbacks compliant with the RDCP controls for this type of medium density housing, however it is noted that the RDCP does require greater setbacks where it will achieve adequate amenity to the neighbouring properties. In relation to the rear setback, the proposal is further away from the rear boundary than other flat buildings in the vicinity of the site including that at No. 27 Gilderthorpe Avenue. The proposed development is also compliant with the relevant controls relating to site coverage, and landscaped open spaces. Overall, in terms of the character of the locality, the proposed development is considered to satisfy this objective.

 

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

 

The proposed development contains well-articulated elements supported by a mix of materials, good distribution of floor area, massing and fenestration along most elevations. The side elevations contain varying building elements and only two apartments on each level which ensures 100% of apartments receive solar access, and cross ventilation effectively reducing reliance on artificial means of light and ventilation. However, it is considered that the requirement for a reduction in floor area by removing bedrooms at first and second floor level along the side elevations will assist with greater internal amenity and also reducing the visual massing of the long side elevations.

 

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 proposed developments façade has been the subject of review by the Design Excellence Panel. Several amendments have been made to the development to improve the relationship between the articulation of the development and elements of the neighbouring terrace houses to the west at No’s’ 19 & 21 Gilderthorpe Avenue and to a limited extent the RLEP listed heritage item further west at No. 17 Gilderthorpe Avenue identified as “Hooper Cottage”. The design amendments amend and remove dominant elements (lift overrun and stair wells) and incorporate vertical and horizontal lines that complement the scale and character of the neighbouring terraces, whilst not heritage items or located within a heritage conservation area, and therefore contribute to the streetscape character

 

The significance of “Hooper Cottage” lies in its historical  ownership and its sandstone build which is reminiscent of the two storey hand loom weavers’ cottages of the Stroud Valley, Gloucestershire, UK (Ref: Randwick Heritage Study). This heritage item faces Figtree Avenue more so than Gilderthorpe Avenue. There is also limited visual of the item from the subject site due to a separation distance of at least 30m, a separation that contains a park and the two terrace houses. The proposed height is similar to height of the terraces which is suitably minimises the impact of bulk and scale on the terraces. The proposed development has also been considered by Councils Heritage Planner who raises no objection to the proposed development as amended in relation to its impact on the heritage item.

 

Overall, it is not considered that the proposal will detract from the item in terms of visual massing and architectural design.

 

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 amenity of neighbouring properties is considered to have been reasonably protected having regard to such matters as privacy, and views.

 

In relation to visual bulk, the development’s height is well below the maximum permissible and its external wall height varies between being below the maximum and where it extends beyond the 10.5m maximum it is largely an unavoidable consequence of the localized low points at the rear. However as indicated previously it is considered that the side elevations require further articulation in order to reduce the long length of the development opposite the neighbouring properties. Suitable conditions are included.

 

In relation to privacy, the applicant has suitably demonstrated that where necessary suitable screening is provided to windows. In relation to balconies, the rear balconies have an outlook across to the eastern neighbour’s unit 1 first floor bedroom window and the western neighbour’s rear yard. These impacts can be ameliorate by requiring by condition privacy screens at the eastern and western sides of the balconies. The design of these balconies is recommended to contain louvres configured at 45 degrees towards the rear to ensure no direct overlooking across to the respective and eastern and western side properties.

 

In relation to overshadowing, an analysis of solar access to neighbouring properties is contained in the key issues section under the RDCP section of this report. In short, it is generally acceptable due to the site conditions and envisaged bulk and scale of development in the medium density zone. However, as indicated earlier it is considered that solar access to unit 2 at the front of No. 27 Gilderthorpe Avenue can be better served by requiring a reduction of floor area by providing a greater setback in the middle of the building along the eastern elevation in order to allow for greater solar access to this neighbouring unit.

 

In relation to views, it is not considered that there are any high value views worthy of retention from neighbouring properties particularly given that the proposed height and bulk of the development (as conditioned for reduction) is generally consistent with the bulk and scale envisaged by the RLEP and the RDCP having regard to the unique circumstances of the scheme.

 

Overall, with respect to the objectives of the R3 medium density zone and the floor space ratio standard, it is considered that strict compliance with the floor space ratio development standard, as conditioned to be reduced,  is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. Therefore it is considered that the Clause 4.6 exception to the development standard can be supported as a good planning outcome.

 

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

 

As discussed above, the proposal achieves satisfactory compliance with the planning objectives for the locality and the applicant’s written request generally justifies sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the FSR standard for the following brief reasons:

 

The proposed development sits comfortably within the site and the medium density residential character along this side of Gilderthorpe Avenue which permits development containing a part three and part four storey development of which there are several examples.

 

The development displays a high level of compliance with the building envelope and site planning controls such as wall, setbacks, privacy, landscaping and open spaces.

 

The amenity impacts on neighbouring properties are suitably minimised and as noted previously conditions have been included where necessary in order to suitably minimise adverse privacy impacts from the rear neighbour’s and potential impacts from the roof top communal open space.

 

The design and configuration of the development has been amended in key areas including the front facade, stair and lift access, deletion of communal open space on the roof and reduction of floor area along the eastern and western side elevations. These amendments ensure a coherent relationship with the neighbouring properties and ensure a good planning outcome.

 

The proposed development will not detract or significantly impact the western neighbouring terraces or the heritage item at No. 17 Gilderthorpe Avenue.

 

Overall, it is considered that the applicant has generally provided justifiable planning arguments having regard to satisfying the relevant objectives of the development standard, and the zone.

 

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 and the relevant arguments provided by the application for a Clause 4.6, it is considered that the proposed development (as conditioned for a reduction in floor area) is consistent with the aims of the RLEP 2012, the objectives of the standard and the objectives of the zone. It is considered that the proposed floor area (as conditioned to be reduced) achieves good amenity within the units both in terms of natural light and ventilation, suitable areas of private open space, it will have good visual amenity and will contribute to the existing and future streetscape character. Overall, subject to conditions the proposed FSR as conditioned to be reduced does not result in any unacceptable and unreasonable impact on the amenity of residents

 

Overall, the proposed development, as conditioned, is an orderly use of the site and it is in the public interest.

 

Council delegation exercising concurrence function for development that contravenes a development standard is subject to:

 

(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 assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4), it is considered that:

 

The proposed development and variation from the FSR development standard, as conditioned, does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. Strict adherence to the numerical standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in this case as the proposed development is generally consistent with the medium density housing forms envisaged by the RLEP 2012 for this locality, it does not unreasonably compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas except for shadowing and visual bulk which have been suitably ameliorated by condition requiring a reduction in floor area along the eastern and western elevations. The proposed development will be compatible with the existing and desired future streetscape character. The variation from the adherence to the floor space ratio standard as reduced by condition will not be detrimental to the orderly use of the site and there is no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance.

 

Overall, the applicant’s written justification for contravening the floor space ratio standard and an assessment of the relevant matters for consideration required under Clause 4.6 are considered to contain well founded planning arguments and therefore recommended for support.

 

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:

 

21 Gilderthorpe Avenue, Randwick (including submission from Lawyers on the owners behalf; Town planner submission on behalf of owners)

Owners Corporation of 27 Gilderthorpe Avenue, Randwick

1/27 Gilderthorpe Avenue, Randwick

2/27 Gilderthorpe Avenue, Randwick

3/27 Gilderthorpe Avenue, Randwick

45 Figtree Avenue Randwick

1/29 Gilderthorpe Avenue, Randwick

2/29 Gilderthorpe Ave, Randwick, NSW, 2031

4/29 Gilderthorpe Avenue, Randwick

10/29 Gilderthorpe Avenue, Randwick

1/33 Gilderthorpe Ave, Randwick

9 Gilderthorpe Avenue, Randwick

10 Gilderthorpe Avenue, Randwick

12 Gilderthorpe Avenue, Randwick

16 Gilderthorpe Avenue, Randwick

17 Gilderthorpe Avenue, Randwick

19 Gilderthorpe Avenue, Randwick

24 Gilderthorpe Avenue, Randwick

29 Gilderthorpe Avenue, Randwick

30 Gilderthorpe Ave, Randwick

39 Gilderthorpe Avenue, Randwick

43 Gilderthorpe Avenue, Randwick

45 Gilderthorpe Avenue, Randwick

12/53 Gilderthorpe, Avenue, Randwick

54 Gilderthorpe Avenue, Randwick

63 Gilderthorpe Avenue, Randwick

6 Figtree Avenue, Randwick

11A Figtree Avenue, Randwick

Owners Corporation 12 Figtree Avenue, Randwick

1/12 Figtree Avenue, Randwick

3/12 Figtree Avenue Randwick

13 Figtree Avenue, Randwick

14 Figtree Avenue, Randwick

24 Figtree Avenue, Randwick

27 Figtree Ave Randwick

28 Figtree Ave Randwick

5/32 Figtree Avenue

26 Market Street, Randwick

67 Pine Street, Randwick

Submission - Hair and Makeup artist

287 Bronte Road, Waverley

52 Victoria Street, Paddington

 

Issue

Comment

Impact from construction of the development having regard to:

·     Pollution;

·     Noise;

·     Traffic congestion;

 

Conditions imposed on the determination will adequately mitigate the adverse impacts associated with noise, dirt, dust, traffic management and support of the adjoining land and structures.

Potential asbestos contamination

Suitable conditions are included requiring proper management and disposal of asbestos.

Excavation for underground parking is significant and could affect buildings on both sides of the subject site.

Excavation for basement parking to service residential flat buildings is a common occurrence. Conditions such as the requirement for professional engineering certification and dilapidation reports are included in the recommendation to suitably protect the neighbouring properties.

The proposed development exceeds the maximum FSR permissible for the site and will be incompatible with the lower zone on the opposite side of the street.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The bulk and scale of the development is considered to sit comfortably within the site. The proposed development is permissible form of development and it is considered that the Clause 4.6 exception to the FSR development standard as assessed in this report is acceptable having regard to the objectives of the standard and the R3 medium density zone. In addition, the proposed development is also considered to be sufficiently setback from the front and is in line with the adjoining developments such that it is not considered to dominate the lower density zone on the opposite side of the Gilderthorpe Avenue or the adjoining terrace houses and the heritage item.

Overall, the proposed FSR as amended is considered appropriate for the site and does not cause any unreasonable adverse impacts on the streetscape character or the amenity of neighbouring properties on opposite side of the street.

The lot size is too small and the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site

The proposed development as conditioned sits comfortably within the site and the immediate neighbouring properties. The proposed site coverage is compliant with the RDCP provisions.

Building height is greater than 12m

The proposal has been amended reducing the building height to 11.08m at the rear and 10.28m at the front which is well below the maximum 12m permissible under Cl.4.3 of the RLEP.

As 27 Gilderthorpe building had to be lower than 29 Gilderthorpe, so should 23-23A Gilderthorpe be lower as well

Requiring the height of the development to be lower than No. 27 Gilderthorpe Avenue would serve no planning purpose. The minor non-compliances with the wall height are considered to have been suitably justified having regard to the associated objectives.

The proposed development has not adequately assessed and is not sympathetic or in keeping with the historic and pristine “Clovelly-end” of Gilderthorpe Avenue containing the terraces and heritage item identified as “Hooper Cottage”

The proposed development has undergone several iterations of amendments in its configuration has been assessed by Council and the Design Excellence Panel. It is considered that subject to conditions the latest amendments have suitably resolved the scheme (design) removing dominant elements and providing a more sedate and articulated street elevation. The resolved scheme is a three storey scale and will not detract from the decorative elements of the adjoining terrace house, the park land or the heritage item further west known as “Hooper Cottage”.

Inadequate setbacks

The front setback is consistent with the adjoining front setback; Side setbacks are discussed in the key issues section of this report relating to orientation and considered acceptable subject to an increase in the middle of the eastern and western side elevations;

The rear setback complies with the minimum required under the Apartment Design Guide and the RDCP.

 

Exceeds the building depth

The apartments are full length apartments exceeding the 14m maximum however the proposed development satisfies the aims and objectives of the control for building depth in that each apartment has at the very least dual aspects ensuring high levels of solar access and cross ventilation. The building has projecting features to provide more solar access and ventilation to rooms further towards the middle of the proposed development. The conditioned requirement for the indentations at the side elevations will further improve solar access and ventilation and more importantly reduce the visual bulk and massing along the side elevations.

Exceeds the 10m maximum unrelieved walls control

The proposed development avoids massive or continuous unrelieved blank walls at the front and rear however in relation to the side elevations it is considered that the projections towards the side boundaries are largely tokenistic and will not suitably minimise the massing of the very long side elevations.

 

As such suitable conditions are included to achieve a more genuine breakup of the side elevations to satisfy the objectives behind this RDCP control.

Privacy impacts

The privacy impacts have been ameliorated by conditions requiring privacy screens and treatment to certain windows, balconies and communal open space on the roof.

See discussion of privacy in the key issues section of this report and relevant conditions.

The size and location of the communal open space on the roof will result in noise and light nuisance

The communal roof terrace is conditioned to be removed. 

The air conditioning condensers on the roof will result in noise impacts

The A/C units are relocated to the rear of balconies.

The proposed development has a lack of green space

The proposal provides adequate landscaping around the perimeter of the site and greater than minimum areas of deep soil landscaping. The landscaping is considered to be appropriate.

The roof terrace seems to be proposed in order to "comply" with landscaping and open space policies.

The communal open space area on the roof is not calculated as part of the landscaped area requirements under the RDCP. The proposal provides 50% of landscaped open space on site excluding the communal roof space.

The proposal will result in shadowing of the properties on the opposite side of the street at No. 22, 24 and 26 Gilderthorpe Avenue.

During the shortest day of the year, the proposed development as amended including a reduction in height will still allow for solar access to the front yard of these properties from just after 9am to just before 3pm, which is well above the minimum under the ADG.

Obstructs natural sunlight

Natural light will be maintained to all windows on neighbouring properties. Solar access to neighbouring properties private open spaces will comply with the ADG requirements. The overshadowing caused to unit 2/27 Gilderthorpe Avenue is a result of floor area and generally unarticulated side elevations. See key issues section of report addressing overshadowing.

Obstructs sky and views

It is not considered that there would be any appreciable difference in the impact on outlook from a fully compliant development and the proposed development. There are no views of high value being lost as a result of inappropriate setbacks or built form.

The expectation to retain outlook across the side boundaries of a site that permits medium density residential forms of development is not considered to be a reasonable expectation.

The increase in people and cars will compromise safety of children in the street

The proposed development whilst increasing traffic does not excuse unsafe driving.

Shortfall in parking

The proposed development is short one visitor space however the conditioned deletion of bedrooms results in compliant parking. See key issues section of report.

The parking facility is inappropriate for the site and development.

The RDCP seeks to minimise the use of stackers in constrained access sites and where queuing may result or safety is jeopodised. The applicant has submitted additional information containing specifications and operation of the lift which are considered to not result in any significant delay in using the lift or significant impact on traffic congestion. Council’s Development engineer raises no objections to the use of the car lift as part of the application.

I’m concerned that the developer will try to pay a parking penalty to have less parking on the site

There is no avenue for payments to offset parking shortfalls.

Due to the many impacts the proposed development is not in the public interest

The proposed development has been amended and is subject to conditions which will limit and minimise the adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties and the surrounding area. As such it is considered that the proposed development is in the public interest.

Inadequate storm water drainage

Council’s Development Engineer has included conditions to ensure storm water is suitably managed.

The cost of the development is well below standard costing

A suitable condition is included.

Will the side fencing remain

Indications are that the colour bond side fencing remains. Notwithstanding, side fencing behind the building line permits a 1.8m high fence as exempt development. This does not preclude compliance with the dividing fences Act.

 

Key Issues

 

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

 

SEPP No. 65 aims to promote quality design of Residential Flat Buildings. The proposal is subject to the policy as it involves the development of a residential flat building being 3 storeys and more in height. Council’s Design Review Panel has considered the proposal and the Panel’s comments are included in a Section of the DA Compliance report. An assessment has been carried out in accordance with Part 3: Siting the Development and Part 4: Designing the Building of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) against the design criteria requirements. The key non-compliance to the design criteria includes a merits based assessment as per the design guidance of the Apartment Design Guide (included in this Council meeting report below). These include controls relating to Orientation relative to separation and overshadowing of the neighbouring property at No. 27 Gilderthorpe Avenue;

 

·     Orientation – Setbacks and Solar access to neighbouring properties (Part 3B-2 of ADG and Part C2 of RDCP 2013)

 

The ADG controls seek a minimum of two hours of direct solar access to the affected neighbour’s (Living areas, private open space and communal open space) between the hours of 9am – 3pm, at mid-winter. The ADG also states that where development does not currently receive 2 hours that development not reduce solar access by more than 20%.

 

This part of the ADG is included as a key issue in this Council meeting report because several submissions have been received and for the purposes of providing solar access to neighbouring properties, the proposed development has side setbacks does not meet the minimum 6m separation control (in Part 3F – Visual Privacy referenced in Part 3B- 2a) in the ADG which are provided as a guide for meeting solar access requirements. The proposed development provides side setbacks of 2m and 2.5m.

 

It is also noted that the ADG also acknowledges that compliance with separation control is difficult to achieve in relation to narrow allotments in suburban areas that contain older flat buildings and detached housing; these circumstances apply to the subject site and the surrounding area. In this respect, requiring compliance with the  6m minimum separation control would preclude the permissible and proper development of the site for the purposes of medium density housing with particular regard to flat buildings that exist along Gilderthorpe Avenue. In terms of existing development along Gilderthorpe Avenue, there are several examples of three and four storey flat buildings all of which have side setbacks well below the 6m side setback control identified in the ADG and have setbacks that are generally more consistent with the side setbacks controls contained in the RDCP.

 

Having regard to the above, in terms of the 3D envelope envisaged by the standards in RLEP and the existing spatial setting of medium density housing along Gilderthorpe Avenue (streetscape character), it is considered more appropriate in this instance to apply the minimum side setback controls and objectives in the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (RDCP) 2013 for Medium density residential development.

 

The RDCP requires minimum side setback controls relative to the width of a site. In relation to the subject site it has varying widths of 13.965m at the front and 14.02m at the rear. For the area of the site that is below 14m in width the RDCP requires a side setback and for that part of the site that measures 14m and over in width the RDPC requires a 2.5m minimum side setback control. The proposed development provides a 2m side setback for the part of the site that is below 14m in width and a 2.5m side setback for a part of the site that is 14m and over therefore complies with the RDCP minimum side setbacks controls.

 

Therefore in terms of the pattern of spaces between existing development and side boundaries particularly in relation to the established streetscape character, it is considered that the proposed development maintains a rhythm of spaces between buildings and side boundaries and will add to the character to the streetscape.

 

Notwithstanding the above, it is important to consider overshadowing and visual amenity of the neighbouring properties at No. 21, and 27 Gilderthorpe Avenue. In general, the north-south axis, means that overshadowing is shared between the neighbouring properties to the east (No. 21 Gilderthorpe Avenue) and west (No. 27 Gilderthorpe Avenue). An analysis of overshadowing to neighbouring properties is undertaken in determining if compliance with the minimum 2 hour duration of solar access is achieved and whether any non-compliance is acceptable given the circumstances of the site and aspects of the development scheme. In relation to side setbacks, there is an intimate relationship with the wall height and the proposed distribution of floor area.

 

An analysis of overshadowing to the neighbouring properties reveals that unit 2 located at the front ground level of No. 27 Gilderthorpe Avenue does not retain two hours of solar access.

 

An analysis of all neighbouring dwellings is carried out as follows:

 

·     21 Gilderthorpe Avenue:

 

No. 21 Gilderthorpe Avenue contains a single dwelling and the proposed development does not result in less than two hours of solar access to the rear yard or north facing windows key elements of building designed to take advantage of solar access to minimise reliance on artificial means of heading. Therefore in terms of overshadowing it is considered that the controls and therefore the objectives seeking to ensure sufficient solar access is being satisfied despite the lesser side setback than that under the ADG.

 

·     27 Gilderthorpe Avenue:

 

No. 27 Gilderthorpe Avenue contains a residential flat building with three units. Unit 1 is located at the rear in a two storey form, and units 2 and three are at the front located above a semi basement parking level.

 

Rear two storey unit (unit 1)

 

The proposed development does not result in less than two hours of solar access to the rear yard or north facing windows which is a similar scenario to the single dwelling on the opposite side at No. 21 Gilderthorpe Avenue.

 

Unit three – first floor level

 

The proposed development does not result in less than two hours of solar access to the west facing living room window of this unit. An analysis of shadows cast by the amended development reveals that the upper level kitchen located at the southernmost side of the western elevation will receive solar access during the winter solstice.

 

Unit 2 – ground level above semi basement level

 

The proposed development results in less than two hours of solar access to the west facing kitchen window of unit 2 retaining just over an hour of solar access from between 12noon and just after 1pm. Despite the slightly vulnerable location of the this window, located at the southern end of the western elevation, it is considered that as the development seeks a floor space ratio well above the standard and there would be a benefit to reducing the mass of the walls along the eastern elevation, it is also considered that the overshadowing has a direct relationship with the proposed floor area which is exceeded as assessed in the Clause 4.6 exception to the FSR standard. Therefore, it is considered reasonable to require both a reduction of floor area in the middle of the building. This can be achieved by removing bedroom 3 at first and second floor level. As well, a reduction in the wall/parapet height in this indented location down to RL71.68 will permit at least two hours of solar access to the neighbour’s kitchen window between 11.45am and 1:45pm during the winter solstice. Please note that the duration of solar access will only improve outside the winter solstice.

 

Overall, the additional overshadowing is a result of inappropriate distribution of floor area on site.

 

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

 

For the purposes of visual and acoustic privacy of neighbouring properties the ADG requires that habitable areas including attached balconies be separated by a minimum of 6m from boundaries.

 

The design guidelines in the ADG for privacy seek to ensure that development be located and oriented to maximise visual privacy between buildings on site and for neighbouring buildings by providing adequate building separation from neighbouring buildings/adjacent uses.

 

The ADG acknowledges that on narrow infill apartments that is two to three storey walk-up apartments are an obvious response to the dimensions of traditional residential lot sizes in suburban areas in NSW which are narrow and deep, and are often surrounding by a combination of detached houses and flat buildings from previous eras – circumstances that particularly relevant to the subject allotment and the surrounding area. The ADG acknowledges that achieving the 6m building separation can be a challenge. The ADG also identifies that degrees of privacy are also influenced by a number of factors including the activities of each of the spaces where overlooking may occur, the times and frequency these spaces are being used, the expectations of occupants for privacy and their ability to control overlooking with screening devices and offsetting windows.

 

An assessment is carried out against the following parts of the development:

 

Windows

 

The proposed windows of the development provide sufficient privacy of windows on the neighbouring dwellings by either being offset, high sill heights, or screening devices.

 

Balconies

 

The proposed rear balconies have a direct view across the rear yards of neighbouring properties and their areas of privacy open space and in the case of first floor of unit 1 into their west facing bedroom window. In order to provide greater more reasonable privacy protection, a condition is included requiring privacy screens be provided to the eastern and western sides of the rear balconies.

 

Communal roof terrace

 

The roof terrace has an area of around 97sqm or 17% of the site area and does not meet the minimum 25% control under the ADG. Moreover, the communal roof area is problematic in terms of visual and acoustic privacy due to it not containing any suitable acoustic privacy measures which if implemented would result in adverse visual impact and exceeding the building height standard.

 

Therefore, it is considered reasonable to require a removal of the communal roof space and to require dedication of communal roof space at the rear yard which can be suitably screened in terms of acoustic and visual privacy. Whilst this condition requiring relocation further reduces the proportion of communal open space and increases the shortfall against the ADG control, it is considered an acceptable planning outcome in that the proposed development fits into the design guidance in the ADG which allows for smaller than necessary communal open space in the following circumstances:

 

The development site is a relatively small lot containing a small number of apartments;

Unit’s generally have larger than minimum areas of private open space than that required by the ADG; and

The development site is located in close proximity to parks for more active recreational uses. These circumstances are proposed development these circumstances.

The communal open space as conditioned to be relocated whilst smaller than the 25% minimum provides greater amenity being located within a landscaped area with a northern aspect ensuring good opportunity for social interaction

 

Overall, having regard to visual and acoustic privacy the conditioned deletion of the roof terrace and dedication of communal open space in the rear yard is considered to satisfy the aims and design guidance provided in the ADG in relation to privacy and will not result in any significant adverse impacts on the visual and acoustic privacy of the neighbouring properties.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

·     Clause 5.10 Heritage Conservation

 

Clause 5.10 of the LEP is relevant in relation to Heritage Conservation as the subject site is located in the vicinity of a heritage item which is referenced in sub-clause 5. Council is required to consider the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the item or area concerned. The applicant acknowledges in their submitted Statement of Environmental Effects the location of the heritage item at No. 17 Hooper Street known as “Hooper Cottage”. A heritage impact statement or management statement has not been submitted and it is not considered that it is required given the subject site is at least 32m away from the site and there have been several amendments made to the development in order to satisfy Council that the proposed development will satisfy the objectives of Clause 5.10 which seek to conserve the environmental heritage of Randwick, and the heritage significance of heritage items including associated fabric, settings and views,

 

The proposed amendments as identified throughout this report and assessed accordingly include:

 

A reduction in the height of the development including removal of the lift at the front;

A sedate design at the front that ensures that the front façade of the development has undergone several changes that have transformed the original scheme removing the dominant elements at the front and reconciling the articulation at the front into a more sedate and complimentary contemporary scheme.

 

Council’s heritage planner indicates that the proposed development as amended will not detract from the significance of the heritage item. Several conditions are included to manage the use of materials and finishes used for the development.

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (RDCP) 2013

The DCP provisions are structured into two components, Objectives and Controls. The Objectives provide the framework for assessment under each requirement and outline key outcomes that a development is expected to achieve. The controls contain both numerical standards and qualitative provisions. Any proposed variations from the key numerical controls may be considered where the applicant demonstrates that an alternative solution could satisfy the relevant objectives.

 

The key relevant provisions of the RDCP are addressed below.

Part B7 Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access

Parking rates

The proposal sought to provide one less visitor parking space than that required under this part of the RDCP. Whilst the shortfall of one visitor space is generally considered acceptable on the basis that each unit is provided with a parking space; one visitor space can adequately service the site due to the low number of units (6) which also places the visitor parking demand in transition that is half of a space.

Notwithstanding, the reduction in bedrooms in the development by condition will result in compliant parking.

Part C2 Medium Density Residential

Visual and acoustic privacy

The proposal relating to visual and acoustic privacy have been discussed and assessed in the SEPP 65 section of this report.

Roof terrace

The proposed roof terrace is permissible under Cl 4.2vii) in Part C2 of the RDCP relating to Medium density development approved on site. The key objectives and controls are stated as follows:

Objectives

To ensure roof design integrates with the overall form, proportions and façade composition of the building.

To ensure any recreational use of the roof integrates with the built form and does not cause unreasonable privacy and noise impacts on the surrounding residences.

Control:

“vii) Terraces, decks or trafficable outdoor spaces on the roof may be considered only if:

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

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

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

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

The proposed communal roof terrace is significant in size and has the potential to result in adverse visual and noise impacts largely due to its proximity to the neighbouring properties and without any acoustic buffers. Details showing compliance with this condition shall be submitted to Councils Manager Development Assessment prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development.

Building facade

The proposal as amended now presents a more uniform development that is more sympathetic to the adjoining terraces to the west as guided by the Design Excellence Panel. The amended scheme will complement the adjoining Terraces and contribute to the streetscape character which is a key objective under this section of the RDCP and relevant sections under the RLEP.

External wall heights

 

The proposed development’s external wall heights vary across the site between 10.28m and 11.08m. The site is sloping from front (South) to rear (North). The point at which the proposal exceeds the 10.5m maximum RDCP control is limited to a small 4.4m section of western wall at the rear where the site is at its lowest level as shown in figure below.

 

Figure: Red box indicates the parts of the walls that exceeds the 10.5m maximum wall height control in the RDCP from 0.01cm up to 58cm.

 

An assessment against the objectives in the RDCP is carried out as follows:

 

Objectives:

 

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

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

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

 

The proposed external wall heights satisfy the above objectives for the following reasons:

 

o    Requiring a compliant wall height (a 58cm reduction) would preclude the proper development of the site having regard to envisaged envelope for the site – notwithstanding FSR being exceeded; the proposed non-compliant portion is related to a small volume of the upper level at the rear side elevations. The degree to which it extends above the maximum is minimised as far as practical due in part to the requirement for minimum floor to ceiling heights that require the 2.7m minimum under the RDCP and Apartment Design Guide. In other words, the proposed development contains suitable ceiling heights for all habitable rooms ensuring good promotion of light and amenity within each apartment. If the development was required to be below the external wall height control it would require the upper level to be removed which would mean a development that is well below that which is permitted under the RLEP and RDCP in terms of overall height, massing and envelope which as assessed in Clause 4.6 section of this report is considered acceptable due to particular circumstances of the scheme and the site;

 

o    The proposal has been designed to minimise impacts on the neighbouring property in terms of overshadowing by dropping down the rear part of the development so that it is at least 350mm below the 10.5m maximum. However, the extent of overshadowing to the only kitchen window of the eastern neighbours at Unit 2/27 Gilderthorpe Avenue is considered excessive having particular regard to the proposed floor area and massing of walls along the eastern elevation. A conditioned reduction of floor area can suitably ameliorate the shadowing impact allowing for at least 2 hours of solar access to this neighbours kitchen window. This condition requires the deletion of bedroom 3 at first and second floor level and a reduction in parapet height to maximum of RL71.68 within this indented portion will achieve solar access to the north facing window between 11.45am and 1:45pm during the winter solstice.

 

o    In relation to the visual amenity of neighbouring properties, it is acknowledged that the side elevations are particularly long without any substantial articulation or relief of massing. As such, it is recommended that conditions be included requiring voids at first and second floor level.

 

Overall, it is considered that requiring a lower wall height along the side elevations, excluding the conditioned reduction, would present disjointedly when compared with the parapet height of the development and would unnecessarily restrict the orderly development of the site to that which is well below that envisaged by the RLEP 2012. In other words, a compliant wall height would require a portion of the upper level to be removed which would detract from the overall form of the development and detract from the character of development;

 

Overall, in terms of external wall heights the proposed development is considered to satisfy the objectives in the RDCP.

 

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 has been assessed against relevant statutory controls relating to SEPP 65 (the ADG), the RLEP 2012 standards and relevant sections of the RDCP 2013. The application has been amended on two occasions seeking to address Councils and the Design Review Panels matters considered imperative in order to achieve a sustainable planning outcome in terms of both design and functionality. A more details analysis of overshadowing and solar access to neighbouring properties reveals that compliance can be achieved with the ADG controls having particular regard to the kitchen window of unit 2 at No. 27 Gilderthorpe Avenue.

 

The key amendments made and conditioned include amending the front façade and configuration; lowering the height; altering the roof design including deleting the communal roof space; provision of additional bicycle space and one on-street motorcycle space; removal of floor area at first and second floor level along the eastern and western elevations, required privacy screens have achieved a better planning outcome in relation to internal amenity, its contribution to the streetscape, and minimizing adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties.

 

The variation from the maximum floor space ratio standard as amended and controls contained within the ADG and the RDCP have been adequately justified in the Key Issues section of this report and where necessary the accompanying DA compliance report.

 

The development as amended and conditioned is considered acceptable as it will be in line with the aims and objectives of the abovementioned documents and will not result in any significant and unreasonable environmental impact on neighbouring properties in terms of views, overshadowing, site planning and privacy.

 

It is therefore considered that the proposed development as amended and conditioned is worthy of approval, subject to the recommended conditions attached to the DA compliance report.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clause 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to floor space ratio, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above 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. 769/2016 for demolition of all structures on site and construction of a new 3 storey residential flat building containing 6 dwellings over a basement car park for 8 vehicles, associated site and landscape work and strata subdivision, at No. 23-23S Gilderthorpe Avenue, Randwick NSW 2031, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non-standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.        Privacy screens having a height of 1.6m above floor level must be provided to eastern and western sides of the rear balconies. The privacy screens must be constructed of metal or timber and the total area of any openings within the privacy screens must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen.  Alternatively, the privacy screen may be constructed with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame or louvres to limit the direct view in an eastern or westerly direction to the neighbouring properties and their habitable room windows.

 

b.        Bedrooms 3 at first and second floor level along the eastern elevation shall be deleted to provide a recess in the side elevation. The void area above the ground floor shall step in a minimum of 3m from the eastern elevation to ensure a setback of at least 5m from the eastern side boundary shared with No. 27 Gilderthorpe Avenue. The maximum height of the walls around the void shall be reduced to maximum RL71.68. Any new glazing or reconfigured rooms proposed around these parts of the development shall be incorporated into an amended BASIX certificate and submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessment for approval. Any new glazing shall incorporate external privacy screens to protect the privacy of the neighbouring buildings. The total area of any openings within the privacy screens must not exceed 25% of the area of the screens.  This condition is included to improve internal amenity, amenity of neighbouring dwellings opposite and to break up the excessive visual length of wall along the eastern elevation. Details showing compliance with this condition shall be submitted to Council’s Manager of Development Assessment for approval prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

c.        Bedrooms 2 at first and second floor level along the western elevation shall be deleted to provide a recess in the side elevation. The void area above the ground floor shall step in a minimum of 3m from the western elevation to ensure a setback of at least 5m from the western side boundary shared with No. 21 Gilderthorpe Avenue. The maximum height of the walls around the void shall be reduced to maximum RL71.68. Any new glazing or reconfigured rooms proposed around these parts of the development shall be incorporated into an amended BASIX certificate and submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessment for approval. Any new glazing shall incorporate external privacy screens to protect the privacy of the neighbouring buildings. The total area of any openings within the privacy screens must not exceed 25% of the area of the screens.  This condition is included to improve internal amenity, amenity of neighbouring dwellings opposite and to break up the excessive visual length of wall along the western elevation. Details showing compliance with this condition shall be submitted to Council’s Manager of Development Assessment for approval prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

d.        Translucent glass or masonry balustrades shall be provided to the rear balconies of the development.

 

e.        No consent is granted for fencing to the eastern, western or northern side boundaries. Any new side or rear boundary fencing shall be subject to a separate development application unless the fence design meets the Exempt and Complying development criteria specified under the SEPP Exempt and Complying Codes 2008.

 

f.        Any external lighting to the premises and the communal open space shall be designed and located so as to minimise light-spill beyond the property boundary or cause a public nuisance.

 

g.        The external screens associated with the stair well and lobby area shall be designed so that they are a minimum of 25% open to exhibit a more patterned style. Details showing compliance with this condition shall be submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessment for approval prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development.

 

h.        The communal roof terrace shall deleted from the development and the roof area made non trafficable except for service access. All associated works including planter boxes and BBQ area shall be removed.

 

i.         The rear yard of the site shall be allocated for use as communal open space. The communal open space shall have minimum dimensions of 4m x 11m. The side fencing dividing the rear yard shall be removed from the development. Detail showing compliance with this condition shall be submitted to Council for approval.

 

Details showing compliance with this condition shall be submitted to Councils Manager Development Assessment prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development.

 

Section 94A Development Contributions

5.     The applicant shall submit a revised Quantity Survey report that reflects the approved development, prepared by a Registered Quantity Surveyor. The report shall be submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessment for approval, prior to the issue of any construction certificate for the development.

 

In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 21 April 2015, 1% of the development cost provided in the approved Quantity Survey report must be paid to Council.

 

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

 

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

IDC = ODC x CP2/CP1

 

Where:

IDC = the indexed development cost

ODC = the original development cost determined by the Council

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

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

 

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

 

Earthworks and structural adequacy

14.   A report must be obtained from a suitably qualified and experienced professional engineer/s, which includes the following details, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority for the development:-

 

a)      Geotechnical details which confirm the suitability and stability of the site for the development and relevant design and construction requirements to be implemented to ensure the stability and adequacy of the development and adjacent land.

 

b)      Details of the proposed methods of excavation and support for the adjoining land (including any public place) and buildings.

 

c)      Details to demonstrate that the proposed methods of excavation, support and construction are suitable for the site and should not result in any damage to the adjoining premises, buildings or any public place, as a result of the works and any associated vibration.

 

d)     The adjoining land and buildings located upon the adjoining land must be adequately supported at all times throughout demolition, excavation and building work, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

e)      Written approval must be obtained from the owners of the adjoining land to install any ground or rock anchors underneath the adjoining premises (including any public roadway or public place) and details must be provided to the Certifying Authority.

 

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

 

·            excavations for new buildings, additions to existing buildings and other substantial structures which are proposed to be located within the zone of influence of the footings of a building located upon an adjoining  premises,

·            buildings sited at the shared boundaries including but not limited to No. 17 Gilderthorpe Avenue & No. 19 Gilderthorpe Avenue;

·            Any other property or buildings that may be affected following more detailed information obtained from a detailed geo-technical report and required professional engineering certification.

·            excavations for new buildings, additions to existing buildings which are within rock and may result in vibration and or potential damage to any building located upon an adjoining  premises,

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

 

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

 

16.      A Certificate must be obtained from a professional engineer, which certifies that the building works satisfy the relevant structural requirements of the Building Code of Australia and approved design documentation, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority. A copy of which is to be provided to Council.

 

Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                             11 July 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D60/17

 

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

Folder No:                DA/555/2016

Author:                     Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment     

 

Introduction

 

The development application for demolition of the existing structures, construction of a new 3 storey residential flat building comprising of 8 apartments, 10 car spaces and rooftop terraces at No. 1 Coogee street, Randwick was referred to the Planning Committee Meeting on 9 May 2017. It was resolved at that meeting:

 

RESOLUTION: (Matson/Roberts) that the application be deferred for mediation.”

 

Issues

 

A Mediation Session was held on 27 June 2017 at the Randwick Council Administration Building.

 

The residents outlined their concerns associated with the DA, which included:

 

·     Balconies along the eastern elevation – privacy impacts

·     Roof terraces – privacy impacts

·     Overall height and bulk

·     Inadequate setbacks

·     Building setback to Coogee Street

·     Lack of opens space

·     Dangerous car park entry

 

The mediation did not result in a resolution of the issues between the applicant and the objectors.

 

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

 

As there was no mediated resolution of the issues in dispute, the application is referred back to Council with the original recommendation.


 

 

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

B.  That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/555/2016 for demolition of the existing structures, construction of a new 3 storey residential flat building comprising of 8 apartments, 10 car spaces and rooftop terraces, at No. 1 Coogee Street, Randwick, subject to the conditions:

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS

 

The development must be carried out in accordance with the following conditions of consent.

 

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

 

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

DA 1.00 Rev G

Hill Thalis

24/3/17

24 March 2017

DA 2.01 Rev G

24/3/17

24 March 2017

DA 2.02  Rev G

24/3/17

24 March 2017

DA 2.03 Rev G

24/3/17

24 March 2017

DA 2.04 Rev G

24/3/17

24 March 2017

DA 3.00 Rev G

24/3/17

24 March 2017

DA 3.01 Rev G

24/3/17

24 March 2017

DA 3.02 Rev G

24/3/17

24 March 2017

DA 3.03 Rev G

24/3/17

24 March 2017

DA 3.04 Rev G

24/3/17

24 March 2017

DA 3.05 Rev G

24/3/17

24 March 2017

DA 3.06 Rev G

24/3/17

24 March 2017

DA 3.07 Rev G

24/3/17

24 March 2017

DA 5.00 Rev D

29/7/2016

15 August 2016

 

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

748541M_02

14 August 2016

15 August 2016

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.  Privacy screens having a height of 1.6m above floor level must be provided to the following parts of the development:

 

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

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

 

The privacy screens must be constructed of metal or timber and the total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen.  Alternatively, the privacy screen may be constructed with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

On sloping sites or at changes in ground levels, the maximum height of the fence may exceed the abovementioned specified height by up to 150mm maximum adjacent to any required ‘step-downs’ or changes in ground level.

 

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

 

REQUIREMENTS BEFORE A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE CAN BE ISSUED

 

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

 

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

 

Consent Requirements

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

 

External Colours, Materials & Finishes

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

 

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

 

b)      Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (i.e. a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by [Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to issuing a construction certificate for the development.

Section 94A Development Contributions

5.        In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 21 April 2015, based on the development cost of $1,541,681.00 the following applicable monetary levy must be paid to Council: $15,416.81.

 

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

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

IDC = ODC x CP2/CP1

 

Where:

IDC = the indexed development cost

ODC = the original development cost determined by the Council

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

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

 

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

 

Long Service Levy Payments

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

 

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

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate security against damage to Council’s infrastructure:

 

Security Deposit

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

 

·         $5000.00   -       Damage / Civil Works Security Deposit

 

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

 

           The owner/builder is also requested to advise Council in writing and/or photographs of any signs of existing damage to the Council roadway, footway, or verge prior to the commencement of any building/demolition works.

 

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

 

Sydney Water

8.        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.

         

Tree Protection Measures

9.        In order to ensure retention of the Callistemon viminalis (Bottlebrush) located on Council’s Coogee Street verge, just past the eastern site boundary, in front of the adjoining site at no.3 in good health, the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

a.  All documentation submitted for the Construction Certificate application must show its retention, with the position and diameter of both its trunk and canopy to be clearly and accurately shown on all plans in relation to the proposed works.

 

b.  Any excavations associated with the installation of new services, pipes, stormwater systems or similar over this frontage can only be located along either side of the new vehicle crossing, with all hydraulic service plans to demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

c.   The Construction Certificate plans must show that the eastern edge of the new vehicle crossing will be constructed at a minimum setback of 2 metres from the eastern site boundary, as is shown on the Carpark-Ground Plan, dwg DA2.01, issue F, dated 30/11/16.

 

d.  This tree is to be physically protected by the installation of 1.8 metre high steel mesh/chainwire fencing, which shall be located a minimum distance of 1.5 metres to its east and west (measured off the outside edge of its trunk at ground level), matching up with the back of the kerb to its south, and pedestrian footpath to its north, in order to completely enclose this tree for the duration of works.

 

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

 

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

 

g.  Other than the approved works, the applicant is not authorised to perform any other works to this public tree, and must contact Council’s Landscape Development Officer on 9399-0613 should pruning or similar works appear necessary, giving suitable notice. If approval is given, it can only be performed by Council, wholly at the applicants cost, with payment to be received prior to the issue of any Occupation Certificate.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

k.  A refundable deposit in the form of cash, credit card or cheque for an amount of $500.00 must be paid at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre, prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development, in order to ensure compliance with the conditions listed in this consent, and ultimately, preservation of the tree.

 

The refundable deposit will be eligible for refund following the issue of an Occupation Certificate, subject to completion and submission of Council’s ‘Security Deposit Refund Application Form’, and pending a satisfactory inspection by Council’s Landscape Development Officer (9399-0613).

 

Any contravention of Council's conditions relating to the tree at any time during the course of the works, or prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, may result in Council claiming all or part of the lodged security in order to perform any rectification works necessary, as per the requirements of 80A (6) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

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

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

 

BASIX Requirements

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

 

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

 

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

 

Traffic conditions

12.      Adequate provisions are to be made to provide pedestrian visibility and safety.  All new walls (and/or landscaping) adjacent to vehicular crossings should not exceed a height of 600mm above the internal driveway level for a distance of 1.5m within the site or new walls (including landscaping) should splayed 1.5 metres by 1.5 metres. Details of compliance, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority, are to be included in the construction certificate documentation.

 

13.      The vehicular access driveways, internal circulation ramps and the carpark areas, (including, but not limited to, the ramp grades, carpark layout and height clearances) are to be in accordance with the requirements of AS2890.1:2004. The Construction Certificate plans must demonstrate compliance with these requirements.

 

Design Alignment levels

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

 

Access Driveway (Coogee St)

·         Match the back of the existing footpath at all points along the full site frontage.

 

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

 

           Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Development Engineer on 9399 6881.

 

15.      The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineering Section have been issued at a prescribed fee of $465 calculated at $56.00 (inclusive of GST) per metre of site frontage. This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

16.      The gradient of the internal access driveway must be designed and constructed in accordance with AS 2890.1 (2004) – Off Street Car Parking and the levels of the driveway must match the alignment levels at the property boundary (as specified by Council). Details of compliance are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

The height of the building must not be increased to satisfy the required driveway gradients.

       

17.      Stormwater drainage plans have not been approved as part of this development consent. Engineering calculations and plans with levels reduced to Australian Height Datum in relation to site drainage shall be prepared by a suitably qualified Hydraulic Engineer and submitted to and approved by the certifying authority prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. A copy of the engineering calculations and plans are to be forwarded to Council, prior to a construction certificate being issued, if the Council is not the certifying authority. The drawings and details shall include the following information:

 

a)       A detailed drainage design supported by a catchment area plan, at a scale of 1:100 or as considered acceptable to the Council or an accredited certifier, and drainage calculations prepared in accordance with the Institution of Engineers publication, Australian Rainfall and Run-off, 1987 edition.

 

b)       A layout of the proposed drainage system including pipe sizes, type, grade, length, invert levels, etc., dimensions and types of all drainage pipes and the connection into Council's stormwater system. 

 

c)        The separate catchment areas within the site, draining to each collection point or surface pit are to be classified into the following categories:

 

i.         Roof areas

ii.        Paved areas

iii.       Grassed areas

iv.       Garden areas

 

d)       Where buildings abut higher buildings and their roofs are "flashed in" to the higher wall, the area contributing must be taken as:  the projected roof area of the lower building, plus one half of the area of the vertical wall abutting, for the purpose of determining the discharge from the lower roof.

 

e)       Proposed finished surface levels and grades of car parks, internal driveways and access aisles which are to be related to Council's design alignment levels.

 

f)        The details of any special features that will affect the drainage design eg. the nature of the soil in the site and/or the presence of rock etc.

 

18.      The site stormwater drainage system is to be provided in accordance with the following requirements;

 

a)      The stormwater drainage system must be provided in accordance with the relevant requirements of Building Code of Australia and the conditions of this consent, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

b)        The stormwater must be discharged (by gravity) either:

 

i.     Directly to the kerb and gutter or drainage system in front of the subject site in Coogee Street; or

 

ii.    To a suitably designed infiltration system (subject to confirmation in a geotechnical investigation that the ground conditions are suitable for the infiltration system)

 

c)      Should stormwater be discharged to Council’s street drainage system, an on-site stormwater detention system must be provided to ensure that the maximum discharge from the site does not exceed that which would occur during a 1 in 5 year storm of one hour duration for existing site conditions. All other stormwater run-off from the site for all storms up to the 1 in 20 year storm is to be retained on the site for gradual release to the street drainage system, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

An overland escape route or overflow system (to Council’s street drainage system) must be provided for storms having an average recurrence interval of 100 years (1 in 100 year storm), or, alternatively the stormwater detention system is to be provided to accommodate the 1 in 100 year storm.

 

d)     Should stormwater be discharged to an infiltration system the following requirements must be met;

 

i.          Infiltration systems/Absorption Trenches must be designed and constructed generally in accordance with Randwick City Council's Private Stormwater Code.

 

ii.         The infiltration area shall be sized for all storm events up to the 5% AEP (1 in 20 year) storm event with provision for a formal overland flow path to Council’s Street drainage system.

 

            Should no formal overland escape route be provided for storms greater than the 5% AEP (1 in 20yr) design storm, the infiltration system shall be sized for the 1% AEP (1 in 100yr) storm event.

 

iii.         Infiltration areas must be a minimum of 3.0 metres from any structure (Note: this setback requirement may not be necessary if a structural engineer or other suitably qualified person certifies that the infiltration area will not adversely affect the structure)

 

iv.        Infiltration areas must be a minimum of 2.1 metres from any site boundary unless the boundary is common to Council land (eg. a road, laneway or reserve).

 

e)      Determination of the required cumulative storage (in the on-site detention and/or infiltration system) must be calculated by the mass curve technique as detailed in Technical Note 1, Chapter 14 of the Australian Rainfall and Run-off Volume 1, 1987 Edition.

 

Where possible any detention tanks should have an open base to infiltrate stormwater into the ground. Infiltration should not be used if ground water and/or any rock stratum is within 2.0 metres of the base of the tank.

 

f)      Should a pump system be required to drain any portion of the site the system must be designed with a minimum of two pumps being installed, connected in parallel (with each pump capable of discharging at the permissible discharge rate) and connected to a control board so that each pump will operate alternatively. The pump wet well shall be sized for the 1 in 100 year, 2 hour storm assuming both pumps are not working.

 

The pump system must also be designed and installed strictly in accordance with Randwick City Council's Private Stormwater Code.

 

g)     Generally all internal pipelines must be capable of discharging a 1 in 20 year storm flow.  However the minimum pipe size for pipes that accept stormwater from a surface inlet pit must be 150mm diameter.  The site must be graded to direct any surplus run-off (i.e. above the 1 in 20 year storm) to the proposed drainage (detention/infiltration) system.

 

h)     A sediment/silt arrestor pit must be provided within the site near the street boundary prior to discharge of the stormwater to Council’s drainage system and prior to discharging the stormwater to any absorption/infiltration system.

 

 

Sediment/silt arrestor pits are to be constructed generally in accordance with the following requirements:

·       The base of the pit being located a minimum 300mm under the invert level of the outlet pipe.

·       The pit being constructed from cast in-situ concrete, precast concrete or double brick.

·       A minimum of 4 x 90 mm diameter weep holes (or equivalent) located in the walls of the pit at the floor level with a suitable geotextile material with a high filtration rating located over the weep holes.

·       A galvanised heavy-duty screen being provided over the outlet pipe/s (Mascot GMS multipurpose filter screen or equivalent).

·       The grate being a galvanised heavy-duty grate that has a provision for a child proof fastening system.

·       A child proof and corrosion resistant fastening system being provided for the access grate (e.g. spring loaded j-bolts or similar).

·       Provision of a sign adjacent to the pit stating, “This sediment/silt arrester pit shall be regularly inspected and cleaned”.

 

Sketch details of a standard sediment/silt arrester pit may be obtained from Council’s Drainage Engineer.

 

i)       The floor level of all habitable, retail, commercial and storage areas located adjacent to any detention and/or infiltration systems with above ground storage must be a minimum of 300mm above the maximum water level for the design storm or alternately a permanent 300mm high water proof barrier is to be provided.

 

(In this regard, it must be noted that this condition must not result in any increase in the heights or levels of the building.  Any variations to the heights or levels of the building will require a new or amended development consent from the Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development).

 

j)      The maximum depth of ponding in any above ground detention areas and/or infiltration systems with above ground storage shall be as follows (as applicable):

i.     150mm in uncovered open car parking areas (with an isolated maximum depth of 200mm permissible at the low point pit within the detention area)

ii.    300mm in landscaped areas (where child proof fencing is not provided around the outside of the detention area and sides slopes are steeper than 1 in 10)

iii.    600mm in landscaped areas where the side slopes of the detention area have a maximum grade of 1 in 10

iv.   1200mm in landscaped areas where a safety fence is provided around the outside of the detention area

v.    Above ground stormwater detention areas must be suitably signposted where required, warning people of the maximum flood level.

 

Note: Above ground storage of stormwater is not permitted within basement car parks or store rooms.

 

k)      A childproof and corrosion resistant fastening system shall be installed on access grates over pits/trenches where water is permitted to be temporarily stored.

 

l)       A ‘V’ drain (or equally effective provisions) are to be provided to the perimeter of the property, where necessary, to direct all stormwater to the detention/infiltration area.

 

m)     Mulch or bark is not to be used in on-site detention areas.

 

n)     Site discharge pipelines shall cross the verge at an angle no less than 45 degrees to the kerb line and must not encroach across a neighbouring property’s frontage unless approved in writing by Council’s Development Engineering Coordinator.

 

o)      Any onsite detention/infiltration systems shall be located in areas accessible by residents of all units.

 

p)      Should a charged system be required to drain any portion of the site, the charged system must be designed such that;

 

i.   There are suitable clear-outs/inspection points at pipe bends and junctions.

 

ii.  The maximum depth of the charged line does not exceed 1m below the gutter outlet.

 

Site seepage

19.      The proposed development shall comply with the following requirements to ensure the adequate management of Site seepage and sub-soil drainage:

 

a)    Seepage/ground water and subsoil drainage (from planter boxes etc) must not be collected & discharged directly or indirectly to  Council’s street gutter or underground drainage system

 

b)    Adequate provision is to be made for the ground water to drain around the basement carpark (to ensure the basement will not dam or slow the movement of the ground water through the development site).

 

c)    The walls of the basement level/s of the building are to be waterproofed/tanked to restrict the entry of any seepage water and subsoil drainage into the basement level/s of the building and the stormwater drainage system for the development.

 

d)    Sub-soil drainage systems may discharge via infiltration subject to the hydraulic consultant/engineer being satisfied that the site and soil conditions are suitable and the seepage is able to be fully managed within the site, without causing a nuisance to any premises and ensuring that it does not drain or discharge (directly or indirectly) to the street gutter.

                 

e)    Details of the proposed stormwater drainage system including methods of tanking the basement levels and any sub-soil drainage systems (as applicable) must be prepared or approved by a suitably qualified and experienced Professional Engineer to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be included in the construction certificate. A copy of the proposed method for tanking the basement levels must be forwarded to Council if Council is not the Certifying Authority.

 

Waste Management

20.      Waste Management provisions must be implemented in accordance with the Waste Management Plan submitted with the development application (Prepared by Spiro Raissis dated stamped by Council 15th August 2016, subject to the following amendments:-

 

·     Full Details of demolition and construction waste, including materials to be re-used or recycled are to be provided.

 

·     Details of proposed recycling and waste disposal contractors are to be provided

 

The amended waste and recycling storage and removal strategy for all of the development is required to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Planning prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

21.      The garbage room shall be sized to contain a total of 10 x 240 litre bins (comprising 4 garbage bins, 4 recycle bins & 2 green waste and with adequate provisions for access to all bins.  Details showing compliance are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

22.      The waste storage areas are to be provided with a tap and hose and the floor is to be graded and drained to the sewer to the requirements of Sydney Water.

 

Landscape Plan

23.      The Certifying Authority/PCA must ensure that the Landscape Plans submitted as part of the approved Construction Certificate are substantially consistent with the Landscape Plan, Sections & Planting Plans by Jila, dwg‘s LA01-03, Issue A, dated 28/7/16.

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

c)      a principal contractor must be appointed for the building work, or in relation to residential building work, an owner-builder permit may be obtained in accordance with the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989, and the PCA and Council are to be notified accordingly; and

 

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

 

e)      at least two days notice must be given to the Council, in writing, prior to commencing any works.

 

In relation to residential building work, the principal contractor must be the holder of a contractor licence, in accordance with the provisions of the Home Building Act 1989.

 

Home Building Act 1989

25.      In accordance with section 80 A (11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 98 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989 must be complied with.

 

Details of the Licensed Building Contractor and a copy of the relevant Certificate of Home Warranty Insurance or a copy of the Owner-Builder Permit (as applicable) must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council.

 

Dilapidation Reports

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan

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

 

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

 

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

 

Construction Site Management Plan

28.      A Construction Site Management Plan must be developed and implemented prior to the commencement of any works. The construction site management plan must include the following measures, as applicable to the type of development:

 

·             location and construction of protective fencing / hoardings to the perimeter of the site;

·             location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

·             location of building materials for construction;

·             provisions for public safety;

·             dust control measures;

·             site access location and construction

·             details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

·             protective measures for tree preservation;

·             provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

·             location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

·             details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

·             provisions for temporary stormwater drainage;

·             construction noise and vibration management;

·             construction traffic management details.

 

The site management measures must be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and be maintained throughout the works, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

A copy of the Construction Site Management Plan must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to commencing site works.  A copy must also be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

Demolition Work Plan

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

 

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

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

·             Details of hazardous materials (including asbestos)

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

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

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

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

·             Other relevant details, measures and requirements to be implemented

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

·             Date the demolition works will commence

 

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

 

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

 

Notes

 

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

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

 

Construction Traffic Management

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

·       A description of the demolition, excavation and construction works

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

·       Any proposed road and/or footpath closures

·       Proposed site access locations for personnel, deliveries and materials

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

·       Provision for loading and unloading of goods and materials

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

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

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

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

·       Measures to maintain public safety and convenience

 

The approved Construction Site Traffic Management Plan must be complied with at all times, and any proposed amendments to the approved Construction Site Traffic Management Plan must be submitted to and be approved by Council in writing, prior to the implementation of any variations to the Plan.

 

32.      Any necessary approvals must be obtained from NSW Police, Roads & Maritime Services, Transport, and relevant Service Authorities, prior to commencing work upon or within the road, footway or nature strip.

 

        Public Utilities

33.      A public utility impact assessment must be carried out on all public utility services located on the site, roadway, nature strip, footpath, public reserve or any public areas associated with and/or adjacent to the building works.  The assessment should include relevant information from public utility authorities and exploratory trenching or pot-holing, if necessary, to determine the position and level of services.

 

34.      Documentary evidence from the relevant public utility authorities confirming they have agreed to the proposed works and that their requirements have been or are able to be satisfied, must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the commencement of any demolition, excavation or building works.

 

The owner/builder must make the necessary arrangements and meet the full cost       for telecommunication companies, gas providers, Ausgrid, Sydney Water and       other service authorities to adjust, repair or relocate their services as required.

 

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

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

 

The Principal Certifying Authority must specify the relevant stages of construction to be inspected and a satisfactory inspection must be carried out, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to proceeding to the subsequent stages of construction or finalisation of the works (as applicable).

 

Site Signage

36.      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

37.      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

38.      The demolition of buildings and the removal, storage, handling and disposal of building materials must be carried out in accordance with the relevant requirements of WorkCover NSW, the NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change & Water and Randwick City Council policies, including:

 

·             Work Health & Safety Act 2011 and Regulations

·             WorkCover NSW Code of Practice for the Safe Removal of Asbestos

·             WorkCover NSW Guidelines and Codes of Practice

·             Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

·             The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations

·             Relevant EPA Guidelines

·             Randwick City Council Asbestos Policy

 

A copy of Council’s Asbestos Policy is available on Council’s web site at www.randwick.nsw.gov.au in the Building & Development section or a copy can be obtained from Council’s Customer Service Centre.

 

Removal of Asbestos Materials

39.      Work involving the demolition, storage or disposal of asbestos products and materials must be carried out in accordance with the following requirements:

 

·             Relevant Occupational Health & Safety legislation and WorkCover NSW requirements

 

·             Randwick City Council’s Asbestos Policy

 

·             A WorkCover licensed demolition or asbestos removal contractor must undertake removal of more than 10m2 of bonded asbestos (or as otherwise specified by WorkCover or relevant legislation).  Removal of friable asbestos material must only be undertaken by contractor that holds a current friable asbestos removal licence.  A copy of the relevant licence must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

·             On sites involving the removal of asbestos, a sign must be clearly displayed in a prominent visible position at the front of the site, containing the words ‘DANGER ASBESTOS REMOVAL IN PROGRESS’ and include details of the licensed contractor.

 

·             Asbestos waste must be stored, transported and disposed of in compliance with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005.  Details of the landfill site (which must be lawfully able to receive asbestos materials) must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

·             A Clearance Certificate or Statement, prepared by a suitably qualified person (i.e. an occupational hygienist, licensed asbestos removal contractor, building consultant, architect or experienced licensed building contractor), must be provided to Council and the Principal certifying authority upon completion of the asbestos related works which confirms that the asbestos material have been removed appropriately and the relevant conditions of consent have been satisfied.

 

A copy of Council’s Asbestos Policy is available on Council’s web site at www.randwick.nsw.gov.au in the Building & Development Section or a copy can be obtained from Council’s Customer Service Centre.

 

Sediment & Erosion Control

40.      Sediment and erosion control measures, must be implemented throughout the site works in accordance with the manual for Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, published by Landcom, to Council’s satisfaction.  Details are to be included in the Construction Site Management Plan.

 

Public Safety & Site Management

41.      Public safety and convenience must be maintained at all times during demolition, excavation and construction works and the following requirements must be complied with:

 

a)      Public access to the building site and materials must be restricted by existing boundary fencing or temporary site fencing having a minimum height of 1.5m, to Council’s satisfaction.

 

Temporary site fences are required to be constructed of cyclone wire fencing material and be structurally adequate, safe and constructed in a professional manner.  The use of poor quality materials or steel reinforcement mesh as fencing is not permissible.

 

b)      Building materials, sand, soil, waste materials, construction equipment or other articles must not be placed upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time.

 

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

 

d)     Building operations such as brick cutting, washing tools or equipment and mixing mortar are not permitted on public footpaths, roadways, nature strips, in any public place or any location which may lead to the discharge of materials into the stormwater drainage system.

 

e)      Sediment and erosion control measures, must be implemented throughout the site works in accordance with the manual for Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, published by Landcom, to Council’s satisfaction.

 

f)      Site fencing, building materials, bulk bins/waste containers and other articles must not be located upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time without the prior written approval of the Council.  Applications to place a waste container in a public place can be made to Council’s Health, Building and Regulatory Services department.

 

g)     Temporary safety fencing is to be provided to any swimming pools under construction, pending the completion of all building work and the pool must not be filled until a fencing inspection has been carried out and approved by the principal certifying authority.

 

Support of Adjoining Land, Excavations & Retaining Walls

42.      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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

·     as may be required by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

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

 

Building Encroachments

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

 

Site Seepage & Stormwater

46.      Details of the proposed connection and or disposal of any site seepage, groundwater or construction site stormwater to Council’s stormwater drainage system must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Development Engineering Coordinator, prior to commencing these works, in accordance with section 138 of the Roads Act 1993.

 

Details must include the following information:

 

·       Site plan

·       Hydraulic engineering details of the proposed disposal/connection of groundwater or site stormwater to Council/s drainage system

·       Volume of water to be discharged

·       Location and size of drainage pipes

·       Duration, dates and time/s for the proposed works and disposal

·       Details of water quality and compliance with the requirements of the Protection of the Environment Act 1997

·       Details of associated plant and equipment, including noise levels from the plant and equipment and compliance with the requirements of the Protection of the Environment Act 1997 and associated Regulations and Guidelines

·       Copy of any required approvals and licences from other Authorities (e.g.  A water licence from the Department of Planning/Department of Water & Energy).

·       Details of compliance with any relevant approvals and licences

 

Road/Asset Opening Permit

47.      Any openings within or upon the road, footpath, nature strip or in any public place (i.e. for proposed drainage works or installation of services), must be carried out in accordance with the following requirements, to the satisfaction of Council:

 

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

 

b)      Council’s Road / Asset Opening Officer must be notified at least 48 hours in advance of commencing any excavation works and also immediately upon completing the works (on 9399 0691 or 0409 033 921 during business hours), to enable any necessary inspections or works to be carried out.

 

c)      Relevant Road / Asset Opening Permit fees, construction fees, inspection fees and security deposits, must be paid to Council prior to commencing any works within or upon the road, footpath, nature strip or other public place,

 

d)     The owner/developer must ensure that all works within or upon the road reserve, footpath, nature strip or other public place are completed to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the issuing of a final occupation certificate or occupation of the development (whichever is sooner).

 

e)      Excavations and trenches must be back-filled and compacted in accordance with AUSPEC standards 306U.

 

f)      Excavations or trenches located upon a road or footpath are required to be provided with 50mm depth of cold-mix bitumen finish, level with the existing road/ground surface, to enable Council to readily complete the finishing works at a future date.

 

g)     Excavations or trenches located upon turfed areas are required to be back-filled, compacted, top-soiled and re-turfed with Kikuyu turf.

 

h)     The work and area must be maintained in a clean, safe and tidy condition at all times and the area must be thoroughly cleaned at the end of each days activities and upon completion.

i)       The work can only be carried out in accordance with approved hours of building work as specified in the development consent, unless the express written approval of Council has been obtained beforehand.

 

j)      Sediment control measures must be implemented in accordance with the conditions of development consent and soil, sand or any other material must not be allowed to enter the stormwater drainage system or cause a pollution incident.

 

k)      The owner/developer must have a Public Liability Insurance Policy in force, with a minimum cover of $10 million and a copy of the insurance policy must be provided to Council prior to carrying out any works within or upon the road, footpath, nature strip or in any public place.

 

Roadway

48.      If it is necessary to excavate below the level of the base of the footings of the adjoining roadways, the person acting on the consent shall ensure that the owner/s of the roadway is/are given at least seven (7) days notice of the intention to excavate below the base of the footings. The notice is to include complete details of the work.

 

Traffic Management

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

 

50.      All work, including the provision of barricades, fencing, lighting, signage and traffic control, must be carried out in accordance with the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority publication - ‘Traffic Control at Work Sites’ and Australian Standard AS 1742.3 – Traffic Control Devices for Works on Roads, at all times.

 

51.      All conditions and requirements of the NSW Police, Roads & Maritime Services, Transport and Council must be complied with at all times.

 

Stormwater Drainage

52.      Adequate provisions must be made to collect and discharge stormwater drainage during construction of the building to the satisfaction of the principal certifying authority.

 

The prior written approval of Council must be obtained to connect or discharge site stormwater to Council’s stormwater drainage system or street gutter.

 

           Tree Removal

53.      Due to their small size and insignificance, no objections are raised to removing all vegetation throughout the site where necessary so as to accommodate the works as shown, including the two Howea fosteriana (Kentia Palms) along the rear boundary, towards the northeast corner of the site, subject to full implementation of the approved landscaping.

 

Pruning

54.      Permission is granted for the minimal and selective pruning of only those fronds from the western aspect of the two Cyathea cooperi (Tree Ferns) that are located in the rear yard of the adjoining site to the east, no.3, against the common boundary, only where they overhang into the subject site, and need to be pruned in order to avoid damage to them; or; interference with the approved works.

 

55.      This approval does not imply any right of entry onto a neighbouring property nor does it allow pruning beyond a common boundary; however, where such measures are desirable in the best interests of correct pruning procedures, and ultimately, the ongoing health of these tree ferns, the applicant must negotiate with the neighbour/tree owner for access to perform this work.

 

56.      All pruning must be undertaken by an Arborist who holds a minimum of AQF Level III in Arboriculture, and to the requirements of Australian Standard AS 4373-2007 'Pruning of Amenity Trees,’ and NSW Work Cover Code of Practice for the Amenity Tree Industry (1998).

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

 

The following conditions of consent must be complied with prior to the ‘Principal Certifying Authority’ issuing an ‘Occupation Certificate’.

 

Note:  For the purpose of this consent, any reference to ‘occupation certificate’ shall also be taken to mean ‘interim occupation certificate’ unless otherwise stated.

 

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

 

Occupation Certificate Requirements

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

 

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

 

BASIX Requirements

58.      In accordance with Clause 154B of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, a Certifying Authority must not issue an Occupation Certificate for this development, unless it is satisfied that each of the required BASIX commitments have been fulfilled.

 

Relevant documentary evidence of compliance with the BASIX commitments is to be forwarded to the Council upon issuing an Occupation Certificate.

 

Council’s Infrastructure, Vehicular Crossings & Road Openings

59.      The owner/developer must meet the full cost for a Council approved contractor to:

a)       Construct a full width concrete vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance to the site, to Council’s specifications and requirements.

b)       Re-construct kerb and gutter for the full site frontage on Coogee Street and extend to the kerb tangent point in Judge Street adjacent to the power pole.

c)        Carry out a full depth, 1 metre wide, road construction in front of the reconstructed kerb and gutter, to Council’s specifications and requirements.

d)       Re/construct a 1.3m wide concrete footpath along the full site frontage in Coogee Street.  Any unpaved areas on the nature strip must be turfed and landscaped to Council’s specification.

e)       Install ‘No Stopping’ sign immediately to the west of the finished crossing to ensure vehicle will not park to the west of the new crossing.

 

60.      Prior to issuing a final occupation certificate or occupation of the development (whichever is sooner), the owner/developer must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to repair/replace any damaged sections of Council's footpath, kerb & gutter, nature strip etc which are due to building works being carried out at the above site. This includes the removal of cement slurry from Council's footpath and roadway.

 

61.      All external civil work to be carried out on Council property (including the installation and repair of roads, footpaths, vehicular crossings, kerb and guttering and drainage works), must be carried out in accordance with Council's  "Crossings and Entrances – Contributions Policy” and “Residents’ Requests for Special Verge Crossings Policy” and the following requirements:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Service Authorities

Sydney Water Requirements

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

 

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

The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority and the Council prior to issuing an Occupation Certificate.

 

Undergrounding of Power

63.      At no cost to Council, the existing overhead power feed between the mains distribution pole in the street and the development site, shall be relocated to an underground (UGOH) connection. All work shall be to the requirements and satisfaction of Ausgrid.

 

Stormwater Drainage

64.      A "restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant" (under section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919) shall be placed on the title of the subject property to ensure that the onsite detention/infiltration system is maintained and that no works which could affect the design function of the detention/infiltration system are undertaken without the prior consent (in writing) from Council. Such restriction and positive covenant shall not be released, varied or modified without the consent of the Council.

Notes:

a.        The “restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant” are to be to the satisfaction of Council. A copy of Council’s standard wording/layout for the restriction and positive covenant may be obtained from Council’s Development Engineer.

b.        The works as executed drainage plan and hydraulic certification must be submitted to Council prior to the “restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant” being executed by Council.

 

65.      A works-as-executed drainage plan prepared by a registered surveyor and approved by a suitably qualified and experienced hydraulic consultant/engineer must be forwarded to the Principal Certifying Authority and the Council. The works-as-executed plan must include the following details (as applicable):

 

·     The location of any detention basin/s with finished surface levels;

·     Finished site contours at 0.2 metre intervals;

·     Volume of storage available in any detention areas;

·      The location, diameter, gradient and material (i.e. PVC, RC etc) of all stormwater pipes;

·     The orifice size/s (if applicable);

·     Details of any infiltration/absorption systems; and

·     Details of any pumping systems installed (including wet well volumes).

 

66.      The applicant shall submit to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and Council, certification from a suitably qualified and experienced Hydraulic Engineer, which confirms that the design and construction of the stormwater drainage system complies with the Building Code of Australia, Australian Standard AS3500.3:2003 (Plumbing & Drainage- Stormwater Drainage) and conditions of this development consent. 

 

The certification must be provided following inspection/s of the site stormwater drainage system by the Hydraulic Engineers to the satisfaction of the PCA.

 

67.      The applicant shall submit to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and Council certification from a suitably qualified and experienced professional engineer, confirming that the walls of the basement have been fully tanked and waterproofed to prevent the entry of all groundwater in the basement level/s and that any required sub-soil drainage systems have been provided in accordance with the conditions of this consent..

 

Landscaping

68.      Prior to issuing any type of Occupation Certificate, certification from a qualified professional in the landscape/horticultural industry must be submitted to, and be approved by, the PCA, confirming the date that the completed landscaping was inspected, and that it has been installed substantially in accordance with the Landscape Plan, Sections & Planting Plans by Jila, dwg ‘s LA01-03, Issue A, dated 28/7/16.

 

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

 

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

 

Waste Management

71.      Prior to the occupation of the development, the owner or applicant is required to contact Council’s City Services department, to make the necessary arrangements for the provision of waste services for the premises.

 

72.      The waste storage areas shall be clearly signposted.

 

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.

 

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

 

External Lighting

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

 

Stormwater Detention/Infiltration  System

75.      The detention area/infiltration system must be regularly cleaned and maintained to ensure it functions as required by the design.

 

Residential Parking Permits

76.      All prospective owners and tenants of the building must be notified that Council will not issue any residential parking permits to occupants/tenants of this development.

 

77.      A notice shall be placed in the foyer/common areas of the building advising tenants/occupiers that they are in a building which does not qualify for on-street resident parking permits.

 

Plant & Equipment

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

 

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

 

Air Conditioners

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

 

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

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

 

Rainwater Tanks

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

 

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

·       before 7.00am or after 8.00pm on weekdays.

 

ADVISORY NOTES

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

A5       Underground assets may exist in the area that is subject to your application. In the interests of health and safety and in order to protect damage to third party assets please contact Dial before you dig at www.1100.com.au or telephone on 1100 before excavating or erecting structures (This is the law in NSW). If alterations are required to the configuration, size, form or design of the development upon contacting the Dial before You Dig service, an amendment to the development consent (or a new development application) may be necessary. Individuals owe asset owners a duty of care that must be observed when working in the vicinity of plant or assets. It is the individual’s responsibility to anticipate and request the nominal location of plant or assets on the relevant property via contacting the Dial before you dig service in advance of any construction or planning activities.

A6       The applicant is to advise Council in writing and/or photographs of any signs of existing damage to the Council roadway, footway, or verge prior to the commencement of any building/demolition works.

 

A7       Further information and details on Council's requirements for trees on development sites can be obtained from the recently adopted Tree Technical Manual, which can be downloaded from Council’s website at the following link, http://www.randwick.nsw.gov.au - Looking after our environment – Trees – Tree

 

A8       A Local Approval application must be submitted to and be approved by Council prior to commencing any of the following activities on a footpath, road, nature strip or in any public place:

 

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

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

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

 

For further information please contact Council on 9399 0944.

 

A9       Specific details of the location of the building/s should be provided in the Construction Certificate to demonstrate that the proposed building work will not encroach onto the adjoining properties, Council’s road reserve or any public place.

 

A10     Prior to commencing any works, the owner/builder should contact Dial Before You Dig on 1100 or www.dialbeforeyoudig.com.au and relevant Service Authorities, for information on potential underground pipes and cables within the vicinity of the development site.

 

A11     This consent does not authorise any trespass or encroachment upon any adjoining or supported land or building whether private or public.  Where any underpinning, shoring, soil anchoring (temporary or permanent) or the like is proposed to be carried out upon any adjoining or supported land, the land owner or principal contractor must obtain:

 

§  the consent of the owners of such adjoining or supported land to trespass or encroach, or

§  an access order under the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 2000, or

§  an easement under section 88K of the Conveyancing Act 1919, or

§  an easement under section 40 of the Land & Environment Court Act 1979, as appropriate.

 

Section 177 of the Conveyancing Act 1919 creates a statutory duty of care in relation to support of land.  Accordingly, a person has a duty of care not to do anything on or in relation to land being developed (the supporting land) that removes the support provided by the supporting land to any other adjoining land (the supported land).

 

A12     Smoke alarms are required to be installed in all residential dwellings, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and the Building Code of Australia.  Details should be included in the construction certificate application.

 

A13     Demolition work and removal of asbestos materials:

 

§  A copy of Council’s Asbestos Policy is available on Council’s web site at www.randwick.nsw.gov.au in the Building & Development section or a copy can be obtained from Council’s Customer Service Centre.

 

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

 

A14     Any external lighting to the premises should be designed and located so as to minimise light-spill beyond the property boundary or cause a public nuisance.

 

A15     Building owners and occupiers should consider implementing appropriate measures to prevent children from falling from high-level window openings and balconies (e.g. by installing window locking devices; installing heavy-duty screens to window openings; limiting the dimensions of any openings to 125mm; ensuring balustrades to balconies are at least 1m high and; locating fixtures, fittings and furniture away from high-level windows and balconies).

 

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

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 1 Coogee Street, RANDWICK 

 

2.

Executive Report - 1 Coogee Street, Randwick - Meeting on 9 May, 2017

 

 

 

 


DA Compliance Report - 1 Coogee Street, RANDWICK

Attachment 1

 

 

 

 

Development Application Compliance Report

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Folder /DA No:

DA/555/2016

PROPERTY:     

 

1 Coogee Street, RANDWICK  NSW  2031

Proposal:

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

Recommendation:

Approval

 

Relevant Environment Planning Instruments:

 

 

1.      SEPPs

 

1.1     State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality for Residential Apartment Development

 

INTRODUCTION

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

This document is available from the Department of Planning Environment

 

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

 

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

 

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

PANEL COMMENTS

This is the first occasion on which the Panel has reviewed this application for consent to demolish a 1920s brick house on a site of 558.9m² and erect a 2 storey apartment building above a semi basement with parking for ten cars.

Although the address is 1 Coogee St, the main frontage is on Judge St. The topography falls fairly steeply towards the east giving numerous properties in the area (including the subject property) an outlook towards the coast.

The proposal is 8, 1-bedroom apartments which are over 2 levels on top of a semi-basement car park. There is a centrally located common open stair from the main entrance on Judge St.

The application is a very thorough one.

The Panel is familiar with the site and its surroundings.

Principle 1: Context and Neighbourhood Character

The site is well located, close to Randwicks main shopping centre with good access to various modes of transport, open space and public facilities.

This is a sloping part of Randwick that often affords views to the coast. It is an architecturally diverse area, being host to many building types, scales and styles.

The immediate vicinity of the site is made up of both single and two storey dwellings, as well as three and four storey apartment buildings - making for a challenging context within which to design. It should also be noted that set backs also vary from site to site.

There is a new 3 storey development under construction on the corner of Milford & Judge Streets, the building directly to the south is 3-4 storey residential flat building, and the building to the east is a single level house.

That said, based on the above, a building of the type and scale proposed would not be inconsistent with the character of the neighbourhood.

Principle 2: Built Form and Scale

The massing of the building is humble and responsive to the topography of the site and views enjoyed by other properties. The height of the main mass is largely below the overall height limit of 9m however breaches the wall height control progressively as the site falls away to the east. The existing property to the east (3 Coogee St) is a single storey dwelling, and although there is a generous amount of landscaping between the properties for separation, the Panel has some concern about the scale of the proposed development when viewed from this side.

The presentation of the main building mass to Judge St is basically 2 storey, and sits, for the most part well under the height limit which is a direct design decision to preserve the views of properties uphill to the west (see view studies). The structures designed around the roof terraces do create a minor breach of the height limit, having a minor impact on views, howeverthese impacts are minimised due to the lightweight nature of the pergola structures and the design decision to run any dwarf walls longitudinally to the views and on balance these structures are supported by the Panel. It should importantly be noted that the proposed development has less impact on views that would a complying envelope, so the Panel finds it difficult to see why these minor non-compliances and impacts should not be supported by Council officers.

The overall building mass is effectively broken down into 4 main elements (see elevations) which are articulated via their materiality and solidity this is effective, however the Panel does have concerns whether the result is too busy from an aesthetic point of view (see below).

The Panel also notes the proximity of the proposed development to the western/Judge St boundary.

Principle 3: Density

The proposal complies with the Floor Space Control and from the western side, which could be argued as the main vulnerability for amenity impacts, is less bulky than a complying envelope.

The apartment mix is in keeping with the area, which is already diverse in its accommodation offerings and it located close to transport and a shopping hub. The compact nature of the proposed apartments certainly reflects the future need of the area whilst still providing good amenity.

The Panel is supportive of the proposed density.

Principle 4: Sustainability

The proposal is very well considered in all aspects of sustainable design.

The floor plans are well crafted to ensure maximum sunlight and daylight control at the appropriate times of year in each apartment. Use of balconies, louvres, reveals and overhangs are carefully used to provide direct sun control. This is then capitalised upon via a predominant concrete and masonry construction providing thermal mass in the appropriate locations.

All apartments have good cross ventilation due to their arrangement, however also use of appropriate glazing arrangements to allow maximum inhabitant control in this regard.

All of the aforementioned sustainability measures will minimise energy usage. In addition to these, the proposal has nominated insulation, energy efficient light bulbs with motion sensors in commons areas, appliances, water collection and reuse and instantaneous gas water heating. The proposal exceeds the BASIX requirements.

Ceiling fans should be provided in all bedrooms and living rooms and clearly shown on the plans.

The Panel strongly supports the proposal in terms of sustainability.

Principle 5: Landscape

Although the proposal is somewhat limited by quite a tight urban site, the amount and quality of landscaping has been given high priority. The design has been done by a highly reputed landscape architect, and proposes from what the Panel can tell, a predominantly native mix of low water consuming plants in a charming arrangement that will soften the building architecturally and create a somewhat urban oasis for the buildings inhabitants. There is more than required deep soil planting and the overall landscaped area is close to compliance. This is a genuine approach to achieving an excellent balance between architecture and landscape and the Panel commends the Applicant for this.

 

Principle 6: Amenity

The proposal has been skilfully designed to ensure that compact living can also provide high levels of amenity. This is particularly evident in the area of environmental comfort due to the excellent use of passive environmental design principals which maximise control over light, ventilation, heating and cool, efficient planning, privacy, open space and landscaping.

An area of concern for the Panel is the scale and floor plan shape of the living areas on the east facing apartments appear to be slightly awkward and create a pinch point around the indicated dining table. The Panel acknowledges this is partially due to the generous balcony size.

The units that do not need internal stair could be planned so that the bedroom is adjacent to the living room and therefore more flexibility for future changes may be achieved in the planning.

The impact of the open parking (noise and fumes) for both the subject property and its neighbours need to be carefully considered.  The small number of car movements make this arrangement satisfactory and more flexible for different uses over time. Unwanted glare from headlights at night for the direct neighbours will depend on the density of the landscaping and how the overall fence height is calculated.

Principle 7: Safety

This is a fairly small building which has been efficiently planned to ensure there is good surveillance and limited opportunity for ‘shady corners’. There are limited corridors and the main common circulation zone is open and visible from the street. Automated gates are proposed to secure the perimeter of the property while still keeping it visually open/transparent, which is commended.

 

It has been noted that BCA advice has already been sought and adopted, however the Panel has not been given any actual details in this regard.

Principle 8: Housing Diversity and Social interaction

Although the proposed building is relatively small, it has a distinctively communal and social feel to it due to its openness to the street, the openness and lightness of the common areas, the interactions afforded by the roof terraces and excellent landscape design.

The small apartments respond to a high demand for more affordable housing in the area and have the potential to increase diversity, especially for younger singles and couples.

It is an entirely appropriate scale and development type for location that is quiet however located in such proximity to the vital hub of Randwick.

Principle 9: Aesthetics

The aesthetic is simple and straightforward. It is expressive of its place in Randwick and the fact it is making a contribution in terms of lower cost housing in the area.

The use of sandstone at the base of the building and in landscape elements grounds the building and connects with the land it resides in.

The main building materials of common bricks, off-form concrete, aluminium doors and windows, aluminium louvres and FC sheet panels make for an honest and humble building which will sit comfortably in its context. The Panel however does have some concerns about the way in which the materials have been proposed to be used insofar that the elevations (especially the western/Judge St elevation) appear to be too busy and lacking in some cohesion. A simplification of elements and materials could resolve this quite easily.  The proposition that reversal of materials and/or colours on the western and eastern façades having the flat walls that are closer to the site boundaries lighter in tone than the recessed sections on each side of the stairwell, would emphasize the modeling of the façade, could be considered.

The proposed landscaping adds considerably to the aesthetic outcome.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Panel is broadly supportive of the proposed application. It demonstrates a development of appropriate scale and density for the area, carefully navigating a balance between bulk and amenity for both the future inhabitants of the buildings, the surrounding buildings and the public domain. It is a great example of bigger not always being better and gives opportunity for continued socio-economic diversity, which has historically been an important part of the area. The development sets the highest sustainability standard that would not only benefit the external environment, but also create very comfortable living spaces from an environmental point of view.

There are some planning and elevational issues (as per the comments) that the Panel would like to see addressed or at least discussed to the satisfaction of the Council Planner.

 

Comment: The matters raised above have been addressed by the applicant by way of amended plans, discussion in the table below addressing the ADG, inclusion of conditions and discussions in the Council report.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality Residential Flat Buildings

 

SEPP No. 65 aims to promote quality design of Residential Flat Buildings. The proposal is subject to the policy as it involves the development of a residential flat building being 3 storeys and more in height. The proposal has been considered by Council’s Design Review Panel. The Panel’s comments are included in Section 7. An assessment has been carried out in accordance with Part 3: Siting the Development and Part 4: Designing the Building of the Apartment Design Guide against the design criteria requirements. Any non-compliance to the design criteria includes a merits based assessment as per the design guidance of the Apartment Design Guide.

 

Clause

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

Part 3: Siting the Development

3A-1

Site Analysis

 

 

 

Each element in the Site Analysis Checklist should be

addressed

 

Complies

3B-1

Orientation

 

 

 

Buildings along the street frontage define the street, by

facing it and incorporating direct access from the street (see figure 3B.1)

The proposal will provide direct access from Coogee  Street and Judge Street

Complies

 

Where the street frontage is to the north or south,

overshadowing to the south should be minimised and

buildings behind the street frontage should be orientated to

the east and west (see figure 3B.2)

The residential flat development consists of a north/south orientation and the shadowing to the south will be to Coogee Street.

Complies

3B-2

Orientation

 

 

 

Living areas, private open space and communal open space should receive solar access in accordance with sections 3D Communal and public open space and 4A Solar and daylight access

A minimum of 70% receive two hours of solar access; not more than 15% receive no solar access.

Yes.

 

Solar access to living rooms, balconies and private open

spaces of neighbours should be considered

Loss of solar access to eastern neighbours is significant occurring from 3pm to 4pm

No, see executive summary report.

 

Where an adjoining property does not currently receive

the required hours of solar access, the proposed building ensures solar access to neighbouring properties is not reduced by more than 20%

More than 20% reduction of solar access.

No, see executive summary report.

 

If the proposal will significantly reduce the solar access of neighbours, building separation should be increased beyond

minimums contained in section 3F Visual privacy

The building separation has been increased in the middle of the eastern elevation however this does not allow for any greater solar access. It is considered that the separation required to provide solar access in the afternoon would be so significant that it would not allow for development of land envisaged by the standards and controls in the RLEP and RDCP unfairly constraining the development of the site.

See discussion of wall heights, side setbacks and solar access in the No, see executive summary report. 

 

Overshadowing should be minimised to the south or downhill by increased upper level setbacks

The proposal includes an increased side setback at the second floor level of the residential flat development.  

Complies

 

It is optimal to orientate buildings at 90 degrees to the boundary with neighbouring properties to minimise overshadowing and privacy impacts, particularly where minimum setbacks are used and where buildings are higher than the adjoining development

The building is orientated 90 degrees from the property boundary and will generally maintain a similar building alignment as the neighbouring building on the opposite corner of Milford Street and Judge Street.

Complies.

 

A minimum of 4 hours of solar access should be retained to

solar collectors on neighbouring buildings

The proposed development will not result in significant impact to the roof line of the solar collectors to the neighbouring buildings.  

Complies.

3F-1

Visual Privacy

 

 

 

Separation between windows and balconies is provided to ensure visual privacy is achieved. Minimum required separation distances from

buildings to the side and rear boundaries are as follows:

 

Building height

Habitable rooms and balconies

Non-habitable rooms

Up to 12m (4 storeys)

6m

3m

Up to 25m (5-8 storeys)

9m

4.5m

>25m (9+ storeys)

12m

6m

 

Note: Separation distances between buildings on the same

site should combine required building separations depending on the type of room (see figure 3F.2). Gallery access circulation should be treated as habitable space when measuring privacy separation distances between neighbouring properties.

 

The proposal does not comply with the minimum building separation requirements with a 2.5 metre side setback.  

No, see executive summary report.

Part 4: Designing the Building

4A

Solar and Daylight Access

 

 

 

Living rooms and private open spaces of at least 70% of apartments in a building receive a minimum of 2 hours direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm at mid-winter in the Sydney Metropolitan Area and in the Newcastle and Wollongong local government areas.

Only one (12.5%) of apartments will not receive the minimum of two hours of direct sunlight between the hours of 9am – 3pm on the 21 June.

Yes 

 

A maximum of 15% of apartments in a building receive no direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm at mid-winter

12.5% of apartments will not receive any direct sunlight between the hours of 9am – 3pm on the 21 June.

Yes

4B

Natural Ventilation

 

 

 

At least 60% of apartments are naturally cross ventilated in the first nine storeys of the building.

Apartments at ten storeys or greater are deemed to be cross ventilated only if any enclosure of the balconies at these levels allows adequate natural ventilation and cannot be fully enclosed

All apartments (100%) will receive natural cross ventilation.

Complies.

 

Overall depth of a cross-over or cross-through apartment does not exceed 18m, measured glass line to glass line

The apartment depths within the building block are less than 18 metres as measured from glass line to glass line. 

Complies.

4C

Ceiling Heights

 

 

 

Measured from finished floor level to finished ceiling level, minimum ceiling heights are:

 

Minimum Ceiling height for apartment and mixed use buildings

Habitable rooms

2.7m

Non-habitable

2.4m

For 2 storey apartments

2.7m for main living area floor; 2.4m for second floor where its area does not exceed 50% of the apartment area

Attic spaces

1.8m at edge of room with a 30 degree minimum ceiling slope

If located in mixed used areas

3.3m for ground and first floor to promote future flexibility of use.

 

These minimums do not preclude higher ceilings if desired.

 

Complies.

4D

Apartment Size and Layout

 

 

 

Apartments are required to have the following minimum internal areas:

 

Apartment Type

Minimum Internal Area

Studio

35m2

1 bedroom

50m2

2 bedroom

70m2

3bedroom

90m2


The minimum internal areas include only one bathroom. Additional bathrooms increase the minimum internal area by 5m2each

 

A fourth bedroom and further additional bedrooms increase the minimum internal area by 12m2 each.

All apartments will comply with the minimum internal area requirements with at least 50sqm provided for a one bedroom apartments

Complies.

 

Every habitable room must have a window in an external wall with a total minimum glass area of not less than 10% of the floor area of the room. Daylight and air may not be borrowed from other rooms

All habitable rooms comprise of a window opening and will not comprise with less than 10% of the floor area of the room.

Complies.

 

Habitable room depths are limited to a maximum of

2.5 x the ceiling height

Complies.

Complies.

 

In open plan layouts (where the living, dining and kitchen are combined) the maximum habitable room depth is 8m from a window

Open plan layouts are located within 8 metres depth of a window opening. 

Complies.

 

Master bedrooms have a minimum area of 10m2 and

other bedrooms 9m2 (excluding wardrobe space)

All master bedrooms will have an area of approximately 11m2 and all other bedrooms will comply with the minimum requirements of 9m2. 

Complies

 

Bedrooms have a minimum dimension of 3m (excluding wardrobe space)

Complies.

 

Living rooms or combined living/dining rooms have a

minimum width of:

·     3.6m for studio and 1 bedroom apartments

Complies

4E

Private open space and balconies

 

 

 

All apartments are required to have primary balconies as follows:

 

Dwelling Type

Minimum Area

Minimum Depth

Studio Apt.

4m2

-

1 bed Apt.

8m2

2m

 

The minimum balcony depth to be counted as contributing to the balcony area is 1m.

The proposed balconies except for the 7.6sqm balconies to units 2 & 3 will comply with the minimum area requirements in accordance with the ADG.

Does not comply; however the shortfall is minimal and the dimensions provided for the balconies are greater than the minimum.

 

For apartments at ground level or on a podium or similar structure, a private open space is provided

instead of a balcony. It must have a minimum area of 15m2 and a minimum depth of 3m

Ground level apartments   3 & 4 don’t have a minimum area of 15sqm.

Doesn’t comply, however it is largely a consequence of these apartments being located above the lower ground level and given they are one bedroom apartments there is a  diminished necessity for large open spaces at ground level.

4F

Common Circulation and Spaces

 

 

 

The maximum number of apartments off a circulation core on a single level is eight

Each core will provide entry to a maximum of 4 apartments.

Complies.

 

For buildings of 10 storeys and over, the maximum number of apartments sharing a single lift is 40

The development is less than 10 storeys in height. Not applicable.

Not applicable.

4G

Storage

 

 

 

In addition to storage in kitchens, bathrooms and bedrooms, the following storage is provided:

 

Dwelling Type 

Storage Size Volume

1 bedroom

6m3

 

At least 50% of the required storage is to be located within the apartment

The subject site provides ample storage space within the communal storage area at the ground floor level and within each apartment to comply with the minimum requirements.  

Complies.

 

2.      Randwick LEP 2012

 

The subject site is zoned R3 Medium Density residential under Randwick LEP 2012. The proposal development is classified as a Residential flat building and is permissible in the zone. The zoning objectives are addressed as follows:

 

 

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

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

•    To 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.

 

Comment: The proposal involves the demolition of the existing structures on site and construction of a new part 2/3 storey residential flat building and is a permissible form of development within the R3: Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal will generally remain consistent with the relevant objectives of the R3: Residential zoning in that the proposed development will generally remain compatible with the relevant building envelope controls that are anticipated with Council’s policies including the RDCP2013 and RLEP2012 with respect to floor space ratio, building height, setbacks, landscaping, soft landscaping and appropriate building depths. Particular regard has been given to the fact that the site contains steep slopes from side to side and from rear to front. The proposal has been assessed in terms of site suitably and amenity impacts and the new works are not expected to contribute to any unavoidable shadowing impacts to the adjoining neighbour, or unreasonable visual privacy or view loss impacts to the surrounding buildings subject to appropriate conditions being included in the recommendation. The development has been sensitively and skillfully designed to maximize viewing sharing opportunities to the neighbouring buildings and will comply with the planning principles of Tenancity vs Warringah Council.

 

The following Clauses of RLEP 2012 apply to the proposal:

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

0.75:1

0.748:1

Yes

Height of Building (Maximum)

9.5m

10.535

No, see executive summary report.

Excavation

 

Greater than 1m cut

No, see executive summary report.

 

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan RDCP 2013

 

The DCP provisions are structured into two components, Objectives and Controls. The Objectives provide the framework for assessment under each requirement and outline key outcomes that a development is expected to achieve. The controls contain both numerical standards and qualitative provisions. Any proposed variations from the controls may be considered only where 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.)

 

B6 Recycling and Waste Management

 

DCP Clause

Control

Proposal

Compliance

4.

On-Going Operation

 

 

 

(iv) Locate and design the waste storage facilities to visually and physically complement the design of the development. Avoid locating waste storage facilities between the front alignment of a building and the street where possible.

 

Yes

 

(v)  Locate the waste storage facilities to minimise odour and acoustic impacts on the habitable rooms of the proposed development, adjoining and neighbouring properties.

 

Yes

 

(vi) Screen the waste storage facilities through fencing and/or landscaping where possible to minimise visual impacts on neighbouring properties and the public domain.

 

 

Yes

 

(vii)  Ensure the waste storage facilities are easily accessible for all users and waste collection personnel and have step-free and unobstructed access to the collection point(s).

 

 

Yes

 

(viii)Provide sufficient storage space within each dwelling / unit to hold a single day’s waste and to enable source separation.

 

 

Yes

 

(ix) Bin enclosures / rooms must be ventilated, fire protected, drained to the sewerage system and have lighting and water supply.

 

 

Yes

B7

Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access

3.

Parking & Service Delivery Requirements

 

Car parking requirements:

1space per 2 studios

1 space per 1-bedroom unit (over 40m2)

1.2 spaces per 2-bedroom unit

1.5 spaces per 3- or more bedroom unit

1 visitor space per 4 dwellings

 

 

See development engineering comments

 

Motor cycle requirements:

5% of car parking requirement

 

 

 

4.

Bicycles

 

Residents:

1 bike space per 2 units

Visitors:

1 per 10 units

 

Yes

C2

Medium Density Residential

2

Site Planning

2.1

Site Layout Options

Site layout and location of buildings must be based on a detailed site analysis and have regard to the site planning guidelines for:

·     Two block / courtyard example

·     T-shape example

·     U-shape example

·     Conventional example

 

One block

2.2

Landscaped open space and deep soil area

2.2.1

Landscaped open space

 

A minimum of 50% of the site area is to be landscaped open space.

 

 

No, see executive summary report.

2.2.2

Deep soil area

 

(i)   A minimum of 25% of the site area should incorporate deep soil areas sufficient in size and dimensions to accommodate trees and significant planting.

32%

Yes

 

(ii)  Deep soil areas must be located at ground level, be permeable, capable for the growth of vegetation and large trees and must not be built upon, occupied by spa or swimming pools or covered by impervious surfaces such as concrete, decks, terraces, outbuildings or other structures.

 

Yes

 

(iii) Deep soil areas are to have soft landscaping comprising a variety of trees, shrubs and understorey planting.

 

Yes

 

(iv) Deep soil areas cannot be located on structures or facilities such as basements, retaining walls, floor slabs, rainwater tanks or in planter boxes.

 

Yes

 

(v)  Deep soil zones shall be contiguous with the deep soil zones of adjacent properties.

 

Yes

2.3

Private and communal open space

2.3.1

Private open space

 

Private open space is to be:

(i)   Directly accessible from the living area of the dwelling.

(ii)  Open to a northerly aspect where possible so as to maximise solar access.

(iii) Be designed to provide adequate privacy for residents and where possible can also contribute to passive surveillance of common areas.

 

Yes

 

For residential flat buildings:

(vi) Each dwelling has access to an area of private open space in the form of a courtyard, balcony, deck or roof garden, accessible from with the dwelling.

(vii)  Private open space for apartments has a minimum area of 8m2 and a minimum dimension of 2m.

 

No, see assessment note in SEPP 65 section above.

2.3.2

Communal open space

 

 

 

Communal open space for residential flat building is to be:

(a)  Of a sufficient contiguous area, and not divided up for allocation to individual units.

(b)  Designed for passive surveillance.

(c)  Well oriented with a preferred northerly aspect to maximise solar access.

(d)  adequately landscaped for privacy screening and visual amenity.

(e)  Designed for a variety of recreation uses and incorporate recreation facilities such as playground equipment, seating and shade structures.

 The proposal provides suitable areas of communal open space.

Yes

3

Building Envelope

3.1

Floor space ratio

 

 

 

See table above

3.2

Building height

 

 

 

 

See table above

3.3

Building depth

 

For residential flat buildings, the preferred maximum building depth (from window to window line) is between 10m and 14m.

Any greater depth must demonstrate that the design solution provides good internal amenity such as via cross-over, double-height or corner dwellings / units.

 

 

Yes

3.4

Setbacks

3.4.1

Front setback

(i)     The front setback on the primary and secondary property frontages must be consistent with the prevailing setback line along the street.

Notwithstanding the above, the front setback generally must be no less than 3m in all circumstances to allow for suitable landscaped areas to building entries.

(ii)     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.

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

(iv)    The entire front setback must incorporate landscape planting, with the exception of driveways and pathways.

 

No, see executive summary report.

3.4.2

Side setback

 

Residential flat building

 

(i)     Comply with the minimum side setback requirements stated below:

-    14m≤site frontage width<16m: 2.5m

(ii)     Incorporate additional side setbacks to the building over and above the above minimum standards, in order to:

-    Create articulations to the building facades.

-    Reserve open space areas and provide opportunities for landscaping.

-    Provide building separation.

-    Improve visual amenity and outlook from the development and adjoining residences.

-    Provide visual and acoustic privacy for the development and the adjoining residences.

-    Ensure solar access and natural ventilation for the development and the adjoining residences.

(iii)    A fire protection statement must be submitted where windows are proposed on the external walls of a residential flat building within 3m of the common boundaries. The statement must outline design and construction measures that will enable operation of the windows (where required) whilst still being capable of complying with the relevant provisions of the BCA.

 

No, see executive summary report.

3.4.3

Rear setback

 

For residential flat buildings, provide a minimum rear setback of 15% (6.08m) of allotment depth or 5m, whichever is the greater.

 

No, see executive summary report.

4

Building Design

4.1

Building façade

 

 

(i)     Buildings must be designed to address all street and laneway frontages.

(ii)     Buildings must be oriented so that the front wall alignments are parallel with the street property boundary or the street layout.

(iii)    Articulate facades to reflect the function of the building, present a human scale, and contribute to the proportions and visual character of the street.

(iv)    Avoid massive or continuous unrelieved blank walls. This may be achieved by dividing building elevations into sections, bays or modules of not more than 10m in length, and stagger the wall planes.

(vi)    Conceal building services and pipes within the balcony slabs.

 

 

Yes

4.2

Roof design

 

 (i)    Design the roof form, in terms of massing, pitch, profile and silhouette to relate to the three dimensional form (size and scale) and façade composition of the building.

(ii)     Design the roof form to respond to the orientation of the site, such as eaves and skillion roofs to respond to sun access.

(iii)    Use a similar roof pitch to adjacent buildings, particularly if there is consistency of roof forms across the streetscape.

(iv)    Articulate or divide the mass of the roof structures on larger buildings into distinctive sections to minimise the visual bulk and relate to any context of similar building forms.

(v)    Use clerestory windows and skylights to improve natural lighting and ventilation of internalised space on the top floor of a building where feasible. The location, layout, size and configuration of clerestory windows and skylights must be sympathetic to the overall design of the building and the streetscape.

(vi)    Any services and equipment, such as plant, machinery, ventilation stacks, exhaust ducts, lift overrun and the like, must be contained within the roof form or screened behind parapet walls so that they are not readily visible from the public domain.

(vii)   Terraces, decks or trafficable outdoor spaces on the roof may be considered only if:

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

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

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

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

(viii) The provision of landscape planting on the roof (that is, “green roof”) is encouraged. Any green roof must be designed by a qualified landscape architect or designer with details shown on a landscape plan.

 

Yes.

 

Privacy and views impacted from rear roof terraces. See Council executive summary report.

 

4.3

Habitable roof space

 

Habitable roof space may be considered, provided it meets the following:

-    Optimises dwelling mix and layout, and assists to achieve dual aspect or cross over units with good natural ventilation.

-    Has a maximum floor space of 65% of the storey immediately below.

-    Wholly contain habitable areas within the roof space.

-    When viewed from the surrounding public and private domain, the roof form has the appearance of a roof. A continuous flat roof with habitable space within it will not satisfy this requirement.

-    Design windows to habitable roof space as an integrated element of the roof.

-    Submit computer generated perspectives or photomontages showing the front and rear elevations of the development.

 

N/A

4.4

External wall height and ceiling height

 

(ii)  Where the site is subject to a 9.5m building height limit under the LEP, a maximum external wall height of 8m applies.

 

No see discussion in Council report.

 

(iii) The minimum ceiling height is to be 2.7m for all habitable rooms.

 

Yes

4.5

Pedestrian Entry

 

 (i)    Separate and clearly distinguish between pedestrian pathways and vehicular access. 

 

Yes

 

(ii)     Present new development to the street in the following manner:

-    Locate building entries so that they relate to the pedestrian access network and desired lines.

-    Design the entry as a clearly identifiable element in the façade composition.

-    Integrate pedestrian access ramps into the overall building and landscape design.

-    For residential flat buildings, provide direct entries to the individual dwellings within a development from the street where possible.

-    Design mailboxes so that they are convenient to residents, do not clutter the appearance of the development at street frontage and are preferably integrated into a wall adjacent to the primary entry (and at 90 degrees to the street rather than along the front boundary).

-    Provide weather protection for building entries.

 

Postal services and mailboxes

(i)     Mailboxes are provided in accordance with the delivery requirements of Australia Post.

(ii)     A mailbox must clearly mark the street number of the dwelling that it serves.

(iii)    Design mail boxes to be convenient for residents and not to clutter the appearance of the development from the street.

 

Yes

4.6

Internal circulation

 

 (i)  Enhance the amenity and safety of circulation spaces by:

-     Providing natural lighting and ventilation where possible.

-     Providing generous corridor widths at lobbies, foyers, lift doors and apartment entry doors.

-     Allowing adequate space for the movement of furniture.

-     Minimising corridor lengths to give short, clear sightlines.

-     Avoiding tight corners.

-     Articulating long corridors with a series of foyer areas, and/or providing windows along or at the end of the corridor.

 

Yes

4.7

Apartment layout

 

 (i) Maximise opportunities for natural lighting and ventilation through the following measures:

-     Providing corner, cross-over, cross-through and double-height maisonette / loft apartments.

-     Limiting the depth of single aspect apartments to a maximum of 6m.

-     Providing windows or skylights to kitchen, bathroom and laundry areas where possible.

Providing at least 1 openable window (excluding skylight) opening to outdoor areas for all habitable rooms and limiting the use of borrowed light and ventilation.

 

Yes