RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

Tuesday 8 August 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                                                                                               8 August 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, 8 August 2017 at 6:00p.m.

 

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

 

Quorum:                           Eight (8) members

 

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

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Planning Committee Meeting - 11 July 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

Planning Matters

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.

Development Application Reports (record of voting required)

D61/17      4 Higgs Street, Randwick (DA/145/2015/B).............................................. 1

D62/17      5 Bellevue St, Maroubra (DA/621/2012/A)............................................... 7

D63/17      1528 Anzac Parade, La Perouse (DA/303/2017)....................................... 15

D64/17      5-7 Stark Street, Coogee (DA/189/2016/A)............................................ 29

D65/17      300 Clovelly Road, Clovelly (DA/927/2016)............................................. 39

D66/17      1179 Anzac Parade, Matraville (DA/994/2011/H)...................................... 57

D67/17      40 Pauling Avenue, Coogee (DA/664/2015/B).......................................... 67

D68/17      28 Dudley Street, Randwick (DA/953/2016)............................................ 75

D69/17      38 Gregory Street, South Coogee (DA/10/2017)...................................... 89

D70/17      13 Dangar Street, Randwick (DA/949/2016).......................................... 107

D71/17      20 Curtin Crescent, Maroubra (DA/367/2017)........................................ 119

D72/17      150-174 Barker St & 181 Botany St & 1-7,18-21 Jane St & 8-20, 28-42 Young St, Randwick (DA/662/2016)................................................................... 127

D73/17      SCPP Report - 150-174 Barker St & 181 Botany St & 1-7,18-21 Jane St & 8-20, 28-42 Young St, Randwick (DA/664/2016)................................................. 181

D74/17      SCPP 30-36 Dangar Street, Randwick (DA/132/2017).............................. 185

Miscellaneous Reports  (record of voting required)

M4/17       Report variation to Development Standard under State Environmental Planning Policy NO.1 (SEPP1) and clause 4.6 between 01 June to 26 July 2017......... 285

M5/17       Site Compatibility Certificate Application for Maroubra Bowling Club Site..... 291    

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil  

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Planning Committee                                                                                               8 August 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D61/17

 

Subject:             4 Higgs Street, Randwick (DA/145/2015/B)

Folder No:                   DA/145/2015/B

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

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 modification of the approved development by increasing the depth of the excavation to the basement carpark to accommodate car stackers for 4 additional car spaces. Original consent: Demolition of the existing residential flat building and construction of a new 4 storey residential flat building comprising of 8 dwellings and basement parking for 10 vehicles, associated site and landscape works

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                Coogee Developments Pty Ltd

Owner:                        Mrs C F Morrow, Ms G M Morrell & s C L Conacher

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=0798b864-4c50-4ea2-ba3d-22ff7720771f&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Planning Committee for determination as the original application was determined by the Land and Environment Court.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal seeks to modify the approved residential flat building (DA145/2015) to provide an additional 4 car spaces through the incorporation of car stackers in the approved basement. The modifications are confined to the basement level and also include modifications to the basement floor level and driveway ramp to accommodate the inclusion of the car stackers.

 

The approved development contains 7 units with 8 car spaces.

 

The proposal would thereby be amended to include 7 dwellings with 12 car spaces.

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Higgs Street between Dudley St to the north and Meymott St to the south. The site lies opposite Leete Park which is across Higgs St to the east.

 

The subject site is currently under construction for a residential flat building with basement car parking, which was approved by the Land and Environment Court.

 

The site is adjoined to the north and south by residential dwellings in the form of a dwelling house to the north and an attached dual occupancy to the south whilst a dwelling is located to the west to the rear. Leete Park lies opposite to the east.

 

Notification

 

This application to modify the approved development was not notified as it was considered that there will be no significant external impacts.

 

Key Issues

 

The subject property has the benefit of existing use rights and is therefore subject to a merit assessment. The amendments do not increase the number of apartments, number of bedrooms or increase the building envelope.

 

The proposed amendments will increase the amount of car parking on the site and it is considered that the increased excavation required to provide for the vertical car stackers will not result in a significantly different outcome from that approved, noting that the existing conditions of consent relating to geotechnical requirements and methodology would still apply. The proximity of the basement to the southern and northern neighbouring dwellings remains consistent with that approved.

 

Advice from the applicant’s geotechnical engineer confirms that the additional excavation depth will not be responsible for any adverse structural impacts to adjoining neighbours.

 

It is noted that numerous objections were raised to the original application on the basis that there was insufficient parking within the development to cater for the proposed 7 residential units. Objections noted a lack of on-street parking and that the proposal would create greater pressure on the on-street parking situation.

In accordance with the parking rates in Part B7 of the Randwick DCP 2013, 2 bedroom units are afforded 1.2 spaces and 3 bedroom units are afforded 1.5 spaces, generating a minimum requirement of 9.3 spaces. Therefore the proposal of 12 spaces is compliant with Council’s minimum requirements.

 

On this basis, it is considered that the modified proposal could assist in alleviating on-street parking pressures through the provision of greater parking on the subject site.

 

Given that there are no streetscape, visual bulk or amenity impacts and that the extended basement depth will not be detrimental to the structural integrity of surrounding dwellings, it is considered that the modifications are worthy of support.

 

Comments from Council’s Development Engineer

 

General Comments

The amended basement level is substantially the same as was submitted for the previous Section 96 application DA/145/2015/A. Although that S96 application was refused on planning grounds no objections were raised by Development Engineering to the reconfigured basement and car stackers subject to conditions.

 

Parking Comments

The original development was for 7 units and 8 car spaces (11 required under DCP) and so was parking deficient by 3 spaces. The parking shortfall and was not originally supported by Development Engineering.

 

The additional 4 spaces proposed with this S96 application will enable the development to fully comply with its parking obligations under Part B7 of Council’s DCP.  To achieve compliance the development is reliant on the installation of car stackers and alterations are proposed to the basement level to create the design space that will enable the car stackers to be installed.

 

The submitted plans appear to indicate that the proposed car-stacker system will be able to be accommodated within the dedicated space available and no objections are raised.

 

To ensure the car-stackers are installed in accordance the manufacturer’s specifications and AS 2890.1, it is recommended an additional condition be included in any S96 consent.

 

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 above assessment has assessed the proposed modifications to the approved residential flat building with basement parking. The additional excavation which allows for 4 additional car spaces via the provision of vertical car stackers increases the amount of off-street parking and may assist in reducing reliance on on-street parking in the vicinity of the site.

 

The applicant has provided geotechnical information to confirm that the additional depth of excavation will have no adverse structural impacts on adjoining neighbours. The proposed modifications are confined to the basement and will have no streetscape, visual bulk or amenity impacts.

 

The modified proposal is, therefore, recommended for approval.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development consent No. 145/2015/B for the proposed modifications to increase the depth of the excavation to the basement carpark to accommodate car stackers for 4 additional car space, at No. 4 Higgs Street, Randwick in the following manner:

 

(A)      Amend Condition 1 to read:

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Cover Page DA 0000 Revision C

MHNDUNION

21 September 2015

Site and Roof Plan DA 1001 Revision C

MHNDUNION

21 September 2015

Basement Plan DA 2000 Revision C

MHNDUNION

21 September 2015

Ground Floor Plan DA 2001 Revision C

MHNDUNION

21 September 2015

Level 1 Plan DA 2002 Revision C

MHNDUNION

21 September 2015

Level 2 Plan DA 2003 Revision C

MHNDUNION

21 September 2015

Level 3 Plan DA 2004 Revision C

MHNDUNION

21 September 2015

Elevation East DA 4000 Revision C

MHNDUNION

21 September 2015

Elevation West DA 4001 Revision C

MHNDUNION

21 September 2015

Elevation South DA 4002 Revision C

MHNDUNION

21 September 2015

Elevation North DA 4003 Revision C

MHNDUNION

21 September 2015

Section A DA 4100 Revision C

MHNDUNION

21 September 2015

Section B DA 4101 Revision C

MHNDUNION

21 September 2015

Ground Floor and Level 1 Area Diagrams – GFA DA 7000 Revision C

MHNDUNION

21 September 2015

Level 2 and Level 3 Area Diagrams – GFA DA 7000 Revision C

MHNDUNION

21 September 2015

Landscape Plans:

Ground Level Plan S15-0002 SK1 Issue A

Clouston Associates

20 February 2015

Level 1 Plan S15-0002 SK2 Issue A

Clouston Associates

20 February 2015

Level 2 Plan S15-0002 SK3 Issue A

Clouston Associates

20 February 2015

Level 3 Penthouse Plan S15-0002 SK4 Issue A

Clouston Associates

20 February 2015

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

603674M

05 March 2015

6 March 2015

 

Except as amended by the Section 96 ‘B’ plans shown 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

DA 2000 (F) Basement Plan

MHNDU

8 April 2017

DA 2001 (F) Ground Floor Plan

MHNDU

30 June 2017

DA 2002 (F) Level 1 Plan

MHNDU

30 June 2017

DA 2003 (F) Level 2 Plan

MHNDU

30 June 2017

DA 2004 (F) Level 3 Plan

MHNDU

30 June 2017

DA 4000 (F) Elevation East

MHNDU

30 June 2017

DA 4001 (F) Elevation West

MHNDU

30 June 2017

DA 4002 (F) Elevation South

MHNDU

30 June 2017

DA 4003 (F) Elevation North

MHNDU

30 June 2017

DA 4100 (F1) Section A

MHNDU

30 June 2017

DA 4101 (F) Section B

MHNDU

30 June 2017

 

Add the following condition:

 

Carstackers

The PCA shall be satisfied that the proposed car-stacker system has been installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications and requirements of Australian Standard 2890.1:2004 prior to the issuing of any occupation certificate.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                               8 August 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D62/17

 

Subject:             5 Bellevue St, Maroubra (DA/621/2012/A)

Folder No:                   DA/621/2012/A

Author:                   Jonathan Blackmore, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 application to delete Condition 2(b) and 3(b) to allow for the additional terrace area at the second floor level with awning roof and privacy screens.

                                      Original consent: Construction of second floor additional level to existing multi-unit residential building to create an additional three (3) bedroom unit, provide a single garage at ground floor level, addition of balconies to streetscape elevation, various landscaping and retaining works across the site

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                Classic Plans

Owner:                        Mrs C Coulits

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 


 

Development Application Executive Summary Report

 

This Section 96 application is being reported to the Planning Committee as the original application was determined by Council.

 

Proposal

 

The applicant has submitted a Section 96 application to delete Condition 2(b) and 3(b) to allow for the additional terrace area at the second floor level with awning roof and privacy screens.

 

Original consent: Construction of second floor additional level to existing multi-unit residential building to create an additional three (3) bedroom unit, provide a single garage at ground floor level, addition of balconies to streetscape elevation, various landscaping and retaining works across the site.

 

Site

 

The subject site is located approximately halfway along the south-eastern side of Bellevue Street. The site contains a three storey residential flat building with building alterations underway. The site slope down approximately 5m from the front to the rear. Areas of landscaping are present within the front and rear of the site. The sites of the surrounding area contain a variety of building styles including residential flat buildings, semi-detached dwellings and single dwelling houses.  Residential flat buildings are present on adjoining sites to the south and east.

 

Figure 1. Photograph of the frontage of the subject site. 

 


 

Section 96 Assessment:

 

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

 

Substantially the Same Development:

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

 

Submissions

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

5 Bellevue Street

Issue

Comment

1. The proposed modification will lead to an unacceptable blocking of views, light and sunshine.

2. Conditions were put on to protect neighbours from development overreach, and loss of privacy and amenity. They should be retained.

1.  Significant coastal views from the objector’s site are towards the east and views across the subject site to the north-east are not significant. The proposal will result in no measurable loss of solar access to the objector’s site due to the small scale of the changes.

2.  Appropriate privacy screening is proposed in relation to the objector’s site, including 1.7m high screens. The proposal does not move the building’s footprint closer to the objector’s site, the overall height of the building is not increased and additional built bulk will be minimal.  

 

Section 79c Assessment

 

Existing Use Rights Assessment

The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the RLEP 2012. The units making up a residential flat building would be a prohibited use within the zone.

 

Section 106 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 makes provision for the continued use of a building, work or land, where consent was lawfully granted and commenced prior to an environmental planning instrument having the effect of prohibiting the use.

 

Section 107 of the Act provides further direction for existing uses, identifying the use is presumed to have been abandoned, unless the contrary is established, if the use ceases for a continuous period of 12 months.

 

A residential flat building in its current position was lawfully established in 1942. Within the original DA, it was determined that the use continues to enjoy existing use rights.

 

Fodor Investments v Hornsby Shire Council, 2005

Assessment under Sections 106 and 108 of the Act identifies that the provisions (controls or standards) of an environmental planning instrument (such as the RLEP 2012) that would restrict the redevelopment of the site, do not apply.

 

In the absence of such provisions, the Land and Environment Court has established a planning principle for urban development (Fodor Investments v Hornsby Shire Council, 2005) which identifies criteria for the assessment of proposals on land with existing use rights. The principles are addressed as follows:

 

How do the bulk and scale (as expressed by height, floor space ratio and setbacks) of the proposal relate to what is permissible on surrounding sites?

While planning controls, such as height, floor space ratio and setbacks do not apply to sites with existing use rights; they have relevance to the assessment of applications on such sites. This is because the controls apply to surrounding sites and indicate the kind of development that can be expected if and when surrounding sites are redeveloped. The relationship of new development to its existing and likely future context is a matter to be considered in all planning assessment.

 

The proposed additional terrace area will not increase the floor space of the building. The terrace will be over the building’s existing footprint. Side setbacks in relation to the terrace will be greater than that required for a low density residential development.  The overall height of the building will not increase and the built form and scale of the building will remain comparable to that on adjoining sites, including the site to the south. 

 

What is the relevance of the building in which the existing use takes place? Where the change of use is proposed within an existing building, the bulk and scale of that building are likely to be deemed acceptable, even if the building is out of scale with its surroundings, because it already exists. 

 

No internal change of use is proposed.

 

What are the impacts on adjoining land? The impact on adjoining land should be assessed as it is assessed for all development. It is true that where, for example, a development control plan requires three hours of sunlight to be maintained in adjoining rear yards, the numerical control does not apply. However, the overshadowing impact on adjoining rear yards should be reasonable.

 

The proposal will result in minimal adverse impacts for adjoining sites. The additional terrace area will be over the building’s existing footprint and the majority of the additional terrace area will feature no roofing; thereby minimising bulk. Privacy across the side boundaries will be preserved by frosted glass privacy screens of a suitable height. Limited privacy screening is proposed in relation to the rear of the terrace; however, limited screening is provided by the balcony roof below (see fig. 1, below). Further, the uses of adjoining sites across the rear boundary are not sensitive to privacy concerns (see fig. 2, below) – bin storage, clothes lines, driveways, garaging and bathroom windows – additional screening is therefore considered unnecessary. Additional screening would also remove coastal views from the terrace.

Figure 1. Photograph towards the rear of the site from a standing central position at the proposed terrace alignment. Views across the rear boundary are limited by the roof of the balconies below. 

 

Figure 2. Aerial photograph showing the uses of the rear of the two sites across the rear boundary. Uses include clothes drying, garaging, driveways and bin storage.

 

One objector to the south has raised view loss concerns in relation to the proposed terrace changes. Significant coastal views from the objector’s site are to the east and views across the subject site to the north-east are not significant. Therefore, the proposal will result in no additional view loss. 

 

What is the internal amenity? Internal amenity must be assessed as it is assessed for all development. Again, numerical requirements for sunlight access or private open space do not apply, but these and other aspects must be judged acceptable as a matter of good planning and design. None of the legal principles discussed above suggests that development on sites with existing use rights may have lower amenity than development generally.

 

The proposal will provide additional outdoor space to the upper-most unit, thereby improving its internal amenity.

 

Environmental Planning Instruments

The site is zoned Residential R2 Low Density under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. Existing use rights apply to the site and proposal; therefore, environmental planning instruments are not strictly applicable to the proposal – refer existing use rights assessment above.

 

Development Control Plan

Existing use rights apply to the site and the proposal; therefore, the provisions of any development control plan are not strictly applicable to the proposal – refer existing use rights assessment above.

 

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

The proposed modification will result in no significant adverse social, economic or environmental impacts. In particular, the proposed modification does not significantly extend the built form of the building, and the changes are generally contained within the existing footprint. Additional built bulk is set back sufficiently from side and rear boundaries. Privacy of adjoining sites can be preserved through privacy screens, and no view loss is to occur.    

 

Site Suitability

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

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

Therefore, the application is recommended for approval.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Consent No. DA/621/2012/A for a Section 96 modification of the approved development to delete Condition 2(b) and 3(b) to allow for the additional terrace area at the second floor level with awning roof and privacy screens.

The consent is modified in the following manner:

 

·   Amend Condition 1 to read:

“Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

 

Plan

Rev

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

48/12 (1 of 9) – Site Plan

B

Classic Plans

12 February 2013

25 February 2013

48/12 (2 of 9) – Ground Floor Plan

48/12 (3 of 9) – First Floor Plan

48/12 (4 of 9) – Proposed Addition

48/12 (5 of 9) – Roof Plan

48/12 (6 of 9) – Basement Plan & Section.

48/12 (7 of 9) – Elevations

48/12 (8 of 9) – Elevations

48/12 (9 of 9) – Elevation

DA_ L101 - Landscape plan

A

Lightbox

22 February 2013

26 February 2013

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

Alterations and additions

A156839

20 February 2013

 

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Sheets 1 to 4 Dwg no 48/12

Classic Plans

6 February 2017

 

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

 

· Delete Condition 2b

 

· Delete Condition 3b

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                               8 August 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D63/17

 

Subject:             1528 Anzac Parade, La Perouse (DA/303/2017)

Folder No:                   DA/303/2017

Author:                   Willana Associates, Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                    Coastal walkway works including 2m wide path from Cape Banks Road through NSW Golf Course to Kamay Botany Bay National Park (west), retaining walls, planted mounds and swales, board walk over area of Sydney Freshwater wetlands and Coastal Clifftop Marsh Community, modification to size and position of 6th tee at golf course, installation of third 6th tee, alteration to rough, fairway, bunkers, green and hole, clearance of Coastal Headland Banksia Scrub and Coastal Clifftop Marsh at golf course (Heritage Conservation Area)

Ward:                     South Ward

Applicant:                Randwick City Council

Owner:                        NSW Dept of Lands

Recommendation:     Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=d311ac58-fc19-4e92-82cb-2162bf96f93e&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

 

 


 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application was assessed by an external planning consultant and referred to Planning Committee for consideration as the subject site is Crown Land, is controlled and managed by Randwick City Council and Randwick City Council was the applicant.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves the construction of new 2m wide formal walkway extending from the southern portion of Cape Banks Road within the Kamay Botany Bay National Park (east), through NSW Golf Course to meet the existing walking track in Kamay Botany Bay National Park (west).

 

Currently there are a series of walking trails and tracks along this part of the site and this proposal aims to formalize part of this area and create a pathway that was attractive and would create a clear destination for the public. The pathway is to be 2m wide and a coloured and textured in form to clearly differentiate it from the NSW Golf Course paths.

 

Some sections of the new path (i.e. above the wetlands) are to incorporate an elevated mesh boardwalk. The works also include sandstone retaining walls and revegetation of adjoining areas by creating planted mounds and plant screening to assist in separating the coastal walkway from the Golf Course use. Some signage to delineate the pathway from associated uses is also proposed.

 

The proposal also includes some modifications to the Golf Course as a result of the path’s location.

 

NSW Golf Course works include;

 

·      Modification to the position and size of the existing 6th ‘green’ at the NSW Golf Course.

·      This includes new bunkers, new 6th hole and the provision of an additional 6th Tee (in addition to the current two 6th Tees which will be upgraded).

·      A new 2m wide timber buggy boardwalk connecting from the existing 6th ‘green’ to a new buggy pullover area where the existing two 6th Tees are located. This element has been withdrawn from the application and the existing buggy path will be retained and utilized for now.

 

Background

 

DA No.539/2016 was lodged with Council in 2016. This application was withdrawn as there was some additional ecological assessment work to be conducted to support the proposal. This work has been finalised and the current application includes the report “Review of the Impact Assessment on Sydney Freshwater Wetlands EEC” prepared by Ecological and dated 31 March 2017.

 

Site

 

The proposed works are to be located within the NSW Golf Course (legal description Lot 4, DP 1110408) at La Perouse and within the Kamay Botany Bay National Park (legal description Lot 5, DP 1110408). The proposed works extend from the lot boundary in the west, through the NSW Golf Course to the National Park access track in the east. The proposed works at the Golf Course are situated along the south eastern corner where the 7th tee and 6th Green are located.

 

The proposed works cover an area of some 9,300sqm. 5,260sqm relates to works within the Golf Course and some 4,100sqm of land is affected by the coastal walkway works within the National Park.

 

Some 500m to the north of the site is the Westpac Rescue Helicopter facility. To the south of the site is an existing mesh trail located along the coast and the new pathway intends on connecting to this walking trail. Further south beyond the 6th Green is the southern cliff face of the national park. To the east is a freshwater drainage line that falls from northeast to southwest where it collects and eventually drains off the cliff.

 

Map 1: Subject Site showing Golf Course 6th green proposed configuration and new 6th Tees

(Source: Thompson Berrill, SEE, 2016)

 

Map 2: Aerial view of proposed walkway location and the existing tracks 

(Source: Thompson Berrill, SEE, 2016)

 

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013.

 

Two (2) submissions have been received, one from the NSW Environmental Protection Authority (NSW EPA) and another from the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH). 

 

The submission from NSW EPA provides the following comments:

 

Based on the information provided, the proposal does not constitute a Scheduled Activity under Schedule 1 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act) and does not require an Environment Protection License.

 

Under the POEO Act the EPA is the Appropriate Regulatory Authority (‘ARA’) for the environmental impacts of activities carried out by or on behalf of a NSW Public Authority. The EPA understands that the proposed works are, in part, to be carried out by Randwick City Council and its associated sub-contractors, with the remainder of works to be carried out by NSW Golf Course and its associated sub-contractors.

 

The EPA provides the following advice in relation to the proposal, based on the project information available on Randwick City Council’s website:

 

Construction phase dust, erosion, and sediment control and management

The proponent should implement all feasible and reasonable measures to prevent water pollution from the proposal. The environmental risks posed by inadequate sediment and erosion controls are increased by the proposed works’ proximity to waters. The document titled Managing Urban Stormwater Soils and Construction, 4th Edition, published by Landcom (the ‘Blue Book’), provides guidance material for achieving effective sediment control on construction sites.

 

The EPA emphasises the importance of:

(a) not commencing clearing, demolition, construction and construction-related activities until appropriate and effective sediment controls are in place, and

(b) undertaking daily inspections of sediment controls to ensure timely maintenance and repair of those controls.

 

The EPA anticipates that, without adequate site controls and management, mud and/or waste may be tracked off the site during the construction phase of the project.

 

The EPA recommends that appropriate measures are adopted to ensure a seamless transition of environmental impact mitigation measures between any clearing, site preparation and construction phases of the project, particularly where different contractors are engaged for each stage.

 

Waste control and management

The proponent should manage waste in accordance with the waste management hierarchy established under the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2001, so that resource management options are considered against the following priorities:

§ Avoidance - including action to reduce the amount of waste generated by households, industry and all levels of government

§ Resource recovery - including reuse, recycling, reprocessing and energy recovery, consistent with the most efficient use of the recovered resources

§ Disposal - including management of all disposal options in the most environmentally responsible manner.

 

All wastes generated during the project should be properly assessed, classified and managed in accordance with EPA guidelines to ensure proper treatment, transport and disposal at a landfill legally able to accept those wastes.

 

Comment: 

With regard sediment and erosion control measures (implementation and management), non-standard conditions numbered 4, 5 and 6 are recommended.  They encompass the important factors raised by the NSW EPA.

 

Non-standard condition No. 28 is recommended with regard to the matter of waste management.  It refers to the waste management hierarchy established under the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2001, so that resource management options are considered against the listed priorities.

 

The submission from OEH consists of the following comments:

 

§  From the information provided, it is unclear how the proposal differs in scope and nature from the previous DA, especially in relation to impacts on threatened species or ecological communities.

§  Detailed plans and related reports referred to in the Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) are not available on the Council website for review.

§  Clarification is required as to whether development is considered likely to have significant effect on a threatened species, population or ecological community.  Is so the proponent needs to seek requirements for a species impact statement from OEH pursuant to Section 5A of the EP & A, Act 1979.

 

Comment: DA No.539/2016 was lodged with Council in 2016. This application was withdrawn as there was some additional ecological assessment work that needed to be conducted to support the proposal. This work has been finalised and the current application includes the report “Review of the Impact Assessment on Sydney Freshwater Wetlands EEC” prepared by EcoLogical and dated 31 March 2017.

 

Detailed plans and copies of reports (particularly the ‘Review of the Impact Assessment on Sydney Freshwater Wetlands EEC’ have been subsequently provided to OEH.  The OEH officer has advised the following by way of email dated 10 July 2017:

 

Thanks for sending the DA documentation and providing clarification to the queries in our letter. OEH notes that Council considers the development is not likely to have a significant effect on a threatened species, population or ecological community and has no further comments.

 

In relation to the on park works, Area Manager Ben Khan is the best point of contact going forward.

 

The parks works are discussed further below in the section below ‘National Parks and Wildlife Services’.

 

§  It is unclear whether works are proposed within Kamay Botany Bay NP.  As so, approval would be required from the National Parks and Wildlife Services under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

 

Comment:  This matter has been addressed under the section below ‘National Parks and Wildlife Services’.  In summary, no approval is granted under the subject application for any works to the Park.  Conditions are recommended accordingly should the application be approved.  The works will be subject to a separate assessment and approval regime under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP & A Act 1979).

 

Key Issues

 

Heritage

The application was referred to Council’s Heritage Officer who noted that:

 

Coastal Walk works will include construction of a 2m wide path including retaining walls to areas of cut; planted mounds and swales; installation of a timber boardwalk over a wetland and marsh area (for golfers); installation of a mesh boardwalk over a wetland and marsh area (for walkers) and signage; and demolition and revegetation of a pathway bridge. Golf Course works will include modifications to the 6th tees, changes to the configuration of rough, fairway, bunkers, green and hole, and landscaping and native vegetation clearance.

 

The area of the proposed works includes significant wetland and marsh areas, as well as areas which have been highly disturbed for the provision of access and the construction of the golf course. The new pathways are generally excavated below existing ground level, which together with mounds, swales and revegetation will screen the proposed works and reduce its aesthetic impact. The new boardwalks will minimise impact on drainage, landscape and ecosystems. Consent conditions should be included to address Aboriginal cultural heritage, in the unlikely event that Aboriginal deposits or objects are encountered.

 

In conclusion Council’s Heritage Officer raised no objection to the proposed works subject to the imposition of three (3) conditions if consent is to be granted.

 

§  Should Aboriginal objects be found, the Department of Environment and Heritage (OEH) is to be informed (as required by the provisions of the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974). Subject to an assessment of the extent, integrity and significance of any exposed objects, applications under either Section 87 or Section 90 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act may be required before works resumes.

§  Prior to commencement of any works on the site, site contractors should be made aware of the possibility that Aboriginal archaeological deposits or objects (such as shell deposits, flaked stone artefacts or engravings etc.) may survive on and around the site.

§  Site contractors are to be advised of their obligations under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW) and notification procedures, in the event that any Aboriginal cultural material is disturbed or exposed during site works.

 

Special conditions are recommended accordingly and have been included at the end of this report.

 

Vegetation removal and Threatened Species

 

Section 5A of the EP & A Act 1979 requires an Assessment of Significance of the proposal against a number of factors that need to be taken into consideration to ascertain whether the development may cause any significant impact on a threatened species or populations, threatened ecological community or their associated habitats.

 

An Ecological assessment accompanied the application and a 7-Part Test was conducted which found that the proposed walkway could have a significant impact on the Coastal Freshwater Wetlands (EEC) and therefore a Species Impact Assessment (SIA) was required. The SIA prepared by Total Earth Care and dated September 2016 found that the proposed works will not have an adverse or significant impact on most of the recognized species in the area apart from the Sydney Freshwater Wetlands.

 

The SIA stated that since some of the details relating to the soil/geological structures supporting the wetland and hydrological inputs into the Freshwater community are unclear the precautionary principle needs to be applied which states that if there is a lack of “information is not available to conclusively determine that there will not be a significant impact on a threatened species, population, or ecological community, or its habitat, then it should be assumed that the significant impact is likely”. On this basis it was concluded that the proposal may adversely affect the lifecycle of the species and as a consequence the report suggested that concurrence of the OEH is required.

 

Council decided to conduct some further testing and sought further technical advice in respect to the possible impact to the wetland. Ecological were engaged and prepared a detailed report titled “Review of Impact Assessment on Sydney Freshwater Wetlands EEC” dated 31 March 2017. This report conducted a peer review of the earlier SIA and considered the likely direct and indirect impacts of the development on the Wetlands.

 

Of importance is the detailed nature of the report which highlights a number of mitigation measures which seek to minimize any potential impacts. The report concludes that “overall the inclusion of the mitigation measures specified in this report it is concluded that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact and a Species Impact Statement (SIS) is not required”.

 

The application was also referred to Council’s Sustainability Officer who concurred with this advice and stated the following:

 

In March 2017 Eco Logical Australia conducted a peer review of Species Impact Statement for Coastal Walk and 6th Tee, NSW Golf Course completed by Total Care in September 2016.

 

Eco Logical Australia concluded that, with the mitigation measures specified in its report, the proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on the Endangered Ecological Community.  This was based on the updated assessment of significance (7 part test) for the Sydney Freshwater Wetland in accordance with Part 5A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act).  Accordingly, Clause 3b of Section 79B of the EP&A Act does not apply as the development is not likely to significantly affect an ecological community or its habitat.

 

Given Eco Logical Australia assessment (March 2017), it is considered that this DA does not trigger OEH concurrence requirements.

 

As discussed above, the OEH have since reviewed the submitted plans and documentation (including the peer review of the ‘Species Impact Statement for Coastal Walk and 6th Tee, NSW Golf Course completed by Total Care’.  The OEH have confirmed that ‘the development is not likely to have a significant effect on a threatened species, population or ecological community and (OEH) has no further comments’.

 

National Parks and Wildlife Services

 

The National Parks and Wildlife Services (NPWS) has advised that they support the overall proposal to upgrade the existing pathway for the reasons listed below, but that part traversing onto Kamay Botany Bay National Park will require a separate approval under the EP & A Act, 1979, which includes the preparation and submission of a Conservation Risk Assessment:

 

·         The track is in need of an upgrade.  The proposal will ensure a safer passage for bushwalkers through the golf course to continue their walk through Botany Bay National Park.

 

·         The new track will provide a clear pathway, ‘particularly to reduce the amount of walkers that accidently take the incorrect track and follow a golf footpath deeper into golf course territory’.

 

·         The track upgrade is consistent with Botany Bay National Park’s Plan of Management (POM). Under section 4.3.3 ‘Activities in the Area – Recreation – Actions’ the POM states, “The walking track to Henry Head will be upgraded where necessary with priority to the section to Browns Rock. In the longer term the walking track will be extended to Cape Banks and may form part of a longer Eastern Suburbs coast walk.”

 

·         Under section 4.3.4 ‘Activities in the Area – Management Operations – Easement and Alien Uses’ the PoM states, “The walking track around Cape Banks crosses part of the area leased to the NSW Golf Club. As part of the renegotiation of the golf club lease it was agreed that walkers would have access to the walking track around the edge of the golf course and across the bridge near the 6th tee except when the championship tee is in use for competitions. Land use inconsistencies occur along the common boundary of the park and NSW Golf Club at La Perouse. There may be opportunities to rationalise these boundaries for the benefit of both park visitor use and safety and the protection of additional remnant bushland areas.”

 

Any part of the proposed development that traverses onto Kamay Botany Bay National Park will require a separate approval under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.  Accordingly any consent under the subject DA needs to be limited to the proposed development over the golf course only.  The applicant has been advised of the processes.  A condition is recommended to specify the limitation of the approval and the preparation and submission of a Conservation Risk Assessment for the works on the parkland.  (NB:  Also refer to compliance report section ‘State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007’.

 

In accordance with the comments and requirements of the NPWS, special advisory condition is also recommended as following:

 

·      A separate approval for any development Kamay Botany Bay National Park, must be obtained in accordance with the EP & A Act 1979 prior to the commencement of any activities.

 

·      A Conservation Risk Assessment (CRA) in the format prescribed by OEH – NPWS must completed and submitted for works occurring on NPWS estate for approval by NPWS (Harbour Area Manager).

 

Owners Consent to Submission of DA – Department of Industry

 

The Department of Industry is the current owner of the subject land.  An owner’s consent letter dated 22 May 2017 has been obtained by the applicant.  It states that the consent is granted subject to certain terms.  Those of relevance that need to be noted by Council include:

 

Council formally agrees to transact with Department of Industry – Lands and Forestry within 6 months from the date of the ‘Work-as –Executed Plan, an easement for access over the Crown Land within which the Coastal Walk construction identified in Package 1 of the approved plans take place. The required easement will be subject to the payment of such compensation and other conditions as may be determined by the Department of Industry – Lands & Forestry.

 

Comment:  The easement for the purpose of this consent could only be limited to the approved sections of the proposal, i.e. at this stage and under this consent it doesn’t relate to that part over Kamay Botany Bay National Parks that is subject to a Part 5 assessment under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended).

 

It is recommended that Council liaise with the Department of Industry in relation to this matter.

 

Council is to enter with the NSW Golf Club Co Ltd into a Deed of Agreement governing the regulation of public access over that part of the Coastal Walk the subject of the Package 1 works, particularly during championship tournaments; and the ongoing maintenance of that part of the Walk.

 

Comment:  A condition is recommended accordingly for the works over the Golf                       Course.

 

Any work or occupation of Crown land cannot commence without a current tenure from the Department of Industry – Lands and Forestry authorizing such work or occupation.

 

Comment:  A condition is recommended to ensure the necessary approval is                            obtained prior to the commencement of any works or occupation.

 

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

 

Based on the legislative requirements and advice provided National Parks and Wildlife Services, no approval is granted to the works on the parkland and thus a condition is recommended to be included (condition 2) to specify this, as well as advisory conditions with regard to obtaining an approval under Part 5 of the EP & A Act 1979.

 

With reference to the proposed development on the Golf Course, it has been sensitively and skillfully designed to respect the environmental qualities and existing coastal landscape features within this area. The intent and purpose of the development is to formalise part of the existing coastal walkway for public use. The removal of the new coastal walkway and buggy path will allow for the construction of the Golf Course works to commence as there is a tight and restricted timeframe for these works to occur.

 

The proposed design changes to the location and configuration of the 6th Hole, associated green, new bunkers and new 6th Tees are sympathetic to the area and will not have any adverse impacts to the surrounds.

 

The proposal complies with a number of State Environmental Planning policies in respect to development within bushland areas and within coastal areas and satisfies Council’s LEP and DCP provisions for public infrastructure and recreational works.

 

The proposal also satisfies the objectives and intentions of the Botany Bay National Park Plan of Management and the provisions of the EP and A Act, 1979, Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act, 1999 and the Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1995.

 

The proposed development is considered to be in the public interest and it is for these reasons that approval is recommended.

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.  Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, to development application No. 539/2016 for the works associated with the NSW Golf Course, including the modification of the position and size of the existing 6th Green and provision of new 6th Tees and associated landscaping works, at No.1528 Anzac Parade, La Perouse subject to the following non-standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Nonstandard conditions

 

Approved Works

2. This development consent and thus approved works are limited to those indicated in colour parts on the Golf Course only. No approval is granted under this consent for any parts of the works that traverses onto Kamay Botany Bay National Park.   A separate approval must be obtained for these works in accordance with the EP & A Act 1979.

 

(NB: The separate approval must include the preparation and submission of a Conservation Risk Assessment (CRA) in the format prescribed by OEH – NPWS for the approval of the NPWS - Harbour Area Manager.

 

Deed of Agreement

3.  Council is to enter with the NSW Golf Club Co Ltd into a Deed of Agreement governing the regulation of public access over that part of the Coastal Walk the subject of the Package 1 works and approved herein, particularly during championship tournaments; and the ongoing maintenance of that part of the Walk.

 

Mitigation measures – specific to the wetlands

4.  The proposed mitigation measures which are detailed and outlined on Page 9 and 10 of the report prepared by Ecological entitled “Review of Impact Assessment on Sydney Freshwater Wetlands EEC from Coastal Walk Project” dated 31 March 2017 are to be implemented as part of the demolition, clearing, earth, site preparation and construction works. A qualified Engineer (or relevant) consultant is to certify that these works have been completed in accordance with the recommendations of this report.

 

Mitigation Measures – Ecological Sustainability

5.  A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) is to be prepared by the applicant to the satisfaction of the Certifier/Council and shall be distributed to all contractor(s) (e.g. demolition, site preparation and construction contractors). The CEMP must clearly identify the location and vegetation to be retained, the extent of EECs and the locations for storage and parking of construction materials and machinery during construction.  The document titled Managing Urban Stormwater Soils and Construction, 4th Edition, published by Landcom (the ‘Blue Book’), should be referred to for achieving effective sediment control on construction sites.

 

Sediment and Erosion Controls

6.  Sediment and erosion control measures, must be implemented prior to the commencement of works in accordance with this consent, to Council’s satisfaction.  Details are to be included in the Construction Environmental Management Plan and Construction Site Management Plan.

 

No clearing, demolition, construction and construction-related activities must be commenced until appropriate and effective sediment controls are in place.  Regular, daily inspections must be undertaken of all sediment and erosion controls to ensure they remain effective and maintenance and repair of the controls is undertaken promptly.

 

7.  All earthmoving machinery, vehicles, plant, tools, materials, equipment, etc. shall be washed down and cleaned to the satisfaction of Council’s Natural Resources Coordinator at an appropriate location outside the bushland, prior entering the bushland, so as to ensure that no soils, fill, plant propagules, or other foreign matter, are introduced to the bushland from any other location.

 

8. No temporary or permanent placement or storage of any items of plant, materials, tools, equipment, vehicles, etc. shall occur within the bushland. The only exceptions to this shall be in relation to:

* protection fencing;

* silt fencing;

* protection signage;

* erosion and siltation controls;

* concrete slab and kerbing;

* installation and maintenance of stormwater pit, pipes and outlet on the creekline; and

* ameliorative works required as a result of a breach of the Bushland Conditions.

 

9.  No temporary or permanent lighting shall be installed which may be directed into the bushland, either in the short or long term, so as to avoid disturbance of native fauna.

 

10. Any soils in the area should be tested for P.cinnamomi prior to any proposed excavation works. Any imported soil must also be tested for P. cinnamomi prior to use. Both these measures are to be implemented to the satisfaction of the Certifier.

 

11. Installation, maintenance and decommissioning of sediment and erosion controls are to be outlined and implemented in accordance with the recommendations of the CEMP.

 

12. Temporary fencing shall be installed that excludes the passage of native fauna through construction or storage compounds to minimise opportunities for fauna to shelter in machinery or materials stockpiles.

 

13. Machinery, equipment or materials storage compounds are to be located in areas of pre-existing disturbance (e.g. access tracks, or open grassed areas). The designated location of this area shall be designated within the CEMP and to the satisfaction of the Certifier.

 

14. Small machinery should be used to reduce the impact on retained vegetation.

 

15. All replacement landscaping of local native species should utilise species typical of native vegetation communities within the area. All planted flora must be of local provenance, genetically integral and adhere to Flora bank guidelines.

 

16. All personnel employed in relation to the development and all other persons wishing to enter the bushland, shall complete a site induction, prior to their commencement of work or entry to the bushland. The site induction shall include:

 

-   details of the location and significance of bushland, including Eastern   Suburbs Banksia Scrub;

-  that no disturbance to, or removal of, vegetation or original soils shall occur     within bushland, except in accordance with the Bushland Conditions;

-  that no temporary or permanent placement or storage of any items of plant, materials, tools, equipment, vehicles, etc. shall occur within bushland, except in accordance with the Bushland Conditions;

-   that no foreign matter from outside the bushland, including, but not limited to: water, litter, cement wash, concrete, fill, soils, mulch, building materials, chemicals, petroleum-based products, paint, etc., shall be disposed of in, or placed in, or where they may enter, bushland, except in accordance with the Bushland Conditions;

-  that access to bushland shall be restricted to pedestrian traffic only and, in any case, shall be minimised;

-   the maximum penalties for unauthorised actions which affect the bushland;

- contravention of any of the above shall be reported immediately to the applicant’s Project Manager by all persons involved in and witnessing such a contravention.

 

Heritage Conservation

17. Should Aboriginal objects be found, the Department of Environment and Heritage (OEH) is to be informed (as required by the provisions of the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974).  Subject to an assessment of the extent, integrity and significance of any exposed objects, applications under either Section 87 or Section 90 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act may be required before works resumes.

 

18.  Prior to commencement of any works on the site, site contractors should be made   aware of the possibility that Aboriginal archaeological deposits or objects (such as shell deposits, flaked stone artefacts or engravings etc.) may survive on and around the site.

 

19.  Site contractors are to be advised of their obligations under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW) and notification procedures, in the event that any Aboriginal cultural material is disturbed or exposed during site works.

 

20.  The La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council (LPLALC) should be informed prior to clearing of vegetation and removal of fill and opportunity given for inspection when underlying natural surfaces are exposed.

 

Vegetation removal

21. Approval is granted for the removal of only that vegetation that is located within the existing/new 6th tees, greens, hole and fairway, where in direct conflict with the works that are shown on dwg DA-B – Site Analysis, as defined by ‘Extent of works – NSW Golf Club’ (indicated with a solid light blue line).

 

Protection of adjoining vegetation

22. In order to protect all adjoining vegetation, suitable physical protection measures must be provided so as to exclude and delineate these areas from the works, comprising a mixture of fencing, sediment/silt barriers and similar.

 

23. These measures must be installed prior to the commencement of site works, and must be maintained until completion, with details to be submitted to, and be approved by, the Certifying Authority/PCA, prior to installation.

 

 

 

Replacement Planting

24. Replacement planting must comprise native coastal species which are suitable for the prevailing site conditions, and are to be selected form the Planting Schedule that is shown on the Landscape Plan, dwg DA-F.

 

225. All replanting/landscaping must result in an appearance and composition that is similar to existing, established themes throughout the surrounding area.

 

26. Where species used in replanting are registered as being endemic to the Botany Bay National Park, the applicant must provide documentary evidence confirming that they will be/have been sourced from local provenance stock, so as to maintain genetic biodiversity.

 

Waste Management

27. The applicant is to submit to Council and have approved by Council’s Manager of Waste a Waste Management Plan detailing ongoing waste and recycling generation rates, storage and disposal for the proposed works depot.

 

The Waste Management Plans shall be prepared with reference to the waste management hierarchy established under the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2001.  In this regard resource management options must be considered against the following priorities:

 

·      Avoidance - including action to reduce the amount of waste generated.

·      Resource recovery - including reuse, recycling, reprocessing and energy recovery, consistent with the most efficient use of the recovered resources

·      Disposal - including management of all disposal options in the most environmentally responsible manner.

 

All wastes generated during the project should be properly assessed, classified and managed in accordance with EPA guidelines to ensure proper treatment, transport and disposal at a landfill legally able to accept those wastes.

 

28. Any work or occupation on Crown Land cannot commence without a current tenure from the Department of Industry – Lands and Forestry authorising such work or occupation.  The applicant shall liaise Department of Industry – Lands and Forestry prior to the commencement of any work / occupation to obtain the necessary requirements and approvals.

 

A special advisory condition is also recommended as following:

 

A14.    A separate approval for any development Kamay Botany Bay National Park, must be obtained in accordance with the EP & A Act 1979 prior to the commencement of any activities.

 

A15.    A Conservation Risk Assessment (CRA) in the format prescribed by OEH – NPWS must completed and submitted for works occurring on NPWS estate for approval by NPWS (Harbour Area Manager).

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report -1528 Anzac Parade, LA PEROUSE 

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                               8 August 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D64/17

 

Subject:             5-7 Stark Street, Coogee (DA/189/2016/A)

Folder No:                   DA/189/2016/A

Author:                   Jonathan Blackmore, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 modification of the approved development by altering the layout of Unit 1.01 to create 2 separate 2 bedroom units, conversion of the north facing balconies for Units 1.03, 2.03 and 3.02 to bedrooms and new balconies for Units 2.03 and 3.02.

                                      Original consent: Demolition of the existing structures, construction of a part 3/part 4 storey residential flat building containing 11 dwellings, semi-basement car parking for 20 vehicles, landscaping, strata subdivision and associated works.

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                MHN Design Union

Owner:                        Zaya Jawaro Holding Pty Ltd and Xavier Property Group Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive Summary Report

 

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

 

Proposal

 

The applicant proposes a Section 96 modification of the approved development by altering the layout of Unit 1.01 to create 2 separate 2 bedroom units, conversion of the north facing balconies for Units 1.03, 2.03 and 3.02 to bedrooms and new balconies for Units 2.03 and 3.02.

 

Original consent: Demolition of the existing structures, construction of a part 3/part 4 storey residential flat building containing 11 dwellings, semi-basement car parking for 20 vehicles, landscaping, strata subdivision and associated works.

 

Revisions

In response to Design Excellence comments, the applicant undertook the following changes:

·      Proposed operable highlight window above the kitchen joinery of Unit G1.03

·      Reduced balconies so they do not protrude any further than bed 2 wall behind

·      Added the green roof to the section

·      Finished roof levels were corrected back to the approved levels

 

The revisions do not require re-notification as they did not increase the scale of the proposal.

 

Site

 

The subject sites adjoin each other and are located on the southern side of Stark Street. The rear of the sites adjoin a vegetated park/reserve area once utilised as a tramway. The sites along Stark Street contain a variety of residential flat building style development. The single dwellings on each of the subject sites are some of the last in the street. Both sites slope up from their front boundaries towards their rear boundaries. 

Figure 1. Photograph of the frontages of the subject sites.

 

Section 96 Assessment:

 

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

 

Substantially the Same Development:

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

 

Submissions

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

 

Section 79c Assessment

 

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

SEPP No. 65 aims to promote quality design of Residential Flat Buildings. The proposal would generally be subject to the Policy as it involves the development of a residential flat building being 3 storey and more in height and containing four or more units. The Panel’s comments are included below.

 

Furthermore, written confirmation from a registered Architect is also required to be provided to Council confirming that the design is in accordance with the design quality principles of the SEPP.

 

A Design Verification Statement in accordance with the requirements of SEPP 65 has been received from Brian Meyerson of MHN Design Union, a registered Architect.

 

The Design Excellence Panel provided comments in February 2017 for the application. The applicant has made amendments to their design and responded to the Design Review Panel comments.   

 

Apartment Design Guidelines

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. The proposal does not result in any additional non-compliances with the Apartment Design Guidelines.

 

Design Review Panel Comments

This Section 96 has been referred to the Panel and is the second review of the proposal for a three storey flat building comprising 11 apartments over basement parking.

 

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

 

The architect is MHN Design Union.

 

The Panel previously noted the proposal was a demonstration of good design as required by SEPP 65 and the ADG.  This review has been undertaken without the Panel meeting the applicant.

 

The Section 96 seeks the following modifications:

Ground Floor - Unit G.01 changed from a 2 storey 3-bed unit to a 2-bed single level unit.

First Floor - Create new 2-bed Unit 1.01

Second Floor - Unit 2.03 convert balcony to a second bedroom and extend balcony.

Third Floor - Unit 3.03 convert balcony to a second bedroom and extend balcony.

 

The proposal seeks an FSR of 1.07:1, that is 138m² over the control which is 0.9:1. The Panel's previous report prior to DA approval noted the density proposed as 0.98:1, or 72m² over FSR.

 

The Panel generally supports the above changes however has comments as follows:

 

-     Unit G.01 was previously a two storey apartment.  Now, as a one storey apartment is has poor ventilation to the (south) of the kitchen and living room.  At the very least ceiling fans should be provided in the dining and living areas as well as the bedrooms.  Better access to the side garden (west) could also be considered.

 

Assessing officer’s comments: An additional condition is recommended that requires ceiling fans to unit G.01. Access to side garden could create undesirable overlooking of habitable rooms to on the site to the west.

 

-     Unit 1.01 - acceptable. 

 

-     Units 1.01, 1.02, 2.01, 2.02 - The Panel previously noted that all of the protruding oversized shower areas could be reduced to minimise the bulk of this large building.  The Panel recommends that this is considered as part of the Section 96.

 

Assessing officer’s comments: The shower areas were considered under the original approval and cannot be reassessed under this modification as no changes are proposed.

 

-     Unit 1.03 - this unit has poor cross ventilation to the living, dining and kitchen areas.  The space could be improved if there was access and a vista to the west private garden.  This could easily be achieved if the bathroom was rotated and would increase amenity substantially.

 

Assessing officer’s comments: The proposed unit technically complies with the cross ventilation requirements of the ADG. However, the balcony and layout changes to Units 1.03, 2.03 and 3.02 are conditioned for deletion due to internal amenity issues resulting from poor daylight to living areas.

 

-     Units 2.03 + 3.02 - The inclusion of an additional bedroom is supported, however the protruding balcony is not. A small Juliet balcony off the bedroom would be sufficient and would further help to reduce the bulk of this large building - one of the larger footprints in this block.

 

Assessing officer’s comments: The applicant has now reduced the balcony sizes so that they do not protrude further than the wall of bedroom 2 behind. This is considered a sufficient reduction.  However, the balcony and layout changes to Units 2.03 and 3.02 are conditioned for deletion due to internal amenity issues.

 

-     Top floor clerestory windows - all of these windows have been nominated as fixed glass on the elevations.  The north facing ones will cause unwanted heat buildup in the summer and mid seasons.  The south facing ones will cause unwanted heat buildup in late summer afternoons.  There should be good ventilation provided. Insulated metal louvres (no cleaning required) could be used with remote control.  The Panel recommends that this is considered as part of the Section 96.

 

Assessing officer’s comments: The clerestory windows were considered under the original approval and cannot be reassessed under this modification as no changes are proposed.

 

-     The roof plan shows air-conditioners and no photovoltaics or solar hot water.  This is disappointing. The roof plan also shows 2 large green roof areas but this does not appear in the sections.

 

Assessing officer’s comments: The applicant has corrected the plan/section inconsistency. No modifications are proposed to the roof plant or green roof and therefore cannot be reassessed under this modification.  

 

-     There remains insufficient weather protection to the upper level north doors and balcony.

 

Assessing officer’s comments: The weather protection to the upper level was considered under the original approval and cannot be reassessed under this modification as it is not proposed to change.

 

Summary

The Panel considers that extra floor space being sought would only be acceptable if the sustainability issues raised in this report (and the previous report) were properly addressed.

 

Assessing officer’s comments: The majority of the changes requested by the Design Excellence Panel are to parts of the development already approved under the original approval and for which no changes are proposed. The applicant has sufficiently addressed other Panel recommendations, as detailed above.    

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

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

 

Zone R3 – Medium Density Residential

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

 

Maximum Height – Clause 4.3 of the RLEP 2012

The proposed modification does increase the height of the proposal.

 

Floor Space Ratio – Clause 4.4 of the RLEP 2012

The development has an approved floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.98:1. A revised FSR of 1.07:1 is proposed, which exceed the maximum FSR standard of 0.9:1 by 0.12:1 or 13.3%.

 

It is noted that proposed changes to Units 1.03, 2.03 and 3.02 are conditioned for deletion due to internal amenity issues. Therefore, the FSR will remain comparable to the original approval with a small 17m2 increase to 1.01:1.  

 

The proposed non-compliance with the floor space ratio standard will not be inconsistent with the zoning objectives or objectives of the standard and will result in no significant adverse impacts in terms of the amenity values of the area or the residential amenity of neighbouring residents. The general building footprint and height of the building are not proposed to be modified. The building will still feature adequate physical and material articulation, including a separation into two built forms.  The intensity of use of the site will be consistent with the relevant LEP objectives and adequate internal amenity will be provided for all units. The increase in floor area will not result in any reduction in solar access or visual privacy for neighbouring residents. Adequate landscaping is proposed for the site and this will continue to blend the built form into the existing context.

 

Development Control Plan

 

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013

The following sections of the C2 Medium Density Residential Section of the RDCP 2013 are considered relevant to the proposed modification.

 

Deep Soil Permeable

The proposal will not reduce the approved area of deep soil permeable.

 

Internal Solar Access to Living Rooms

The proposed addition of a bedroom to units 1.03, 2.03 and 3.02 would result in poor solar access to the relocated living and kitchens. In particular, the living areas’ only windows would all be to the southern elevation of the building and, as a result, the living rooms would receive inadequate daylight and will be dark uninviting spaces overly dependent on artificial lighting. Therefore, this aspect of the proposed modification would result in poor internal amenity. For this reason, a condition is recommended deleting changes to units 1.03, 2.03 and 3.02. 

 

Western Side Setback

The proposed western side setback of 3m will be the same as approved but the wall/balcony will extend for an additional 1.2m. However, the recommended condition to remove proposed modifications to units 1.03, 2.03 and 3.02 will result in no change to the western side setback or the western built form from what was originally approved.     

 

Visual Privacy

The recommended condition to remove proposed modifications to units 1.03, 2.03 and 3.02 will mean that the proposed modification will not change the visual privacy situation from what was originally approved.     

 

View Sharing

The proposal does not change the view sharing outcome due to a lack of height increase, minimum external bulk increased and the lack of significant views from surrounding sites. The creation of the additional floor area will not impact views from surrounding properties.

 

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

The proposed modification will result in no adverse social, economic or significant environmental impacts. In particular, the proposed modification does not increase the approved built height or significantly extend the built form of the building, and the changes are generally contained within the existing footprint. 

 

Site Suitability

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

 

Referral Comments

 

Development Engineering

 

Parking Comments

The original development was for 11 dwellings comprising of 6 x 1 bedroom, 4 x 2 bedroom & 1 x 3 bedroom units

 

Parking Required        = 15 spaces

Parking Provided        = 20 spaces (complies)

 

 

The S96 proposal includes additional bedrooms and a change in the apartment mix resulting in a corresponding change in the generated parking demand.

 

The Section 96 amended proposal is for 12 dwellings comprising of 3 x 1 bedroom and 9 x 2 bedroom units

 

Parking Required (S96)   = (3 x 1) + (9 x 1.2) + 12/4 (visitor)

                                  = 3 + 10.8 + 3(visitor)

                                  = 16.8 spaces

                                  = say 17 spaces

 

Parking Provided            = 20 spaces (complies)

 

It is also noted that 2 visitor spaces have been provided including 1 disabled space. The parking provision is therefore still considered to be satisfactory and no objections are raised.

 

Motorbike & Bicycle Parking

Motorbike & Bicycle parking will remain satisfactory as a result of the S96 amendments.

 

Waste Management Comments

It is noted the waste storage area has been reconfigured, however is still of sufficient size to accommodate the required number of bins (15). No objections are raised.

 

There are no engineering conditions required to be amended added or deleted.

 

Landscape Comments

New landscape plans have been prepared for the site with very minor changes in the landscape treatment evident, to accommodate the reconfigured units. Two landscape conditions will have to be slightly amended to reference the updated landscape plans

 

Should the Section 96 application be approved the following landscape conditions shall be amended:

 

Amend Condition 24

Landscape Plans

24.     The Certifying Authority/PCA must ensure that the Landscape Plans submitted as part of the approved Construction Certificate are substantially consistent with the amended Landscape Plans by F & G Design, sheets 1-5, dated 09/12/16.

 

Amend Condition 70

Landscaping

70.     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 amended Landscape Plans by F & G Design, sheets 1-5, dated 09/12/16.

 

There are no objections to the S96 proposal by Development Engineering.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

Therefore, the application is recommended for approval.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Consent No. DA/189/2016/A for a Section 96 modification of the approved development by altering the layout of Unit 1.01 to create 2 separate 2 bedroom units, conversion of the north facing balconies for Units 1.03, 2.03 and 3.02 to bedrooms and new balconies for Units 2.03 and 3.02.

The consent is modified in the following manner:

 

·   Amend Condition 1 to read:

“Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

10.1_A to 10.5_A Rev. B

MHNDUNION

2 August 2016

20.1_A to 20.3_A Rev. B

MHNDUNION

2 August 2016

20.6_A to 20.10_A Rev. B

MHNDUNION

2 August 2016

20.4_A  Rev. A

MHNDUNION

24 March 2016

Landscape Plans – Sheets 1-2

Landscape Plans – Sheets 3 – Second Floor

Landscape Plans – Sheets 3 – Third Floor

Landscape Plans – Sheets 4

F & G Design

8 March 2016

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

710108M

10 March 2016

 

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

10.1_C to 10.2_C

MHNDUNION

16 Dec 2016

10.3_D to 10.5_D

MHNDUNION

14 June 2017

20.1_D

MHNDUNION

14 June 2017

20.3_C

MHNDUNION

16 Dec 2016

20.4_D

MHNDUNION

14 June 2017

20.6_D

MHNDUNION

14 June 2017

20.7_D

MHNDUNION

14 June 2017

20.8_C

MHNDUNION

16 Dec 2016

Landscape Plans Sheets 1 to 2

F & G Design

9 Dec 2016

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

710108M_03

13 December 2016

 

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

 

Add Condition 2k

2k      A ceiling fan shall be provided in the dining and living areas, and the bedrooms of Unit G.01.

 

Amend Condition 24

Landscape Plans

24.     The Certifying Authority/PCA must ensure that the Landscape Plans submitted as part of the approved Construction Certificate are substantially consistent with the amended Landscape Plans by F & G Design, sheets 1-5, dated 09/12/16.

 

Amend Condition 70

Landscaping

71.     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 amended Landscape Plans by F & G Design, sheets 1-5, dated 09/12/16.

 

Add Condition 92

92.     Approval is not granted for the changes to Units 1.03, 2.03, and 3.02 shown on the Section 96 “A” plans. 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                               8 August 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D65/17

 

Subject:             300 Clovelly Road, Clovelly (DA/927/2016)

Folder No:                   DA/927/2016

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Demolition of existing structures, construction of 3 storey residential flat building and semi-basement level parking comprising of 8 dwellings, parking for 12 cars, motor bike and bicycle parking, landscaping, fencing and associated works

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                S Dell'Arte

Owner:                        Mrs M Dell'Arte

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=30cb4b23-954e-4b6e-b721-d4ff194e8028&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The proposed development is referred to the Planning Committee as it has a cost of works greater than $2million.


 

Proposal

 

Demolition of existing structures, construction of 3 storey residential flat building and semi-basement level parking comprising of 8 dwellings, parking for 12 cars, motor bike and bicycle parking, landscaping, fencing and associated works.

 

Amended plans received by Council on 28 April 2017 in response to matters raised by Development Engineer, Planning Officer and Design Review Panel. The amendments include:

 

·      Increased wall thickness to indicate method of retaining the basement walls placed underground to retain soil where needed

·      Extended standing platform at level 1 to cover overland flow with overflow slot in response to Development Engineers request

·      Introduction of raised planter with sufficient soil depth on unit 102 terrace (between main bedroom and secondary bedroom to increase landscape provision and soften deck area

·      Re-orientated slot opening on unit 103, 203 and 303 (bedroom 2) to increase north facing openings

·      Increase size to ease the walkway from car park lobby

·      Additional screenings to western side of rear balconies to improve privacy and prevent some overlooking between occupants and neighbouring building at No. 298 Clovelly Road

·      Updated plant area at roof level

·      Adjustment on the podium planting to reduce building bulk at front elevation facing towards Clovelly Road

 

Site

 

The subject site has an area of 771.4sqm with a regular frontage to Clovelly Road– see aerial photo on previous page. The site is steeply sloping by definition greater than 10% gradient. In particular, it rises from front to rear of 13.4% for the length of the development and a west side to east side fall of 11.5%. The site is currently occupied by a flat building containing four units; two garages are located at the front of the flat building along the frontage. Adjoining the site to the west is No. 298 Clovelly Road identified as a Heritage item and known as Warrah Flats; Warrah Flats is also a two storey residential flat building containing 4 units. The building is elevated above the front yard and street level as a result of the lower ground level and at the rear it presents as a two storey development. The existing building is not heritage listed.

 

Photo of subject site.

 

Adjoining neighbouring property to the east at No. 302 Clovelly Road is a shop premises that is two storeys at the front containing a shop premises fronting Clovelly Road with residential above and single storey at the rear which is an extension of the residential component due to the rising ground level.

 

Photo: Subject site (left) and No. 298 Clovelly Road “Warrah Flats” at right;

 

Photo: Subject site (right) and No. 302 Clovelly Road (left/east) shop premises with dwelling above. Also shown further left and to the rear are four storey flat buildings.

 

In terms of scale, the surrounding area zoned R3 medium density allows for 12m maximum height and FSR of 0.9:1. Existing flat buildings in the area are generally four storey walk up flat buildings with little to no articulation between the bottom and top most levels. They are for the most part located on sites with greater width than that of the subject site which requires greater side boundary setbacks under the current RDCP. The distinct difference between the proposed scheme and the older housing stock of RFB’s is that the upper level is setback from the floors below whereas the older RFB’S have the fourth level are a vertical extension of the floors below.

 

The building on the subject site and those in the surrounding area along this side of Clovelly Road, Mundarrah Street and Melrose Parade contain several examples of part four part five multi storey flat buildings.

 

Photo taken from rear yard looking east to No. 2 Melrose Parade - a five storey scale at the rear and four storeys facing Melrose Parade

 

Four storey walk up flat buildings in the surrounding area.

316-322 Clovelly Road

304 Clovelly Road

5 & 7 Mundarrah Street

6 & 10-12 Melrose Parade

 

Submissions

 

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

 

·      5/33 Battery Street, Clovelly

·      302 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

·      Unit No’s 1/2/3 & 4 in 298 Clovelly Road, Clovelly (heritage item)

 

Issue

Comment

Correction:

 

Rear building at 33 Battery incorrectly described as three storey flat building

Acknowledged and considered in the assessment of the application.

Bulk and scale:

 

The proposed size of the building will be greater than the height of buildings in the surrounding area and will have an adverse impact on the surrounding buildings and streetscape character

Noted, the proposed development’s height and floor space ratio complies with RLEP standards. The distribution of height and floor area complies with the relevant side and rear boundary setbacks that apply to the site. The proposed development represents a compliant development in relation to height of buildings and Floor space ratio standards in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan. The proposed development is also considered suitable for the site and will not detract from the significance of the heritage item or the surrounding area subject to use of recessive material and colour for the roof awning projecting over the upper level front balcony.

 

Overall the proposed development is considered to contribute to the character of the area subject to minor conditions being included in relation to the roof overhang at the front.

 

Trees:

 

The Arboricultural Tree Management Plan notes that the construction of a retaining wall on the southern boundary will negatively impact Tree No:3. This tree is very important for us as it provides a privacy screen from the neighbouring block of units and object to the species of planting in the rear as it will overhang and have invasive root system affecting the amenity of the neighbouring property at No. 33 Battery Street

The applicant submitted amended plans received 1 February 2017 (Section AA issue B & L/02 Rev C) addressing these issues:

 

Removal of the rear retaining wall and use of Hebel power panel fencing to allow for bridging across root zones and amended landscape species at the rear to reduce canopy spread onto neighbouring land.

Fence height:

 

What will the height of the rear boundary fence be?

The height of the Hebel rear fence will be 1.8m which is consistent with the exempt criteria under the SEPP Codes 2008

Shadow diagrams:

 

Are shadow diagrams provided of summer sun or winter sun?

 

 

 

 

What is compliant and concerned about the impact?

 

The shadow diagrams are shown for the 21/06 that is the winter sun. The proposed development result in additional shadowing to the side elevations of the both adjoining properties at No. 298 and 302 Clovelly Road.

 

The Apartment Design Guide (ADG) requires 2 hours of solar access to the living rooms and private open space of neighbouring properties. See key issues section.

 

Parking:

 

Reduction of availability of parking on street as a result of proposed development and during construction

 

 

 

The proposed development complies with the vehicle parking rates under the RDCP. The parking demand associated with the construction period will temporarily increase parking demand however a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) is required to be provided by the developer for the subject of assessment by Councils Traffic Management Officers.

A condition is included requiring the submission of a Construction traffic management plan.

Visual privacy impact:

 

Seek confirmation that the east facing side of the property namely windows will not impact on the privacy of 302 Clovelly Road;

 

 

Windows and rear yard of No. 298 Clovelly Road.

 

 

The majority of east facing widows are associated with bedrooms and bathrooms and not areas that lend themselves to uses that will result in adverse privacy impacts.

 

Noted; Adequate privacy measures are conditioned in the recommendation section of this report for the following parts of the proposed development:

 

·      1st and 2nd floor level west facing kitchen windows

·      Western side of 1st and 2nd floor rear balconies. Note a reduction in the sides of the balconies at 1st and 2nd floor level is required as a condition of consent.

Acoustic privacy impact:

 

The stairwell and entry lobby is located opposite the bedrooms of No. 3/298 Clovelly Road.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The western sides of rear balconies will also result in adverse noise impacts.

 

 

 

The stairwell and entry lobby is located adjacent to the south eastern corner of the flat building opposite and offset from the bedroom windows of these units and not likely to result in any inordinate sleep disturbance of the bedroom windows of the units within the flat building at No’s 3 & 4 of 298 Clovelly Road.

 

A reduction in size of the 1st and 2nd floor balconies will suitably ameliorate the noise impacts. This necessitates a reduction in size of the louvre roof over the 2nd floor rear balcony.

Excavation:

 

Concerned with the proposed excavation in close proximity to and potential damage to the heritage item at No. 298 Clovelly Road

The proposal seeks to excavate between 800mm and around 2.5m adjoining the side of the heritage item. A geotechnical report has been submitted with the application and considered suitable for the purposes of assessment in the DA. In relation to actual works being carried out on site, a condition is included requiring a detailed structural report by an engineer with heritage experience to ensure that the adjoining land and buildings located upon them are sufficiently protect.

 

It is noted also that there is also the requirement for a dilapidation and structural report to be provided to the owners of adjoining heritage item.

 

The proposed finishes pay no respect to the adjoining heritage item.

The colours and materials are generally considered to be acceptable however in order to ensure a degree of oversight a condition is included requiring samples of the materials and finishes to be provided to Council for approval prior to a construction certificate being issued for the site. 

The parking demand created by a development for 8 units will be significant 

The parking provided on site is compliant.

The proposed development removes trees from the subject site reducing the amenity.

Trees within the subject site and those nearby on neighboring properties have been considered in the assessment of the application. Approval is granted for removal of trees identified as weeds and not being subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). Trees on neighbouring properties at No. 33 battery Street and No. 298 Clovelly Road, have also been considered in the assessment of the application and appropriate conditions are included to ensure the protection of certain trees.

Asbestos:

 

Prior to works proceeding a policy statement should be given to the owners of No. 298 Clovelly Road

 

 

A standard condition in relation to asbestos management is included.

The proposed development is not sympathetic to the heritage significance of the flat building at No. 298 Clovelly Road.

Councils Heritage planner indicates that there are no significant objections to the bulk and scale of the development and its relationship with the heritage item at No. 298 Clovelly Road.

FSR does not include stairwells, balconies or lifts.

The calculated FSR is in accordance with the definition for Gross Floor area under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan which excludes these areas;

 

Key Issues

 

Heritage Conservation

Clause 5.10 of the LEP is relevant in relation to Heritage Conservation as the subject site adjoins a heritage item. 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 known as “Warrah Flats”. A heritage impact statement or management statement has not been submitted and it is not considered that it is required given that Councils Heritage planner is generally satisfied 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,

 

Council’s Heritage planner has reviewed the subject application and made the following comments:

 

The Site

The site is occupied by a two storey Interwar flat building.  Due to the fall of the site a pair of garages is accommodated within the front setback area, below the ground floor level of the building.  Immediately to the west of the site is Warrah Flats, listed as a heritage item under Randwick LEP 2012.  The Randwick Heritage Study Inventory Sheet for the building describes it as an unusual Edwardian style flats, appears little altered.  The Inventory Sheet notes that brick verandahs with solid brick supports and balconies with decorative timber posts and brackets above brick balustrade.  Immediately to the east of the site is a two storey building built to the front boundary, comprising ground floor retain and upper floor residential.  The surrounding context includes a number of two and three storey residential flat buildings over ground level parking. 

 

Proposal

It is proposed to demolish the existing building and construct a new residential flat building comprising three stories over lower ground level carparking. 

 

Submission

The application has been accompanied by a Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Weir Phillips Heritage.  The HIS suggests that the existing building is likely to have historic and aesthetic significance as an early example of an Interwar period residential flat building (c.1918), a building type that became common in the harbourside suburbs during the interwar period.  The HIS considers that demolishing the existing building will impact on the immediate setting of the item because the existing building is also an interwar period residential flat building, but that this impact will be mitigated by the consistency of the proposal with Council objectives and recently constructed buildings, the mixed character of this part of Clovelly Road and the increased setback between the to buildings.  The HIS concludes that the proposed work will have an acceptable impact on the setting of the heritage item and on view corridors towards it.  The HIS notes that the existing setting of the item is mixed in architectural character, and the proposed building will fit comfortably within this context.  The HIS advises that no significant view corridors to or from the item will be blocked, and that view corridors on approach from the east will be improved by the removal of the existing garages.  The HIS considers that where it is visible in conjunction with the item, the new building will read as a well-mannered contemporary residential flat building. The HIS notes that the front elevation is well articulated and the upper most level is set back from Clovelly Road, and that this setback, combined with the flat roof form allows the hipped roof form of the heritage item to remain prominent. 

 

Controls

Clause 5.10(1) of Randwick LEP 2012 includes an objective of conserving the heritage significance of heritage items, including associated fabric, setting and views. 

 

Comments

The existing building complements the heritage item in terms of siting, scale, form and massing.  The existing building is sited parallel to the front boundary, with a similar setback and scale to the heritage item.  Its symmetrical layout with deep balconies and face brick construction is also complementary to the heritage item.  The Randwick Heritage Study Street by Street Survey describes the property as “1930s flats.  Two storeys plus front garages.”  The property was given a B rating on the following scale:

 

A             condition ”A”

B             could be restored

C             could be reversed at much cost

D             ruined/major

 

Generally only properties given an A rating, the most intact examples, were listed as heritage items.  “Warrah Flats” was also given a B rating, but was photographed, extensively described and ultimately listed as a heritage item. 

 

The proposed building is sited parallel to the front boundary, with a similar front setback to the heritage item and deep balconies which are complementary to the heritage item.  While the proposed building will be one level higher than the heritage item, the top level of the proposed building is setback from the levels below.  The projecting verandah roof however, which incorporates solid and louvred elements, increases its streetscape visibility.  It is suggested that the proposed verandah roof, have a similar colour and finish to the proposed metal wall cladding of the top level of the building, in order to better integrate the wall and roof elements and reduce the dominance of the projecting roof.  An appropriate consent condition should be included. 

 

The existing building incorporates a pair of garages on either side of the central entry stair which relieves the streetscape bulk of the garages.  The garages and stair arrangement of the existing building define the front boundary and reinforce the front fence and retaining wall of the heritage item. 

 

The proposed front entry treatment includes a vehicular entry set back in line with the upper level façade, and a pedestrian access pathway adjacent to the heritage item.  The setback vehicular and pedestrian entry arrangement allows for an area of soft landscaping adjacent to the heritage item which relates to its elevated front garden. 

 

The siting and articulation of the proposed building, together with simplified materials and finishes palette, will minimise its visual dominance in relation to the heritage item and reduce its streetscape prominence.  The proposed development will not detract from the streetscape setting of the heritage item adjacent, and the removal of the existing projecting garages will improve views toward the heritage item from the east. 

 

Recommendation

The following conditions should be included in any consent:

 

·      The proposed verandah roof, is to have a similar colour and finish to the proposed metal wall cladding of the top level of the building, in order to better integrate the wall and roof elements and reduce the dominance of the projecting roof.  Amended drawings are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. 

 

Planning comment: The above condition is included in the recommendation. It is also noted that the heritage planner considered a similar development under a Pre-lodgment application raising no significant objections.

 

Earthworks - Depth and proximity of excavation

The proposal excavates for the garaging basement level greater than 1m below existing ground level, provides fill greater than the 1m maximum control under the RDCP and seeks to locate retaining walls within 900mm of the side boundaries and does not meet the controls under Section 4.2 of Part C2 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (RDCP) for medium density residential development. In relation to the excavation sought in close proximity to the buildings within No. 298 and 302 Clovelly Road, it is acknowledged that there is a greater risk of subsidence of these buildings and submissions from the neighbouring properties also raise concerns with structural adequacy of their buildings.

 

An assessment is therefore required and carried out against the relevant earthworks objectives under Clause 6.2 of the RLEP relating to earthworks and Section 4.2 of the RDCP 2013.

 

In the RLEP 2012, Clause 6.2 earthworks seeks to ensure that earthworks for which development consent is required will not have a detrimental impact on environmental functions and processes, neighbouring uses, cultural or heritage items or features of the surrounding land. It also sets out matters for consideration before consent can be granted. In the RDCP, it also sets out objectives and also provides exceptions to the limitations identified earlier, if it can demonstrated that the site gradient is too steep to reasonably construct a building within this extent of site modification. In this instance, the site has a steep slope for the extent of development with a gradient of 13% and there is a necessity for the depth and extent of excavation in order to provide appropriate parking and access to on-site parking for the proposed residential flat building - a permissible form of development.

 

An assessment against the relevant objectives under Clause 6.2 Earthworks in the RLEP 2012 and Section 4.2 of the RDCP 2012 for medium density residential is required and carried out as follows:

 

RLEP objectives for earthworks:

 

(3)  Before granting development consent for earthworks (or for development involving ancillary earthworks), the consent authority must consider the following matters:

 

(a)  the likely disruption of, or any detrimental effect on, drainage patterns and soil stability in the locality of the development,

 

Council’s Development Engineer identified a concern with the western side passageway potentially affecting the overland flow along the western side of the site. Amended plans have rectified this concern; notwithstanding appropriate conditions are included to ensure that the overland flow from south to north is not unreasonably disrupted.

 

(b)  the effect of the development on the likely future use or redevelopment of the land,

 

The development will not result in any significant impact on the likely future use of the land for residential purposes;

 

(c)  the quality of the fill or the soil to be excavated, or both,

 

The site is not considered to have been used for any potentially contaminating activities. It is considered that the site could be made suitable for the proposed development. In relation to potential asbestos contamination appropriate conditions have been included to ensure that treatment and management of excavation and fill is carried out in accordance with the prescribed requirements.

 

(d)  the effect of the development on the existing and likely amenity of adjoining properties,

 

The effect of proposed excavation and fill has been considered in the assessment of the application. In relation to fill, the most pronounced fill is to front of the site along a small part of the eastern side boundary shared with No. 302 Clovelly Road. The original application sought levels to RL27.07 along this front part of the site which would have resulted in a wall height of 2.89m. The applicant amended their application lowering the height of the wall by 450mm resulting in a 2.4m at its highest which is only marginally higher than the permitted 2.2m high wall on sites with differing land levels under the SEPP for complying development 2008. It is also considered that the wall will not detract from the streetscape character as it is setback behind the front building of both the proposed development as well as the adjoining at No. 300 Clovelly Road.

 

(e)  the source of any fill material and the destination of any excavated material,

 

Appropriate conditions have been included to source of fill and destination of excavated material is managed in accordance with prescribed requirements.

 

(f)  the likelihood of disturbing relics,

 

The site is not a heritage item and therefore it is inappropriate to impose conditions for unexpected finds of relics.

 

(g)  the proximity to, and potential for adverse impacts on, any waterway, drinking water catchment or environmentally sensitive area,

 

Appropriate conditions are included in relation to ensuring storm water management of the site during and following construction.

 

(h)  any appropriate measures proposed to avoid, minimise or mitigate the impacts of the development.

 

Robust and comprehensive conditions have been included in the recommendation to ensure that the adjoining properties and structures upon them having particular regard to the adjoining heritage item at No. 298 Clovelly Road is suitably protected.

 

Earthworks and structural adequacy

1.       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.

 

2.       A dilapidation report prepared by a professional structural engineer with heritage experience, 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 up to shared boundaries (e.g. terraced or attached buildings),

·           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 (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. The specific report must be consider the potential impact of the proposed development on the fabric of the adjacent heritage item, at no. 298 Clovelly Road. A consultant search can be made on the Office of Environment and Heritage, Heritage consultants directory at http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/HeritageConsultantsDirectory.aspx. 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.

 

3.       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.

 

Objectives under Section 4.2 Earthworks in part C2 of the RDCP:

 

·      To maintain or minimise change to the natural ground levels

 

The existing ground level is not significantly being altered except for the front north eastern part of the development. All other parts of the fill to the site are generally at or below the height of a side boundary fence.

 

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

 

Structural adequacy has been assessed relating to the RLEP matters for consideration subject to conditions being imposed in the recommendation the excavation is considered acceptable.

 

In relation to overshadowing, the fill and excavation will not result in any adverse impacts on the adjoining dwellings;

 

In relation to visual amenity, as indicated in sub clause d assessed earlier, the reduction in the height of the wall along the eastern side boundary will achieve an acceptable outcome in relation to impact on the adjoining property at No. 302 Clovelly Road;

 

In relation to privacy, the fill along the eastern side boundary adjoining No. 302 Clovelly Road is non-trafficable area ensuring no privacy impacts;

 

·      To enable the provision of usable private open space for dwellings with adequate gradient.

 

Sufficient areas of private open space are provided as part of the development

 

·      To ensure earthworks do not result in adverse storm water impacts on the adjoining properties.

 

This objective has been suitably addressed earlier in sub clause h above.

 

Having regard to the above, it is considered that for the purposes of an assessment of earthworks, the proposed excavation and fill for the site, will satisfy the relevant objectives for earthworks under the RLEP and the RDCP subject to conditions.

 

External wall height:

The following parts of the proposed development that exceed the 10.5m maximum wall height control include:

 

1.  Front part of the western wall has a height of 10.605 (RL36.245-RL25.64) for a length of less than 1m

2.  Lift overrun at the western side of the development

3.  Side eastern wall has a height of 11.505 (RL36.245 – interpolated RL24.74) shortening to a compliant 10.5m height 7m within the site.

 

An assessment of the non-complying parts of the development is therefore required against the following objectives under the DCP:

 

An assessment is therefore required against the relevant external wall height objectives under the DCP:

 

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 development will satisfy the abovementioned objectives for the following reasons:

 

The parts that exceed the maximum wall height control occur along only small portions of the western elevation and the degree to which they exceed the maximum wall height control is relatively minor. IN relation to the larger wall along the eastern side, whilst 1.125m above the 10.5m maximum is largely because this part of the site is the lowest adjacent to the development which is not dissimilar and frankly less obtrusive than the form and massing of older flat buildings in the area; Moreover, and more importantly, the upper most level is designed as a recessive element having a larger side and front setback whose floor area is less than that of the level below which is consistent with the provisions under the RDCP for habitable roof forms. This is a recessive element that although visible from the street will still present a modern contemporary design that subject to condition will not detract from or dominate the streetscape and neighbourhood character or the heritage item on the other side to the west. By larger side and front setbacks and use of different darker material it represents are more recessive bulk and scale when compared to the floors below as well as the examples of older housing stock in the area.

 

The proposed development has 3.1m floor-to-floor heights, which is consistent with the height necessary to achieve Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (RDCP) 2013 compliant 2.7m minimum floor to ceiling heights considered to provide good internal amenity. If the development were made to meet the maximum 10.5m maximum wall height control in this instance, it would derogate from the permissible height and FSR standards permitted in this R3 medium density zone.

 

The massing and depth of walls do not exhibit any significant massing and are consistent with the controls and objectives under the RDPC 2013. The development across all frontages is considered to be well articulated achieved by using a mix in materials, openings and varying side setbacks. These are employed in the design of the development and serve to both break up the expanses of wall across all elevations creating visual interest when viewed from neighbouring properties and along Clovelly Road.

 

The scale of the proposed development will be consistent with the likely future scale of development in the locality with particular reference made to the topography of similar sites and the applicable controls under the RDCP 2013 and the ADG.

 

The non-compliant elements of walls will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties having regard to overshadowing, privacy, visual bulk or view loss.

 

Overall, having regarded the slope of the site, the minor levels of non-compliance and the surrounding development it is considered that the proposed external wall heights will satisfy the objectives for external wall heights under the DCP and no permitting these encroachments would result in a poorer planning outcome.

 

Solar Access and overshadowing

The issue of overshadowing has been included as a key issue in this Council report because submissions have been received concerning shadowing to the neighbouring properties.

 

The Apartment Design Guide (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 (winter solstice). The ADG also states that where development does not currently receive 2 hours that development not reduce solar access by more than 20%. However, the ADG acknowledges that compliance with 6m separation control for the purposes of solar access is difficult to achieve particularly in relation to side boundaries and narrow allotments in suburban areas permitting medium density residential development, containing older flat buildings and detached housing. In relation to the site and surrounding area, there are numerous examples of flat buildings varying in scale between two, and five storeys with varying side setbacks between around 1.2m and around 6m where the larger side setbacks are associated with flat buildings over 4 storeys with very wide frontages. These setbacks generally adhere to or are below the side setback controls that apply under the RDCP which applies larger side setbacks for allotments with larger allotment widths.

 

In relation to the subject site, the subject site has a width of 13.845m and the RDCP applies a side setback of 2m. The proposed development mostly complies with the required side setbacks for its site width except for two small parts of the development at the front north eastern side boundary that is its lowest point and at the rear north western side boundary where it is setback only 1.8m for a short length of wall.

 

In any event a majority of medium density housing along Clovelly Road have side setbacks less than the minimum under the ADG and in many instances buildings have side setbacks that are more in line with the RDCP controls. As such it is considered more appropriate to apply the RDCP controls in that it will achieve a better planning outcome in relation to the rhythm of side setbacks along Clovelly Road and will contribute better to streetscape character.

 

In relation to solar access of the neighbouring buildings, the existing situation is that there are very narrow pathways between the subject building and the neighbour’s buildings and the neighbour’s side windows don’t currently receive two hours of solar access. The only living room windows that would receive any sun during the winter solstice are those east facing upper level windows within No. 298 Clovelly Road. The proposal will result in a greater than 20% reduction of solar access to these upper level side windows of No 298 Clovelly Road. As a result, an assessment against the objectives from C2 - Medium Density Residential development is required and provides a suitable guide in this regard:

 

·      To ensure the design, orientation and siting of development maximises solar access to the living areas of dwellings and open spaces, and is encouraged to all other areas of the development.

·      To ensure development retains reasonable levels of solar access to the neighbouring properties and the public domain.

·      To provide adequate ambient lighting and minimise the need for artificial lighting during daylight hours.

 

The proposal will result in additional shadowing to the ground level windows along their side elevations and that there is no difference between the existing shadows and that caused by the proposed development. In relation to the upper level side windows of neighbouring flats at No. 298 Clovelly Road, there will be additional shadowing greater than 20% however it is considered that these impacts are assessed as acceptable based on the following circumstances:

 

·      Shadow diagrams submitted with the plans demonstrate that the additional shadows cast by the non-compliant components of the development fall mainly onto roof areas during the winter solstice.

·      The proposed development complies with the overall height and FSR allowable under the RLEP  and generally satisfies the requirements of Council’s DCP controls for site coverage, deep soil areas, landscaped areas, which are indicative of an envisaged acceptable form of development on the site compatible with the local character of the area.

·      The wall height non-compliance is largely due to a combination of the difficult topography, orientation and dimensions of the site and such constraints severely limit the ability to carry out a reasonable form of development on the site. Further, the non-compliances are minor occurring over small lengths of wall at the front and north eastern elevation are not considered significant departures given the topography. Moreover, the variations are of little consequence in terms of impact when compared with the shadowing caused by a compliant development having regard to wall heights and side setbacks;

·      The north facing windows of neighbouring properties at the front of both neighbouring properties received greater than minimum levels of solar access;

·      The rear yard of 298 will receive solar access however shadowing to their rear yard closest to their living rooms (in the middle of the site) is highly vulnerable to overshadowing that is unavoidably caused by their own building;

·      The short depth of the site at No. 302 Clovelly Road up to the middle of the subject site means that any reasonable form of development will result in shadowing;

 

The overshadowing impacts are assessed as acceptable in the circumstances.

 

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 Environmental Planning Instruments, the ADG and Randwick DCP 2013 controls and objectives. The proposal as conditioned and amended is considered to be acceptable. Approval of the development is recommended as it will be in line with the objectives of the abovementioned documents and will not result in any significant or unreasonable environmental impact on neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing, views, site planning and privacy (as conditioned).

 

The variations from the maximum wall height control, overshadowing impacts and the significance of the adjoining heritage item and siting of the development have been adequately justified in the Key Issues section of this report. The variations from the numerical controls are minor occurring over small elements of the development and requiring compliance would not result in any appreciable benefits having regard to neighbour’s amenity or streetscape character.  It is considered that the built form, use of largely open elements and a mix of materials provides a good response both to the existing site conditions, and surrounding properties and buildings located within them.

 

The proposed development is therefore, recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 927/2016 for demolition of existing structures, construction of 3 storey residential flat building and semi-basement level parking comprising of 8 dwellings, parking for 12 cars, motor bike and bicycle parking, landscaping, fencing and associated works, at No. 300 Clovelly Road, Clovelly, 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 1.6 metres above floor level must be provided to western side of the rear balconies to units 203 and 302.  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 balustrade at the western side 1st floor podium shall be relocated so that it is perpendicular to the south western corner of the stairwell running to the western side boundary;

 

c.      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.

 

d.     Air conditioning equipment must not protrude more than 300mm above the roof level, be adequately screened (materials and design of screening to be included in the external Colours, materials & Finishes schedule required to be submitted to Council for approval prior to a Construction certificate being issued for the development. 

 

e.       External clothes drying facilities are to be provided in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

Should external clothes drying facilities be provided, the facilities must be adequately screened by vegetation and details are to be incorporated into the landscaping plans, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

f.       The proposed verandah roof, is to have a similar colour and finish to the proposed metal wall cladding of the top level of the building, in order to better integrate the wall and roof elements and reduce the dominance of the projecting roof.  Amended drawings are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 300 Clovelly Road, CLOVELLY

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                               8 August 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D66/17

 

Subject:             1179 Anzac Parade, Matraville (DA/994/2011/H)

Folder No:                   DA/994/2011/H

Author:                   Brenton Pearce, Development Assessment Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 modification of the approved development by increasing the height of the dwelling by 350mm, deletion of the pop-up roof, changes to the southern side setback, new concrete wall and slab over existing sewer within southern boundary setback area and internal reconfiguration. Original consent: Demolition of existing structures and construction of a part two/part three storey attached dual occupancy with garages and associated works.

Ward:                     South

Applicant:                Urban Future Pty Ltd

Owner:                        Mr B Flentzeris

Recommendation:     Approval, subject to conditions.

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for consideration as the original application was determined by Council.

 

Details of Current Approval

The current approval detailed demolition of the existing structures and construction of a part two/part three storey attached dual occupancy with garages and associated works.  The application was approved at the Planning Committee Meeting on the 10 July 2012, subject to conditions.

 

History

The applicant has subsequently lodged in a number of S96 applications to modify the development consent:

 

DA/994/2011/A – Refused on 26 November 2013: Section 96 modification of approved development by addition of a roof terrace to each dwelling, increase in size of bedroom 1 to each dwelling, and alter entry stairs.

 

DA/994/2011/B – Refused on 12 May 2015: Section 96 modification of the approved development by increasing the floor levels of entry foyer and side pathways, internal configuration, new rear first floor balconies and roof terrace including associated staircase structure to each dwelling.

 

DA/994/2011/C – Approved on 11 August 2015: Section 96 modification of the approved development by increasing the floor level of the entry foyers and side pathways, new rear stairs, increase the size of ensuites, new rear first floor balconies with privacy screens.

 

DA/994/2011/D – Refused 09 February 2016: Section 96 modification of the approved development by deletion of condition 2(e) relating to design of landing entry, stairs and privacy screen.

 

DA/944/2011/E – Approved 06 May 2016: Section 96 modification of the approved development by increasing the width of the front driveway, new rear ground floor patios and side entry to each dwelling.

 

DA/944/2011/F – Approved 29 September 2016: Section  96 modification of the approved to increase the size and reconfigure the layout of the basement level.

 

DA/994/2011/G – Approved 14 February 2017: Section 96 modification of the approved to increase building footprint at ground and first floor level.

 

Proposal

The subject Section 96 (2) application seeks approval to modify the approved development consent by increasing the height of the dwelling by 350mm, deletion of the pop-up roof, changes to the southern side setback, new concrete wall and slab over existing sewer within southern boundary setback area and internal reconfiguration.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Site

The land is zoned R2 Low Density Residential. The site is on the western side of Anzac Parade South of Hillary Parade in Malabar. Works have commenced on site for the construction of an approved part two, part three storey Dual Occupancy as per (DA/994/2011). The subject site has a regular rectangular shape and slopes moderately on an easterly aspect. The surrounding area is predominantly characterised by low density residential development and consists mainly of detached single dwellings and attached dual occupancies. The subject site is rectangular in shape and has the following dimensions and land area:

 

Boundary

Length

Land area

Eastern, Front Boundary – Anzac Parade

15.24m

557.90m2

Northern, side boundary

38.705m

Southern, side boundary

39.355m

Western, rear boundary

13.365m

 

Figure.1 Street view of subject site.

 

Section 96 Assessment

Section 96(2) Criteria

Comment

(a)  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), and

The proposal is considered to represent substantially the same development as the proposal includes only minor changes to setbacks and overall height.

 

The proposal will not result in a change to the nature of the original application and the changes will result in a development that is substantially the same as that for which the consent was granted.

 

The proposed section 96 (2) modification does not involve any substantial changes to the built form and envelope of the approved consent and it will remain consistent with the original consent.

(b)    It has consulted with the relevant Minister, public authority or approval body (within the meaning of Division 5) in respect of a condition imposed as a requirement of a concurrence to the consent or in accordance with the general terms of an approval proposed to be granted by the approval body and that Minister, authority or body has not, within 21 days after being consulted, objected to the modification of that consent, and

Not applicable.

(c)    It has notified the application in accordance with:

(i)     the regulations, if the regulations so require, or

(ii)    a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent, and

The owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed modification in accordance with the DCP.

(d)    It has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification within the period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the case development control plan, as the case may be.

The submissions received for this application were considered.

 

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:

 

1177 Anzac Parade, Matraville

Issue

Comment

The increased building height will result in a development that is visually overbearing and out of character with the local neighborhood. Further it will reduce the amenity of the neighbouring property.

See discussion in Key Issues relating to increase in overall height.

 

Referrals

 

Building Compliance Officer:

The application was referred to Councils Building Compliance Officer for unauthorised works, who requested further documentation to verify compliance with the relevant building standards. Additional information was received in the form of a fire engineering report and structural compliance certificate which has been reviewed and noted as satisfactory by Council’s Compliance Officer; no additional conditions have been received. 

 

Key Issues

The proposal includes a number of changes of which, each will result in an increased environmental impact to the subject and neighbouring properties. The changes have been itemised below and the relevant controls according to RDCP have been applied where appropriate.

                        

 

 

 

Works without consent:

The additional works as depicted in the Section 96 H plans (dated 23/3/2017) include some works already completed; see table below.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

Clause 4.3 – Height of Buildings

See discussion below relating to changes in building height.

 

Clause 4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

No changes are proposed to the approved FSR.

 

Height:

The original approved height was 9.8m (RL 40.200) and included a pop-up roof, however the effective height of the building in terms of bulk/scale and overshadowing was 8.69m (RL 39.090), as this was the proposed finished height of the top parapet wall. The current application proposes an overall increase to the top parapet wall by 350mm (RL 39.440), however the pop-up roof has been deleted so as to reduce the existing non-compliance with the maximum building height control. The resulting overall height is now 8.81m (RL 39.440) taken from the top parapet wall.

 

The rationale for increasing the overall height is as follows:

 

a)  The garage floor levels were increased to reduce the gradient from the driveway into the garage; allowing a smoother entrance for vehicles.

 

b)  The existing sewer pipe on the southern boundary was encased in concrete in accordance with condition no.8 of Sydney Water’s approval letter (Case no.146900) which specified that a minimum 300mm vertical clearance between the top of concrete encasement to the underside of the concrete slab was required.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The applicant has supplied amended shadow diagrams which demonstrate that the increased height will have a negligible increased impact in relation to overshadowing and that the neighbouring properties will not suffer any significant adverse environmental impacts as a result. Similarly with the deletion of the pop-up roof, the proposed development will be below the maximum building height control making the development more compatible with the scale of nearby dual-occupancy developments. As such, it is considered that the overall design remains substantially the same as originally approved and therefore that the proposal, subject to conditions, is considered to meet the relevant objectives of Clause 4.3 of the RLEP 2012. 

 

Randwick Development Control Plan 2013

 

Clause 3.3 Setbacks:

As a result of the concrete encasement of the sewer main on the southern boundary, the concrete slab forms a dominant structure constructed up to the southern boundary. Figures 2 and 3 below demonstrate the sewer encasement.  

 

IMG_0928

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Figure.2 looking East on Southern boundary.

 

Concrete Sewer Encasement

IMG_0933

Figure.3 looking West on Southern Boundary.

 

The structure is constructed up to the southern boundary with eastern-most end of the structure (seen in figure.3) at 1.6m above natural ground level and the western-most end of the structure (seen in figure.2) no more than 700mm above natural ground level. However as the subject and neighbouring sites experience significant changes in natural ground level, the structure is not dissimilar to a boundary fence in that the form, height and finish are emblematic to those that a typical boundary fence would present. As such the impact of the structure upon the neighbouring property is therefore negligible and unlikely to cause any significant loss of amenity to either property upon the side boundary.  Furthermore as the current structure has been poorly finished and presents a blank concrete surface to the neighbouring property, a proposed condition of consent will be included which requires the structure to be finished with suitable colours and materials to Council’s satisfaction.

 

Clause 5.1 Solar Access:

As previously stated, the amended shadow diagrams demonstrate that the increase in overall height does not result in a significant reduction to solar access for either neighbouring property. Moreover, it is considered that the levels of solar access available to the neighbouring properties are reasonable and that overall the development does not have an adverse impact upon the amenity of the living areas and/or private open spaces. Consequently the objectives of the DCP are considered satisfied.

 

Clause 5.3 Visual Privacy:

The sewer encasement structure has been constructed up to the southern boundary and the applicant has indicated in the proposal that the structure will be non-trafficable. Notwithstanding this however, a proposed condition of consent will require the installation of an additional, fixed barricade to either end of the structure, so that the structure remains non-trafficable at all times. Similarly, the application proposed no changes to windows or the outdoor terraces and therefore the privacy of the neighbouring properties will be preserved in this regard.

 

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.

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Section 79C(1)(a)(i) – Provisions of any environmental planning instrument

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

The site is zoned R2 – Low Density under the LEP and the proposal relates to the modification of the approved development to reduce side setbacks and increase the overall height.

This modification is permissible with Council’s consent and is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form protects the amenity of the residents whilst enhancing the aesthetic character.

Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) – Provisions of any draft environmental planning instrument

Not applicable.    

Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) – Provisions of any development control plan

The proposal generally satisfies the objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. 

Section 79C(1)(a)(iiia) – Provisions of any Planning Agreement or draft Planning Agreement

Not applicable.

Section 79C(1)(a)(iv) – Provisions of the regulations

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

Section 79C(1)(b) – The likely impacts of the development, including environmental impacts on the natural and built environment and social and economic impacts in the locality

The proposed modification has responded appropriately to the DCP requirements and will not result in adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining neighbours.

 

The proposed development is consistent with the dominant residential character in the locality. The proposal is not considered to result in detrimental social or economic impacts on the locality.

Section 79C(1)(c) – The suitability of the site for the development

The site is considered to be suitable for the proposal.

Section 79C(1)(d) – Any submissions made in accordance with the EP&A Act or EP&A Regulation

The submissions received for this application have been considered.

Section 79C(1)(e) – The public interest

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

 

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 to the existing development have been assessed against the requirements of the relevant planning guidelines of the RLEP 2012 and Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan, as well as in regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended. The proposed modifications are considered to result in a development that is substantially the same development as that previously approved, and will not result in any significant adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality. For these reasons, the subject application is recommended for approval, subject to condition consent. 

 

 

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/994/2011/G for permission to modify the approved development by increase in building footprint at ground and first floor level at 1179 Anzac Parade, Matraville, in the following manner:

 

·        Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

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

 

Plan

Rev.

Drawn by

Stamped

DA01

F

Teknicon Design

22 May 2012

DA02

F

Teknicon Design

22 May 2012

DA03

F

Teknicon Design

22 May 2012

DA04

F

Teknicon Design

22 May 2012

DA05

F

Teknicon Design

22 May 2012

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

1179 Anzac Parade Matraville

407165M

05 December 2011

 

As amended by the Section 96 ‘C’ plans

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

DA01 (issue A)

Teknicon Design

18/05/2015

DA02 (issue A)

Teknicon Design

18/05/2015

DA03 (issue A)

Teknicon Design

18/05/2015

DA04 (issue A)

Teknicon Design

18/05/2015

DA05 (issue A)

Teknicon Design

18/05/2015

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

407165M_04

29/05/2015

 

As amended by the Section 96 ‘E’ plans

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

01516 DA.1 (issue A)

Arkivis

07/03/2016

01516 DA.6 (issue A)

Arkivis

07/03/2016

 

 

As amended by the Section 96 ‘F’ plans

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

01516 S96.04 (issue B)

Arkivis

20/09/2016

01516 S96.08 (issue B)

Arkivis

20/09/2016

 

As amended by the Section 96 ‘G’ plans

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

S96 03_02 Issue G

Urban Future – D.M

02/12/2016

S96 03_03 Issue G

Urban Future – D.M

02/12/2016

S96 03_04 Issue G

Urban Future – D.M

02/12/2016

S96 04_01 Issue G

Urban Future – D.M

02/12/2016

S96 09_01 Issue G

Urban Future – D.M

02/12/2016

 

Except as amended by the Section 96 ‘H’ plans and supporting documentation listed below:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

S96 04_01 Issue H

Urban Future – D.M

23/3/2017

S96 03_04 Issue H

Urban Future – D.M

23/3/2017

S96 03_03 Issue H

Urban Future – D.M

23/3/2017

S96 03_02 Issue H

Urban Future – D.M

23/3/2017

S96 03_01 Issue H

Urban Future – D.M

23/3/2017

 

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

 

·        Retain Condition No. 2b to read:

2b      The proposed amendments to the rear first floor level are to be deleted and the rear first floor terraces adjoining the kitchens shall remain as previously approved. 

 

·        Add Condition No. 65 to read:

65       The concrete sewer encasement:

 

a)  Must remain non-trafficable at all times,

 

b)  The concrete structure must be fenced at either end with a fixed, non-operable fence panel (or similar). The panel must be 1.6m high and span from the southern external wall of the dwelling to the southern edge of the structure. Details of which are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to issuing a construction certificate for the development.

 

c)  The colours, materials and finishes of the structure are to be compatible with the adjacent development to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the streetscape. Furthermore the applicant is responsible for the finishing of all sides of the structure, details of which (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.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                               8 August 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D67/17

 

Subject:             40 Pauling Avenue, Coogee (DA/664/2015/B)

Folder No:                   DA/664/2015/B

Author:                   Jayden Perry, Student Planner     

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 modification of the approved development by constructing new concrete staircase with privacy screen to the rear pool area, relocation of pool gate and fence and increase the width of spill pool/ballast tank

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Scope Building Design

Owner:                        Ms A A Coronica

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Seng, Stavrinos and Smith.

 

 

 

Proposal

 

The original application was granted approval on the 20th January 2016 and consisted of the alterations and additions to existing dwelling including first floor deck at rear, changes to some existing windows and doors, alterations to roof and cladding at front, swimming pool and outbuilding to rear, landscaping and associated works.

 

A subsequent application was lodged to modify the original consent and was granted approval on 11 January 2017 and consisted of the construction of a new cabana at rear and new staircase to the first floor deck.

 

The current section 96 (2) application proposes the following:

-    Construct new concrete stairs and landing to the rear pool area along the southern boundary. These works have been completed.

-    Construct privacy screen along the southern boundary adjacent to the stair landing.

-    Relocate pool gate and fence.

-    Increase width of spill pool/ballast tank. These works have partially been completed.

 

The proposed new spill pool and concrete stairs are a result of unauthorised works taking place which was reported to Randwick Council and a subsequent notice of intention to give an order was issued on 24 April 2017 requiring works be ceased. A section 96 was subsequently lodged by the applicant to legitimise the works undertaken not in accordance with the previous consents along with other changes to the original consent. Images 1 and 2 in this report show the constructed staircase and spill pool.

 

IMG_0504

Image 1. Spill Pool.

IMG_7814

Image 2. Staircase.

Site

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Pauling Avenue and is known as 40 Pauling Avenue, Coogee. The site topography of the site is sloped to the west, with the eastern boundary at a height of approximately RL32.80 and western boundary fronting on to Pauling Avenue at approximately RL19.40. The local character of the area is defined by multi-level residential dwellings of varying architectural styles.

 

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:

 


 

42 Pauling Avenue, Coogee

Issue

Comment

The proposal is not consistent with Part C1 – Clause 3.3 ‘Setbacks’ in that it constitutes a deck or landing more than 1m above ground level and should therefore be setback 1200mm from the side boundary considering the block is greater than 12m in width. 

The proposed staircase and landing is to be measured from the existing ground level directly below it and as such is not greater than 1m above the finished ground level and is excluded from this section of the DCP.

The proposal is not consistent with part C1 - Clause 5.1 ‘Solar Access and Overshadowing’ of the RDCP in that the proposed privacy screen will overshadow the private open space of no. 42 Pauling.

Given the orientation of the site in relation to 42 Pauling Avenue and the significant difference in levels additional overshadowing is expected to result from the construction of a privacy screen.

The proposal is inconsistent with part C1 – Clause 5.3 ‘Visual Privacy’ in that it is substantially elevated and creates overlooking of the primary open space of 42 Pauling and in particular breaches control vi) which requires floor decks or terraces to be stepped to follow landform and to avoid expansive areas of outdoor recreation spaces.

The staircase and landing have been substantially raised from originally approved level, the potential for overlooking is significant and such design is not supported.

The proposal is inconsistent with part C1 – Clause 7.3 of the DCP ‘Side Fencing’ in that it fails to consider the neighbouring fence height and the construction of a privacy screen along the boundary would bring the altered portion of the fence to a height of 4.3m above the courtyard level of 42 Pauling. 

The addition of a privacy screen would add to the height of the existing fence bringing it to 1.8m as measured from 40 Pauling Avenue and approximately 4.3m as measured from 42 Pauling Avenue.

 

Key Issues

 

S96 Assessment

Under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, Council may only agree to a modification of an existing Development Consent if the proposal remains substantially the same development. In this respect, it is considered that the proposed changes will not result in a significant change to the nature of the original consent and the changes will result in a development that is substantially the same as that for which the consent was granted.

 

Overall, the proposed section 96 modification does not involve any substantial changes to the built form and envelope of the approved consent and it will remain consistent with the original consent.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

The proposal is inconsistent with the general aims and objectives of the RLEP 2012.

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

 

Zone R2   Low Density Residential

1   Objectives of zone

• 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.

 

The proposal does not satisfy the above objectives of the R2 zone in that it will:

 

-    Negatively impact upon the amenity of the adjoining property at no. 42 Pauling Avenue by overshadowing their private open space and raising concerns regarding privacy through increasing the potential for overlooking.

 

Given the above non-compliance with the Randwick local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2012 the proposal has been recommended for refusal.

 

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (RDCP) 2013

Part C1 – Low Density Residential

The proposal does not comply with all relevant controls in the RDCP 2013. Clauses specific to the proposal have been addressed below:

 

Clause 5.1 –Solar Access and Overshadowing

Given the east-west orientation of the site and surrounding blocks, overshadowing between properties is unavoidable especially considering the difference in levels between sites, in particular between no. 40 and no. 42 Pauling Avenue. There already exists substantial overshadowing upon the private open space of no. 42 Pauling and is a result of the extensive excavation works undertaken on the site as part of a previous application. The construction of the privacy screen has been proposed as a solution to mitigate potential overlooking caused by the raised staircase. Considering the already significant overshadowing upon no. 42 Pauling Avenue, the privacy screen is not considered to be a reasonable solution as it will create additional overshadowing upon the private open space of the adjoining development.

 

Clause 5.3 – Visual Privacy

The staircase and landing have been substantially raised from the originally approved level and render the existing dividing fence between no. 40 and no. 42 Pauling Avenue to be of an approximate height of 1.5m. This does not constitute an adequate dividing fence and significant overlooking occurs regarding the two properties. Image 3 below demonstrates the overlooking potential. Whilst a privacy screen has been proposed to mitigate the potential for overlooking, it does not take into consideration the entirety of the staircase and will cause additional overshadowing impacts. It is stated in the statement of environmental effects that the non-compliance was a result of needing to comply with the BCA regarding a maximum limit of 18 Risers in the staircase without a landing however it is argued this could be achieved via an alternative design without causing unreasonable impacts regarding overshadowing and privacy. The design of the staircase and landing does not adequately step-down in accordance with the landform and this in part has caused the privacy concerns.

Image 3. Person on adjoining staircase as viewed from the private open space at no. 42 Pauling Avenue.

 

Clause 7.3 - Side and Rear Fencing

The addition of a privacy screen would add to the height of the existing fence bringing it to 1.8m as measured from 40 Pauling and approximately 4.3m as measured from 42 Pauling. The DCP states that the fence height may be decided upon merit in the scenario where there is significant level difference between adjoining allotments. Extensive excavation works have been previously undertaken at no. 42 Pauling Avenue as part of a previous application bringing the current courtyard to a level substantially below the natural ground level and in part justifies the fence being higher than what is considered to be normal. In this instance however the increase in fence height is unwarranted considering the already high fence and the fact that the screen will cause additional overshadowing of the adjoining site. The partially constructed spillway is considered to be acceptable for the reason that it is not expected to impact upon the amenity of adjoining residences.

D02961067  DA 664 2015 B - 40 Pauling Avenue, COOGEE – Site Photo (42 Pauling courtyard)(2)(3)

Image 4. Existing fence as viewed from no. 42 Pauling Avenue.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal does not comply with the relevant assessment criteria and will result in an undesirable outcome which will impact upon the amenity of the adjoining premises. The application is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuse its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended to modify condition/s of Development Application No. for permission to Section 96 modification of the approved development by constructing new concrete staircase with privacy screen to the rear pool area, relocation of pool gate and fence and increase the width of spill pool/ballast tank for 40 Pauling Avenue, Coogee for the following reasons:

 

1.   The proposed development is inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the R2- Low Density Residential zone under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in that the staircase, landing and privacy screen will result in adverse impacts upon the amenity of the neighbouring property.

2.   The proposed privacy screen fails to comply with the relevant objectives and controls under Clause 5.1 of Part C1 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013. The proposed privacy screen will result in unreasonable overshadowing upon the adjoining property at No. 42 Pauling Avenue.

 

3.   The proposed staircase and landing fail to comply with the relevant objectives and controls under Clause 5.3 of Part C1 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013. The proposed staircase and associated landing will create unreasonable privacy impact upon the adjoining property at No. 42 Pauling Avenue.

 

4.   The proposed privacy screen fails to comply with the relevant objectives under Clause 7.3 of Part C1 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013. The overall height of the proposed privacy screen is excessive and will result in adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining neighbour at No. 42 Pauling Avenue.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                               8 August 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D68/17

 

Subject:             28 Dudley Street, Randwick (DA/953/2016)

Folder No:                   DA/953/2016

Author:                   Chahrazad  Rahe, Senior Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                    New two storey dwelling house with basement parking, new swimming pool and sunshade structure (Heritage Conservation Area)

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                Markuan Management

Owner:                        Mr J Chen and Ms H Y Kong and Markuan Management Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

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

 

Site background 

 

Approval was granted under DA/444/2016 on the 31 August 2016 for the demolition of the existing dwelling on site and the subdivision of the original allotment into two smaller allotments, known as no. 28 and No. 28A Dudley Street.  No. 28 Dudley Street, which is the subject of this application, is the northern of the two allotments. No. 28A Dudley Street is currently vacant.

 

Proposal

 

The application is seeking approval for a new two storey dwelling house with basement parking and new swimming pool with timber deck area and pregola structure over. 

 

The proposal comprises of the following works:

 

Basement level

The basement level includes the garage, storage area, lift and staircase.

 

Level 1

Level 1 contains the main living area, dining, kitchen with pantry, family room to the rear, guest bedroom, bathroom, laundry, lift and stair access.  Three decks are proposed on this level.  A deck to the front off the main living area, to the rear off the family room and a garden/deck area to the centre of the dwelling on the north western side.

 

Level 2

Level 2 contains 3 bedrooms, two of the bedrooms have ensuites and one has a walk-in-wardrobe, retreat, bathroom, study and lift.  A balcony is provided to the front of the dwelling off the main bedroom. A large void area is proposed over the living space on level 1.

 

Site Description and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site has been newly subdivided and is described as Lot 1 in DP 383146, known as 28 Dudley Street, Randwick.  The allotment is rectangular in shape and is located on the south western side of Dudley Street in Randwick. The site is presently vacant.  The site has a width of 12m, depth of 51.41m and an area of 616.9m².  The site is raised approximately 1.2m above the footpath of Dudley Street and has a fall from rear to front boundary of approximately 10.34m.

 

The subject and surrounding adjoining sites are zoned R2 – Low Density Residential, however, within close proximity of the site to the east of Byron Street towards Coogee Beach are old and new apartment buildings.

 

The site is predominately surrounded by large detached dwelling houses which are elevated from the street level and is located across the road from Barker Park with Leete Park to the southeast.

 

 

 

 

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:

 

20 Sully Street, Randwick

Issue

Comment

View loss concerns

 

Refer to Sub-section 5.6 – View Sharing which demonstrates that the proposed development will not be impacting on existing views.

 

20A Sully Street, Randwick

Issue

Comment

View loss concerns

 

Refer to Sub-section 5.6 – View Sharing which demonstrates that the proposed development will not be impacting on existing views.

Would like assurance that the excavation for the swimming pool at the upper terrace level will not threaten the structural integrity of the retaining wall during construction and also into the future.

Specific conditions have been recommended to ensure that all excavations and backfilling associated with the development are properly guarded and supported to prevent them from being dangerous to life, property or buildings.

Noise concerns regarding location of pool plant and equipment.

Conditions are included within the consent to ensure that the operation of all plant and equipment on the premises do not give rise to an ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

Also, a condition is included which restricts the operational hours of the pool plant and equipment 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.

 

Key Issues

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

Clause 6.2 - Earthworks

(1)  The objective of this clause is to ensure that earthworks for which development consent is required will not have a detrimental impact on environmental functions and processes, neighbouring uses, cultural or heritage items or features of the surrounding land.

 

(2)  Development consent is required for earthworks unless:

 

(a)  the earthworks are exempt development under this Plan or another applicable environmental planning instrument, or

(b)  the earthworks are ancillary to development that is permitted without consent under this Plan or to development for which development consent has been given.

 

(3)  Before granting development consent for earthworks (or for development involving ancillary earthworks), the consent authority must consider the following matters:

 

(a)  the likely disruption of, or any detrimental effect on, drainage patterns and soil stability in the locality of the development,

(b)  the effect of the development on the likely future use or redevelopment of the land,

(c)  the quality of the fill or the soil to be excavated, or both,

(d)  the effect of the development on the existing and likely amenity of adjoining properties,

(e)  the source of any fill material and the destination of any excavated material,

(f)  the likelihood of disturbing relics,

(g)  the proximity to, and potential for adverse impacts on, any waterway, drinking water catchment or environmentally sensitive area,

(h)  any appropriate measures proposed to avoid, minimise or mitigate the impacts of the development.

 

The proposal involves excavation works ancillary to the basement level. The application has been referred to Council’s Development Engineer for assessment. It is considered that the proposal will not adversely impact on the drainage pattern and use of the land, subject to the recommended engineering conditions.

 

The proposed excavation will not unreasonably increase the visual bulk and scale of the development as viewed from the surrounding public and private domain. The proposed development will integrate harmoniously within the streetscape and will read as a two storey dwelling as viewed from the rear and sides boundaries. Landscaping has been incorporated to the front of the dwelling which will also improve the visual amenity from the public domain and neighbouring properties. 

 

Specific conditions have been recommended to ensure that all excavations and backfilling associated with the development are properly guarded and supported to prevent them from being dangerous to life, property or buildings.

 

Therefore, the proposal is considered satisfactory in this regard, subject to the recommended conditions.

 

Sub-section 5.1 - Solar Access and Overshadowing

Objectives

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

 

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

 

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

 


 

Controls

Solar access to proposed development:

 

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

 

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

 

The living areas are located to the front and rear of the dwelling and north east and north west facing windows have been proposed to the living areas.  The proposal will receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

 

The private open space is located the rear of the dwelling and private deck area is located to the front which is north facing.  The POS will receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

 

Controls

Solar access to neighbouring development:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

-     Topography of the subject and adjoining allotments.

-     Location and level of the windows in question.

-     Shadows cast by existing buildings on the neighbouring allotments.

 

There are no north facing windows that will be impacted by the proposed development as the adjoining property to the south east is vacant.  The shadow diagrams in figure 1 below demonstrate that there will be some additional overshadowing impacts to the rear yards of the neighbouring properties; however, the additional overshadowing impacts are not unreasonable and these properties will continue to receive the minimum 3 hours of solar access to their rear yards.

 

In addition to the above, the proposed development complies with the FSR and Height of Building development standards in the LEP 2012.  The development also complies with the external wall height for sloping sites and rear and side setback controls in the DCP 2013.  The scale and design of the proposed development is considered to be suitable for the site in the context of the surrounding residential area.

 

Overall, the additional overshadowing impacts to the subject and neighbouring properties are acceptable and will satisfy the objectives and controls of the DCP for solar access.

 

 

Figure 1: Existing & proposed shadow diagrams

 

Sub-section 5.3 - Visual Privacy

Objective

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

 

Controls

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

 

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

·       Front or rear of the allotment;

·       Side courtyard.

 

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

 

The orientation of the elevations are incorrectly noted on the plans.  The elevations should read as follows:

 

·      The north elevation should read as the north western (side) elevation

·      The south elevation should read as the south eastern (side) elevation

·      The eastern elevation should read as the north eastern (front) elevation

·      The western elevation should read as the south western (rear) elevation

 

a.      Windows

Subject to a condition it is not expected that the proposed development will result in any unreasonable adverse privacy impacts to the neighbouring properties. The window openings to the north eastern will primarily overlook the street, front yards of the subject site and neighbouring properties. The window openings to the south western elevations will primarily overlook the rear yard of the subject site. 

 

Majority of the window openings to the northern and southern elevations will not cause any unreasonable privacy concerns as they are either within a void area or have sill heights greater than 1.6m from the finished floor level.

 

However, the two bedrooms and ensuite windows on level 2 to the south west end of the building on the north western side elevation (noted as north elevation on the plan) are to have a minimum sill height of 1.6m above floor level, or alternatively, are to be provided with obscure glazing.

 

To ensure privacy is maintained for any future development proposed adjoining to the south west end of the building on the south eastern side elevation (noted as south elevation on the plan) are to have a minimum sill height of 1.6m above floor level, or alternatively, are to be provided with obscure glazing.

 

b.      Balconies

The proposed front balconies on the first floor level will primarily overlook the front yards of the subject site and neighbouring properties and street and will not result in any unreasonable adverse privacy impacts to neighbouring properties.

 

Sub-section 5.5 – Safety and Security

 

Objectives

·      To reduce crime risk and minimise opportunities for crime.

·      To ensure relevant crime prevention principles are applied in the siting and design buildings and landscaping.

·      To ensure the siting and design of buildings and spa contribute to the actual and perceived security to dwellings and the personal safety of residents and visitors.

 


 

Controls

i)    The main entry to the dwelling must be located on the front elevation facing the street and be readily identifiable, unless the site has a narrow frontage width.

 

The main entrance to the dwelling is located to the western side of the dwelling.  Whilst it is encouraged that the main entrance be located to the front of the dwelling, the location of the entrance is considered to be acceptable as the lower ground floor level contains the garage basement level and the only way to gain access directly from the living space is through the side of the dwelling.  The front entry gate and pathway to the dwelling is identifiable from the street and therefore, the development will satisfy the objectives of the control.  The front entry to the dwelling is separated from the driveways to permit safe access for the residents and visitors to the site.

 

Sub-Section 5.6 - View Sharing

The objectives of the view sharing control are as follows:

 

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

 

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

 

§ To ensure development is sensitively and skilfully designed to maintain a reasonable amount of views from the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

 

Controls

 

i)     The location and design of dwellings and outbuildings must reasonably maintain existing view corridors or vistas from the neighbouring dwellings, streets and public open space areas.

 

ii)     In assessing potential view loss impacts on the neighbouring dwellings, retaining existing views from the living areas (such as living room, dining room, lounge and kitchen) should be given a priority over those obtained from the bedrooms and non-habitable rooms.

 

iii)    Where a design causes conflicts between retaining views for the public domain and private properties, priority must be given to view retention for the public domain.

 

iv)    The design of fences and selection of plant species must minimise obstruction of views from the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

 

v)    Adopt a balanced approach to privacy protection and view sharing, and avoid the creation of long and massive blade walls or screens that obstruct views from the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

 

vi)    Clearly demonstrate any steps or measures adopted.

 

View loss assessment

 

Introduction

Sharing of views is a design performance requirement in Randwick Council’s Development Control Plan 2013.

 

An assessment of the proposed development and its impact on views is carried out in accordance with the Land and Environment Court planning principle after Roseth SC pp.25-29 in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140. This assessment is guided by a four step process identified by the Land and Environment Court.

 

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

 

Two submissions have been received in relation to view loss from the adjoining neighbouring properties to the south west at no.’s 20 & 20A Sully Street, Randwick objecting to the development on the grounds of view loss currently enjoyed from the rear of the properties.

 

The views in question are currently enjoyed from the rear of the properties over the roof top of the subject and neighbouring properties in a north easterly direction of Coogee Bay headland and ocean views beyond as identified in figure 2 below in directions ‘A’ to ‘B’ and images 1 to 8 below.  Some of the views are obscured by vegetation and roof tops of neighbouring properties beyond.

 

BA

Figure 2: Location plan and the yellow hashed lines ‘A’ and ‘B’ identifies the direction of views obtained.

 

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

 

 

 

Figure 3: Location plan of view taken from the potentially impacted properties.

 

20 Sully Street, Randwick

 

 

Image 1: View taken from ground floor living/           Image 2: View taken from ground floor kitchen window dining room window/door in a north            in a north easterly direction

easterly direction

 

 

Image 3: View taken from the rear yard in an easterly direction

 


 

20A Sully Street, Randwick

 

 

Image 4: View taken from the rear yard in an         Image 5: View taken from the ground floor living easterly direction room window in a north easterly direction                                      

 

Image 6: View taken from the ground floor living/  Image 7: View taken from ground floor kitchen kitchen window in an north easterly direction                                                 window in an north easterly direction

    

22 Dudley Street, Randwick

 

Image 8: View taken from the bedroom window on

the first floor level in an easterly direction

 

Depending where you are positioned in the room the images from 1 to 8 above are currently enjoyed in a siting and standing position. 

 

Note: The red hashed line indicates the proposed development and the white line demonstrates the existing development recently demolished on the site. The images 1 to 8 above have been provided by the applicant.

 

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

 

The photos in images 1 to 8 demonstrate that the neighbouring properties will not be impacted by the proposed development.

 

Step 4: The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skillful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours. If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.

 

The development complies with the LEP numerical controls in relation to building FSR and Height of Building Standards.  As discussed in the relevant section of this report the height, bulk and scale of the development is compatible with other dwelling houses in the neighbourhood and is an appropriate design that relates to the topography and its context.

 

The proposed development will relate to the contours of the land and is similar in height to neighbouring development. Further, the proposed development satisfies the relevant objectives and controls of the DCP with regard to Building Envelope and Building Design.

 

The development has been carefully configured to achieve a satisfactory level of view sharing between the site and the neighbouring properties. 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development complies with the objectives and control requirements of relevant State and Local planning controls.

 

Subject to the recommended conditions, the development scheme will not generate unreasonable adverse impacts upon the amenity of the surrounding properties in terms of visual bulk and scale, solar access, view loss and privacy. Also, when considered on balance with resultant environmental impacts eventuates in a generally positive development outcome for the site, the streetscape and surrounds.

 

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

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/953/2016 for new two storey dwelling house with basement parking, new swimming pool and sun shade structure, at No. 28 Dudley Street, Randwick, 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 following windows must have a minimum sill height of 1.6m above floor level, or alternatively, the windows shall to be fixed and be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing below this specified height:

 

·           The two bedrooms and ensuite windows on level 2 to the south west end of the building on the north western side elevation (noted as North elevation on the plan).

·           The bedroom, bathroom and study windows on level 2 to the south west end of the building on the south eastern side elevation (noted as South elevation on the plan).

 

b.     The sandstone block retaining wall to the front property boundary where possible shall be retained and protected in conjunction with the construction of the proposed dwelling.  Any required repairs to the sandstone block retaining wall to the front boundary are to be carried out in conjunction with the development. 

 

Non standard conditions

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                               8 August 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D69/17

 

Subject:             38 Gregory Street, South Coogee (DA/10/2017)

Folder No:                   DA/10/2017

Author:                   Chahrazad  Rahe, Senior Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                    Demolition of the existing structures, construction of a 2 storey attached dual occupancy, including basement level garages and laundries, hardstand car park spaces to front and associated works.

 

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                Mr D Anderson

Owner:                        Mrs V S Elias

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Council for determination at the request of Councilors Matson, Bowen and Shurey.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal is seeking approval to demolish the existing structures on the site, construction of a 2 storey attached dual occupancy, including basement level garages and laundries, hardstand car park spaces to front and associated works.

 

The basement level of both dwellings include a double garage with work bench and laundry/storage room.

 

The ground floor of both dwellings includes an open plan living area containing a living, dining and kitchen, guest bedroom, bathroom, central deck area, entry terrace and rear deck with BBQ.

 

The first floor level of both dwellings incorporates a master bedroom with ensuite and walk-in-robe, 2 additional bedrooms, bathroom and front and rear balconies.

 

Amended plans have been received by Council on four occasions, 31 May 2017, 5 July 2017, 6 July 2017 & 7 July 2017.  On the first occasion to address concerns raised by the objectors during the mediation in relation view loss and on the second, third & fourth occasions to reduce the FSR to comply with the development standard and to note the existing natural ground levels and proposed side fencing on the plans.   The following changes have been made:

 

31 May 2017

·      The rear portion of the building has been lowered by 600mm and the pop-up roofs have been removed to minimise the view loss impact on No.15 & No.17 Fowler Street; and

·      The front portion of the building has been lowered by 60mm to align with the rear portion resulting from item 1 above.

 

5 July 2017

·      Laundry adjacent to the underground carpark for both of the dwellings have been removed resulting in a reduction of approximately 14.4m² of GFA.

·      The existing natural ground levels are noted on the plans.

 

6 July 2017

·      The size of the front entries to both of the dwellings have been reduced by 200mm, resulting in a reduction of 0.9m² GFA. 

 

7 July 2017

·      The height of the proposed side boundary fencing is noted on the plans. 

 

The assessment is based on the amended plans received by Council on 7 July 2017.

 

Mediation

 

A Mediation session was undertaken on 24th May 2017 to resolve issues relating to the proposed development.  During the mediation session the objector’s present expressed concerns regarding loss of ocean views, privacy, bulk & size of the proposed development.  The applicant agreed to amend the plans as follows:

 

·      Reduce the rear section parapet by 600mm;

·      Reduce front first floor valium height to match rear parapet;

·      Remove clerestory pop up roof and replace with flat skylight;

·      Fixed privacy screen to the rear bedroom balcony.

 

However, an agreement was not reached by parties at no. 15 & 17 Gregory Crescent, South Coogee as the changes proposed do not address their concerns regarding loss of views.

 

Site Description and Surrounding Area

The subject site is described as Lot 26 Sec 26 in DP 758912, known as 38 Gregory Street, Randwick.  The allotment is wedge shape tapering from rear to front and is located on the western side of Gregory Street in Randwick, between MacLeay Street and Storey Street. The site has a frontage width of 13.04 and 2.438m, depths of 38.821m to the northern boundary and 39.002m to the southern boundary, rear width of 15.573m and an area of 569.1m² (by Title). 

 

The current basement FFL is located approximately 2.6m and dwelling is raised approximately 5m above the footpath of Gregory Street and has a fall from rear to front boundary of approximately 6m.

 

The subject and surrounding adjoining sites are zoned R2 – Low Density Residential and is predominately surrounded by detached dwelling houses.

 

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:

 

15 Fowler Street, South Coogee

Issue

Comment

Privacy concerns

The skylight and height of the proposed structure will be in line with the living areas on both levels at 15 Fowler Crescent which will impinge on their privacy.

 

The skylight roofs have been deleted.

 

Refer to Sub-section 5.3 - Visual Privacy which addresses the objectors concerns in relation to acoustic and visual privacy.

Height of structure & view impacts

The structure is higher than the development currently undertaken at 40 Gregory Street.  Also, the design of the skylight is not in keeping with the surrounding area.

 

The development will completely block their ocean view from the kitchen and TV room.  Suggests that the garage be reduced to a height limit of 2.4m so that the overall height of the building is at RL 66.90.

Amended plans have been received reducing the height of the development by 600mm and deleting the skylight roof.

 

The amended development complies with the height of building standard in the LEP 2012. The non-compliant wall height is addressed in the Key Issues Section below.

 

The amended development has been carefully configured to achieve a satisfactory level of view sharing between the site and the neighbouring properties.  The resultant view loss impact are addressed and justified below in the Key Issues section under Sub-Section 5.6 - View Sharing.

17 Fowler Street, South Coogee

Issue

Comment

Privacy concerns

Concerned that the rear sliding doors on the first floor level will cause overlook impacts to the rear of their property, back yard and lounge room.

The sliding doors are below the height of the existing rear boundary fence and are not anticipated to cause any unreasonable privacy concerns.

Overall height

The development will be higher than the new development currently under construction at no. 40 Gregory Street, South Coogee.  The height of new development will cause an obstruction to the existing views.

Amended plans have been received reducing the height of the development by 600mm and deleting the skylight roof.

 

The amended development complies with the height of building standard in the LEP 2012. The non-compliant wall height is addressed in the Key Issues Section below.

 

The amended development has been carefully configured to achieve a satisfactory level of view sharing between the site and the neighbouring properties.  The resultant view loss impact are addressed and justified below in the Key Issues section under Sub-Section 5.6 - View Sharing.

 

Key Issues

 

Development Control Plan 2013 - Part C1:  Low Density Residential

 

3.1    External Wall Height

The subject site has a steep fall in topography towards the street with a gradient of approximately 15% across the site. As such the site is considered to be a ‘steep’ sloping site and an 8m maximum external wall height is applicable. The proposal for the most part complies with this control, with a minor portion of external wall protruding a maximum of 1.260m above the 8m wall height limit on the southern elevation at the front of the dwelling and a maximum of 1.125m above the 8m wall height limit on the northern elevation at the front of the dwelling, these can be seen in figures 1 & 2 below.

 

Figure 1: Southern elevation - Area of non-compliant external wall height (outlined in red)

 

 

Figure 2: Northern elevation - Area of non-compliant external wall height (outlined in red)

 

The non-compliant section of wall as stated previously is localised to the front portion of the dwelling on the northern & southern elevations, the area of non-compliance occurs as a direct result of the fall in topography. The non-compliant wall height will not result in any significant amenity impacts on the adjoining property having regards to visual privacy, visual bulk, view loss or overshadowing. The proposed development is considered to be acceptable for the site and will not adversely affect the character of the streetscape.

 

The proposal is considered to meet the relevant objectives in the RDCP 2013.

 

Sub-section 4.3 - Additional Design Provisions for Attached Dual Occupancies

Objectives

 

·      To ensure the configuration, scale, massing and proportions of attached dual occupancies are compatible with other dwellings in the street.

·      To ensure parking facilities do not dominate the street elevations of dual occupancy dwellings but present as an integrated architectural element.

 

Controls

 

i)     The garage for each dwelling within an attached dual occupancy must have a single car width only.

 

ii)     Articulate the front facade to soften the visual dominance of parking facilities. This may include the following measures:

 

- Place balconies or verandahs above garages.

- Provide windows and/or doorways on the front elevation of the parking level, so that garage entries are not the sole façade elements.

 

- Recess garage entries below cantilevered or projecting architectural elements.

 

iii)    Minimise driveway width.

 

iv)    The main entrance to a dwelling must not be recessed behind the front facade alignment by more than 2m.

 

v)    Maximise landscape planting or permeable surfaces in between, or adjacent to driveways to improve visual presentation to the street.

 

The design incorporates architectural elements, adequate articulation and modulation to the sides and front façades of the dwellings which enhances the visual interest to the street frontages.  The plans provide adequate landscaping to the front of the dwelling to soften the appearance of the hard paved driveway areas and improve visual presentation to the street. 

 

The main entrances to the dwellings are located to the front of the building and are readily identifiable from the street.  The main entrances to the dwellings are not recessed behind the front facade alignment by more than 2m.  

 

The front entries to the dwellings are also separated from the driveways to permit safe access for the residents and visitors to the site.

 

The garages are incorporated within the design of the dwellings and the proposed entry terraces and balconies at the front of the dwellings will soften the visual dominance of parking facilities.  The front setback is considered to be sympathetic and the built form will respect the neighbouring front setbacks. 

 

Further, the form and materials of the proposal are considered to be appropriate to the locality and will not result in detrimental visual impacts on the adjoining properties and the public domain.

 

Given the above reasons, the proposed development is considered acceptable and will satisfy the objectives of the Control.

 

Sub-clause 5.1 - Solar Access and Overshadowing

Objectives

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Controls

 

Solar access to proposed development:

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

 

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

 

Controls

 

Solar access to neighbouring development:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

-     Topography of the subject and adjoining allotments.

-     Location and level of the windows in question.

-     Shadows cast by existing buildings on the neighbouring allotments.

 

Adequate solar access is provided to both dwellings.  The north-facing living area windows of proposed development receive the minimum 3 hours of solar access and central courtyards are provided so that the main living areas of the dwellings can obtain good direct solar access and ventilation. 

 

The shadow diagrams demonstrate that the rear yards of the subject and adjoining sites receive the minimum 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

 

Also, as demonstrated below in figure 4, the north facing living room windows (within the courtyard area adjacent to the awning structure) of the recently approved development currently under constructed at no. 40 Gregory Street will receive the required 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

 

The scale and design of the proposed development is considered to be suitable for the site in the context of the surrounding residential area and is considered to be acceptable in this regard given general compliance with the DCP solar access controls.

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3: Existing & proposed shadow diagrams

 

   

 

    

 

     

Figure 4: Proposed elevational shadow diagrams

 

Sub-section 5.3 - Visual Privacy

Objective

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

 

Controls

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

 

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

·       Front or rear of the allotment;

·       Side courtyard.

 

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

 

a.      Windows

It is not expected that the proposed development will result in any unreasonable adverse privacy impacts to the neighbouring properties. The window openings to the eastern elevation will primarily overlook the street and front yards of the subject site and neighbouring properties. The window openings to the western elevations will primarily overlook the rear yard of the subject site.   The existing and proposed side and rear boundary fencing also assist in minimising overlooking concerns. 

 

The window & door openings to the northern and southern elevations are either highlight windows with sill heights greater than 1.6m or are screened by louvres.

 

b.      Balconies

It is not expected that the proposed balconies to the front and rear of the dwellings will result in unacceptable privacy concerns.

 

The balconies to the front of the dwelling will primarily overlook the street and front yards of the subject and neighbouring properties and privacy screens to the sides of the balconies also assist in minimising privacy concerns.

 

Privacy screens are also provided to the sides of the balconies to the rear which restrict overlooking in an oblique angle.  Further, these balconies on the first floor level are located to the centre of the site and are off bedrooms which are considered to be low use rooms and are not expected to be used as frequently as a living area.  Furthermore, the screens return to the rear of these balconies which restrict views between the common wall boundaries of the new dwellings on the subject site.

 

It is not anticipated that there will be significant acoustic concerns as adequate separation is provided between the properties and the property will be used for domestic purposed.


The proposed development will satisfy the objectives of the DCP control for Visual privacy.

 

Sub-Section 5.6 - View Sharing

 

The objectives of the view sharing control are as follows:

 

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

 

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

 

§ To ensure development is sensitively and skilfully designed to maintain a reasonable amount of views from the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

 

Controls

 

i)     The location and design of dwellings and outbuildings must reasonably maintain existing view corridors or vistas from the neighbouring dwellings, streets and public open space areas.

 

ii)     In assessing potential view loss impacts on the neighbouring dwellings, retaining existing views from the living areas (such as living room, dining room, lounge and kitchen) should be given a priority over those obtained from the bedrooms and non-habitable rooms.

 

iii)    Where a design causes conflicts between retaining views for the public domain and private properties, priority must be given to view retention for the public domain.

 

iv)    The design of fences and selection of plant species must minimise obstruction of views from the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

 

v)    Adopt a balanced approach to privacy protection and view sharing, and avoid the creation of long and massive blade walls or screens that obstruct views from the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

 

vi)    Clearly demonstrate any steps or measures adopted.


 

View loss assessment

 

Introduction

Sharing of views is a design performance requirement in Randwick Council’s Development Control Plan 2013.

 

An assessment of the proposed development and its impact on views is carried out in accordance with the Land and Environment Court planning principle after Roseth SC pp.25-29 in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140. This assessment is guided by a four step process identified by the Land and Environment Court.

 

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

 

Two submissions have been received from the adjoining neighbouring properties to the west to the rear of the subject site at no.’s 15 & 17 Fowler Street, South Coogee objecting to the development on the grounds of view loss currently enjoyed from the rear of the properties at the ground and first floor levels.

 

The views in question is a horizontal band of the South Pacific Ocean which is obscured by vegetation and roof tops of surrounding properties.  There are no valuable iconic views that will be impacted by the proposed development. Directions ‘A’ to ‘B’, in Figure 5 below indicates the views are obtained in south easterly and easterly directions and direction ‘C’ in north easterly and easterly directions.

 

CBA1715

Figure 5: Site analysis plan identifying views currently enjoyed.

 

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

 

Note: The red lines within the images below indicate the amended proposed development and the blue lines indicate the original development.

15 Fowler Street, South Coogee

Image 1: View taken from the ground floor living area in an easterly direction

 

Ground floor living area: The views are obtained from the rear of the dwelling in a standing position only.

 

Image 2: View taken from the first floor living area in an easterly direction.

 

First floor living area: The views are obtained from the rear of the dwelling in standing & siting positions.

 

Image 3: View taken from the first floor dining area in a north easterly direction.

First floor dining area: The views are obtained from the rear of the dwelling in standing & siting positions.

 

Image 4: View taken from the rear first floor balcony off the living area in an easterly direction.

 

First floor rear balcony: The views are obtained from the rear of the dwelling in standing & siting positions.

 

17 Fowler Street, South Coogee

 

Image 5: View taken from the elevated ground floor level off the living/dining area in a north easterly direction.

 

Ground floor living/dining area: The views are obtained from the rear of the dwelling in a standing position only.

 

Image 6: View taken from the first floor bedroom in a north easterly direction.

 

First floor bedroom: The views are obtained from the rear of the dwelling in standing & siting positions.

 

Image 7: View taken from the first floor secondary living area in a north easterly direction.

 

First floor secondary living area: The views are obtained from the rear of the dwelling in standing & siting positions.

 

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

 

15 Fowler Street, South Coogee

Image 1

Ground floor living area: The horizontal ocean views will be entirely lost as a result of the proposed amended development.  Severe loss of view.

 

Image 2

First floor living area: The horizontal ocean view in a standing position will be retained and possible a very small horizontal band of ocean view will be lost once in a sitting position depending where you are positioned in the room.  Negligible to minor view lost.

 

Image 3

First floor living area: The horizontal ocean view in a standing position will be retained and possible a very small horizontal band of ocean view will be lost once in a sitting position depending where you are positioned in the room. Negligible to minor view lost.

 

Image 4

First floor rear balcony: The horizontal ocean view in a standing position will be retained and possible a very minor horizontal band of ocean view will be lost once in a sitting position depending where you are positioned on the balcony. Negligible to minor view lost.

 

 

17 Fowler Street, South Coogee

Image 5

Ground floor living/dining area: The horizontal ocean views will be entirely lost as a result of the proposed amended development.   No impact.

 

Image 6

First floor bedroom: The horizontal ocean view in a standing position will be retained.   There could be a very negligible view loss in a sitting position depending where you are positioned in the room.

 

Image 7

First floor secondary living area: The horizontal ocean view in a standing position will be retained.   There could be a very negligible view loss in a sitting position depending where you are positioned in the room.

 

Step 4: The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skillful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours. If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.

 

The amended development has been carefully configured to achieve a satisfactory level of view sharing between the site and the neighbouring properties by lowering the height of the development and retaining views to the living spaces on the first floor level.  Only the ground floor levels of the neighbouring properties to the west will be impacted by the proposed development.  This is not unreasonable when considering the amended development complies with the LEP numerical controls in relation to building FSR and Height of Building Standards and is compatible in height, bulk and scale with other dwelling houses in the neighbourhood. 

 

Also, the non-compliant sections to the external wall height control is towards the front of the site and if lowered to meet the 8m wall height control for sloping sites there will be no benefit as it will not improve the views to these affected properties.

Further, the proposed development satisfies the relevant objectives and controls of the DCP with regard to Building Envelope and Building Design and is an appropriate design that relates to the typography of the land and its context. 

 

The amended development has been carefully configured to achieve a satisfactory level of view sharing between the site and the neighbouring properties.  Accordingly, the resultant view loss impact is justified.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development complies with the objectives and control requirements of relevant State and Local planning controls.

 

The development scheme will not generate unreasonable adverse impacts upon the amenity of the surrounding properties in terms of visual bulk and scale, solar access, view loss and privacy. Also, when considered on balance with resultant environmental impacts eventuates in a generally positive development outcome for the site, the streetscape and surrounds.

 

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

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/10/2017 for demolition of the existing structures, construction of a 2 storey attached dual occupancy, including basement level garages and laundries, hardstand car park spaces to front and associated works at 38 Gregory Street, South Coogee, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a)     Clothes drying facilities shall be provided for each of the dwellings. The clothes drying facilities shall be located behind the front façade alignment and must not be prominently visible from the street.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil


Planning Committee                                                                                               8 August 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D70/17

 

Subject:             13 Dangar Street, Randwick (DA/949/2016)

Folder No:                   DA/949/2016

Author:                   Chahrazad  Rahe, Senior Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                    Ground and first floor alterations and additions to existing dwelling, first floor studio over existing garage, fencing, landscaping and associated works

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Chesterman Design & Architecture

Owner:                        Mr O M Harvey

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Council for determination at the request of Councilors Neilson, Bowen and Shurey.

 

Proposal

 

The application is seeking approval for alterations and additions that includes:

 

·       Demolition of non-original addition at the rear, 

·       new 2 storey addition, 

·       new roof material to main roof, 

·       new street front gate & intercom and front door,

·       new fence & gate to rear lane, 

·       new studio over existing garage,

·       minor internal modifications.

 

Site Description and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is described as Lot 9 Sec 20 DP 4589, known as 13 Dangar Street, Randwick.  The allotment is rectangular in shape and is located on the eastern side of Dangar Street in Randwick, between Huddart Lane and White Street. The site has a frontage width of 9.165m, a depth of 45.72m and an area of 419m². 

 

The site is currently occupied by a part single and 2 storey detached dwelling house with a single storey 2 car space garage at the rear of the dwelling which is accessed off Dangar Lane. The site slopes naturally from the front of the property to the rear lane by approximately 1m.

 

The subject and surrounding adjoining sites are zoned R2 – Low Density Residential and is predominately surrounded by a mixture of dwelling houses.  Adjoining the site to the north is a two storey detached brick dwelling house, to the south is a single story detached dwelling house and to the east are rear garden and garages off Dangar Lane to properties that face Wentworth Street.

 

In close proximity of the site to the north is Centennial Park and to the west is a small reserve park.

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. As a result of this notification process one (1) submission was received, as follows.

 

No. 15 Dangar Street, Randwick

 

Issues

Comment

Solar Access & Overshadowing

 

 

Refer to Key Issues below under Sub-Section 5.1 - Solar Access and Overshadowing which address this issue.

 

It is considered that the proposed development provides a built form outcome that is of commensurate in height and Floor Space Ratio with adjacent development and complies with the provisions of the DCP.  As discussed below, the proposal is considered acceptable.

 

Privacy

Refer to Key Issues below under Sub-section 5.3 - Visual Privacy which address this issue.

 

Key Issues

 

Development Control Plan 2013

 

Part C1:  Low Density Residential

Sub-Section 3.3 - Setbacks

Objectives

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sub-Section 3.3.2 - Side setbacks

Controls

 

i)      Comply with the minimum side setbacks as follows:

 

Dwelling Houses & Dual Occupancies

(Attached & Detached)

 

Frontage width

Ground storey

First storey

Second storey & above

9m ~12m

 

900mm

900mm

150mm

 

The subject site has a frontage width of 9.16m to Dangar Street and therefore a side setback of 900mm applies to the site.  Majority of the proposed building works on the ground and first floor level are setback a minimum distance of 900mm from the side boundary which meets this control.  However, small sections of the proposed works encroach on to the side setback control, the WC/L’dry on the ground floor to the southern side boundary which is setback 450mm and the bay windows on the first floor level to the northern and southern side boundaries.  Works are carried out within the existing side setback of 306mm to the southern side of the boundary, though this is existing and does not contribute to any additional amenity impacts. 

The remaining non-compliant sections meet the objectives of the control and are considered acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The proposed side setbacks are to the rear of the dwelling and will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on the character of the streetscape of the North Randwick heritage conservation area. The proposed dwelling will relate to the side setbacks, height, scale and bulk of other similar dwelling house developments in the street and other residential types within the immediate locality. In addition to the above, the development complies with the maximum FSR and height of building standards under the LEP 2012.

 

·      The non-compliant sections of the dwelling are minor and will not result in any unreasonable overshadowing and visual amenity impacts to neighbouring properties.  The proposed setback of 450mm to the southern side boundary only spans for a relatively small distance of 2.82m and is on the ground floor level.  Therefore, the additional overshadowing impact is a result of the orientation of the site rather than the development being of inappropriate design.  In addition to the above, the proposal incorporates adequate separation between buildings for visual and acoustic privacy, solar access, air circulation and views.

 

·      The layout of the proposed development incorporates landscaped areas which allows for adequate creation of functional open spaces and deep soil planting for the site meeting the DCP control.

 

Given the above reasons, the proposed side setbacks of the development are considered acceptable and will satisfy the objectives of the Control.

 

Sub-section 3.3.3 - Rear Setbacks

 

Controls

i)   The minimum rear setback must be 25% of allotment depth or 8m, whichever is the lesser.

 

Note: Rear setback controls do not apply to corner allotments.

    

ii)  Provide increased rear setbacks over and above the aforementioned minimum requirements, or demonstrate that this is not required, having regard to the following matters:

 

·       Existing predominant rear setback line in the subject urban block.

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

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

 

iii) Garages, carports, outbuildings, swimming or spa pools, above-ground water tanks, and unroofed decks and terraces attached to the dwelling may encroach upon the required rear setback, in so far as they comply with other relevant provisions of this DCP.

 

iv) For irregularly shaped allotments, or allotments with the longest boundary abutting the street or the rear adjoining neighbour (that is, the frontage width being longer than the site depth), the rear setback will be assessed on merit having regard to demonstration of the following:

 

·      Compatibility with the existing development pattern in the subject and adjoining urban blocks.

·      Provision of adequate private open space with dimensions compliant with the requirements of this DCP.

·      Potential impacts on the neighbouring dwellings in terms of solar access, privacy and view sharing.

 

The additions to the rear of the building are setback 16.2m which complies with the control.  However, the rear studio above the garage is positioned adjacent to Dangar Lane with a rear setback of approximately 300mm from the boundary.  The existing garage is site on the rear boundary with a nil setback.

 

The predominant rear setback line of the existing garages to this side of the laneway are also sited on the rear boundary with nil to minimal setbacks.  Subject to a condition which requires the external wall to be reduced in height the setback of the proposed studio above the garage will be acceptable and will not result in any unreasonable visual impacts to the Laneway setting of the conservation area.  Privacy and solar access to the neighbouring dwellings are reasonably maintained.

 

No objections were raised by Council’s Development Engineers in relation to its siting.

 

The proposed rear setback is considered to be acceptable given that it will not result in unreasonable adverse amenity impacts to the public domain and neighbouring properties in terms of visual and privacy impacts. 

 

Sub-Section 5.1 - Solar Access and Overshadowing

 

Objectives

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

 

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

 

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

 

Controls

 

Solar access to neighbouring development:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

-     Topography of the subject and adjoining allotments.

-     Location and level of the windows in question.

-     Shadows cast by existing buildings on the neighbouring allotments.

 

A submission was received from the southern neighbour property at no. 15 Dangar Street objecting to the development on the grounds that it will reduce solar access to their north facing living room windows and existing roof solar panels.

 

The shadow diagrams in figure 2 indicate that majority of the north facing windows of the adjoining property at no. 15 Dangar Street are already overshadowed by the existing dwelling between 8am to 4pm on 21 June.  As a result of the proposed development the entire north facing windows will be overshadowed by the proposed development between 8am to 4pm on 21 June.

 

The additional overshadowing impacts are acceptable and are largely due to the orientation of the subject and adjoining allotments being on a west east axis and that the neighbouring north facing window is located on the ground floor.  Any two storey compliant development will result in overshadowing impacts to these windows.  The additional overshadowing impacts is not a result of a poorly designed development given that it meets the FSR, height and site coverage controls in the LEP and DCP and also meets the objectives of the side setback control.  The proposed development is well articulated to the side elevations and the southern side setback on the first floor level to the rear portion of the building is 910mm (with the exception of the small encroachment of the bay window) which complies with the control.

 

The shadow diagrams in figure 1 below indicate that the private open space of the adjoining properties will still receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 12pm and 4pm on 21 June. 

 

Whilst it was noted by the objector at no. 15 Dangar Street the development will impact on their existing solar panels, approximately 40% of the panels will still receive direct sunlight for a duration of 5 hours (between 11am-4pm on June).  As discussed above, impacts on 15 Dangar Street are largely due to the orientation of the site.

 

Moreover, the DCP only requires retention of a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight to the neighbouring property existing solar panels when they are situated at least 6m above the existing ground level.  The objector’s property is a single storey dwelling and is below this level.  The intention of this sub-clause is to retain solar assess to two storey dwellings rather than single storey dwellings and recognises that is overly onerous to require compliance where neighbouring solar panels are less than 6m above ground level.

 

In addition to the above, the proposed dwelling complies with the relevant controls and objectives in the DCP with regard to Building Envelope and Building Design and is under the 7 metres external wall height control in the DCP. 

 

The application is considered to be acceptable in this regard given general compliance with the DCP solar access controls.

  

8am 21 June – Shadow Diagram                              9am 21 June – Shadow Diagram

   

10am 21 June – Shadow Diagram                                     11am 21 June – Shadow Diagram

   

12pm 21 June – Shadow Diagram                                     1pm 21 June – Shadow Diagram

 

 

2pm 21 June – Shadow Diagram                                        3pm 21 June – Shadow Diagram

 

4pm 21 June – Shadow Diagram

 

Figure 1: Existing and proposed shadow diagrams provided by objector’s consultant, Cad Draft P/L. Note red shading indicates new shadows.

 

 

8am 21 June – Shadow Elevation                             9am 21 June – Shadow Elevation

 

 

10am 21 June – Shadow Elevation                                  11am 21 June – Shadow Elevation

 

 

12pm 21 June – Shadow Elevation                         1pm 21 June – Shadow Elevation

 

 

2pm 21 June – Shadow Elevation                                    3pm 21 June – Shadow Elevation

 

4pm 21 June – Shadow Elevation

 

Figure 2: Existing and proposed elevational shadow diagrams provided by objector’s consultant, Cad Draft P/L.  Note red shading indicates new shadows.

 

Sub-section 5.3 - Visual Privacy

 

Objective

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

 

Controls

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

 

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

·       Front or rear of the allotment;

·       Side courtyard.

 

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

 

A submission was received from the neighbouring dwelling at no. 15 Dangar Street objecting to the development on the grounds that it will cause privacy impacts to their private living areas.

 

Subject to a condition, it is not expected that the proposed development will result in any unreasonable adverse privacy impacts to the neighbouring properties. The new openings to the rear outbuilding will primarily face the laneway. 

 

The objector raised concerns that the window openings to the southern elevation on the first floor level will cause privacy concerns to their property.   These windows are to bathroom, linen storage area and staircase which are considered to be low use rooms and are not expected to result in any unreasonable privacy concerns.  Further these windows will primarily overlook the roof area of the objector’s property.  

 

The objector also raised concerns in relation to the rear first floor balcony.  It is agreed this may cause overlooking concerns and for this reason it is recommended a condition be include which requires the rear first floor balcony of the dwelling provide screening on both side elevations to 1.6m in height to ensure reasonable privacy levels are maintained.

 

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

 

Sub-Section 8.1 - Development in Laneways

 

Objectives

·      To ensure any building fronting a rear lane has a scale and mass secondary to the main dwelling on the site, and is appropriate for the width of the lane.

·      To promote casual surveillance and improve safety and security of laneways.

 

Controls

iv)    All ancillary buildings fronting laneways must have a maximum height of not more than 6m. The maximum external wall height is limited to 4.5m.

 

Ancillary buildings on laneways must have a mass and scale secondary to the primary dwelling on the allotment. Any upper level (for instance, storey above garage) must be contained within the roof form as an attic storey.

 

The maximum height of the outbuilding is 6m and the proposed outbuilding has a maximum height of 5.5m to the rear laneway.  Concern was raised by Councils heritage officer in relation to the proposed outbuilding being is inconsistent with DCP guidelines for outbuildings in the North Randwick area, and incompatible with the scale and bulk of outbuildings in the vicinity of the site. 

 

The applicant has argued that the new development is located along Dangar Lane and is consistent with the character of the laneway as several other properties have garages. However, it is argued that outbuilding is of a scale and bulk that will be inconsistent with the neighbouring development in the immediate area and the comments from Councils Heritage planner are agreed upon as follows.

 

‘The existing garage has a pitched roof with a ridge perpendicular to the rear laneway.  The proposed outbuilding is to have a pitched roof with a ridge parallel to the rear laneway.  The proposed outbuilding will have a wall height to the rear laneway and to the rear garden of 4.3m.  A narrow lower roof is proposed over the stair and two narrow dormer type windows are to be provided.  Surrounding outbuildings on Dangar Lane, at no.17 Dangar Street (3.5m. wall height, approved in 1998/99), 23 Dangar Street (3.4 – 4.0m., 2011) and 28 Wentworth Street (3.3m., 2004) are compliant with DCP controls.  The proposed wall height is about 800mm above the allowable maximum in the North Randwick section of the DCP. 

 

A previous development application for an outbuilding (DA/713/2016) included consent conditions requiring amended drawings to lower the wall height from 4.5m to 3.5m.  The scale and bulk of the proposed outbuilding is inconsistent with DCP objectives and controls, incompatible with recent and previous approvals, and would set a precedent for further inappropriate outbuildings in the area.

 

A condition is included which requires that the wall height of the garage and studio to the rear laneway and the rear garden, is to be reduced to a height of 3.5m.  This consent condition is required to ensure that the scale and bulk of the proposed outbuilding is consistent with Randwick DCP Section 4.9 North Randwick Heritage Conservation Area (4.9.4) - Outbuildings to the Rear, and compatible with recent and previous approvals, in the surrounding area.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The site is located within Zone R2 - Low Density Residential under Randwick LEP 2012. The proposal is consistent with the aims of the LEP and the specific zoning objectives.

 

Subject to conditions, the proposal will comply with the relevant objectives and controls contained in Comprehensive DCP for Low Density Residential.

 

An adequate level of amenity will be retained for the surrounding residents and the public domain.

 

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

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/949/2016 for ground and first floor alterations and additions to the existing dwelling, first floor studio over existing garage, fencing, landscaping and associated works, at No. 13 Dangar Street, Randwick, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a)   To ensure privacy levels are maintained the first floor rear balcony shall be screened on both side elevations (north and south elevations) to 1.6m above floor level.

 

b)   The proposed pair of windows to the front elevation of the dwelling on either side of the central bay window are to be deleted.  The proposed pair of windows will detract from the streetscape presentation of the dwelling which is currently largely intact.  Amended drawings are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. 

 

c)     A brief archival recording of the rear room on the southern side of the dwelling (existing bed 3), including any original plasterwork, timberwork and the fireplace, shall be prepared and submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.  This recording shall be in accordance with the NSW Heritage Office 2006 Guidelines for Photographic Recording of Heritage Items using Film or Digital Capture.  Two copies of the endorsed archival recording shall be presented to Council, one of which shall be placed in the Local History Collection of Randwick City Library. 

 

d)     The wall height of the proposed garage and studio to the rear laneway and the rear garden, is to be reduced to a height of 3.5m.  This consent condition is required to ensure that the scale and bulk of the proposed outbuilding is consistent with Randwick DCP Section 4.9 North Randwick Heritage Conservation Area (4.9.4) - Outbuildings to the rear, and compatible with recent and previous approvals, in the surrounding area.  Amended drawings are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. 

 

e)     Existing terracotta tiles to the roof of the dwelling are to be retained and not replaced by colorbond roofing.  This consent condition is required to maintain the aesthetic significance of the heritage conservation area and to ensure consistency with Randwick DCP Section 2.6 Materials, Finishes and Colour Schemes.  Amended drawings are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. 

 

f)     Original leadlight glazing from original window and door frames should be reinstalled in any replacement window and door frames. 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                               8 August 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D71/17

 

Subject:             20 Curtin Crescent, Maroubra (DA/367/2017)

Folder No:                   DA/367/2017

Author:                   Plandev Pty Ltd, Thomas Mithen     

 

Proposal:                    Application to legitimise carport constructed to front of site adjacent to northern boundary

Ward:                     South Ward

Applicant:                Mr N Kougellis

Owner:                        Mr N Kougellis & Mrs B A Kougellis

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=e25a0d2a-13ad-487c-b107-cb50b8e48260&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 


 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application was assessed by an external consultant and is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the adjoining property is owned by a Randwick City Council contractor.

 

1.         Proposal

 

The development application (DA) seeks approval to legitimise the existing carport at the front of site adjacent to northern boundary, and installation of privacy screen above fence on the northern side of carport (refer to Figure 1).

 

existing carport

Figure 1Existing carport on the site

 

The applicant advises the carport was constructed approximately 7 years ago at the same time the dwelling house on the site was refurbished. The applicant also advises the works to the existing dwelling were approved by a Private Certifier under a Complying Development Certificate, which included the construction of the carport at its current location.

 

However, State Environmental Planning Policy – Exempt and Complying Development Exempt and Complying Development Code (2008) excludes a carport in a residential zone within 5 metres of a lot boundary. The carport was constructed adjacent to the northern boundary and the street front and therefore does not satisfy the locational criteria for complying development under Exempt and Complying Development SEPP.

 

The unauthorized construction and use of the carport was brought to Council’s attention when an adjoining property owner lodged a complaint. As a result, Council’s Regulatory and Compliance Team have advised the owner that approval is required for the unauthorised use of the carport.

 

It should be noted that Council cannot grant retrospective approval for the works already completed. However, Council can approve the use of the structure, and the physical structure would need to be approved separately under a Building Certificate.

 

 

 

2.         Site

 

The subject site is located in a low density residential area characterised by one and two storey dwelling houses. There are a range of architectural styles and built forms in the locality. The streetscape is dominated by carports and garages in the front setback and solid brick walls, hardstand parking areas and driveways (refer to Figure 2). The photos below show the existing streetscape

 

Figure 2 – Photos showing the existing streetscape in Curtin Crescent

Figure 2 – Photos showing the existing streetscape in Curtin Crescent

 

3.         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.

 

4.         Key Issue

 

§ Carport Structure

The key issue relates to the unauthorized works associated with the construction of a carport at the front of the site. As retrospective approval cannot be given for any building works completed, Council has the power to grant approval for the use of the carport but not for any building works already completed prior to the consent being granted.

 

In terms of whether the use of the carport is in an appropriate location on the site, an assessment is undertaken against the locational car parking controls in Section 6 Car Parking and Access of Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP 2013).

 

Clause 6.2 states

 

i)       Where the provision of parking facilities behind the front façade alignment is not feasible (due to absence of rear lane or secondary street access, narrow site width, irregular allotment configuration, or retention of an existing dwelling), parking facilities may be provided within the front setback areas as follows:

 

-    An uncovered single car space; or 

-    A single carport having an external width of not more than 3m (excluding eaves); and 

-    Landscaping must be able to be incorporated into the site frontage.

 

ii) Regardless of the site’s frontage width, the provision of garages or carports (single or double width) within the front setback areas may only be considered where: 

 

-    There is no alternative, feasible location for accommodating car parking;

-    The site has a significant slope with the dwelling being elevated above the street level; 

-    The garage or carport will not adversely affect the visual amenity of the street and the surrounding areas; 

-    The garage or carport location will not pose an undue risk on the safety of pedestrians; and

-    The garage or carport will not require the removal of significant landscape elements that enhance the streetscape, such as rock outcrop or sandstone retaining walls.

 

Council’s controls permit a carport in the front setback where there is no other feasible alternative, and where it would not adversely affect the visual amenity of the street. Due to the site constraints there is no alternative but to provide a parking space in the front setback.  It is understood a carport was located in the front setback but closer to the dwelling, prior to the construction of the existing carport. The existing carport is positioned closer to the street to allow for a better configuration of open space adjacent to the dwelling. The proposed carport is considered to be visually dominant due to its masonry design and panel lift door and looks more like a garage than a lightweight carport structure. However, the wider streetscape is dominated by garages and carports and high solid brick walls on the street boundary, and the existing structure is not an uncharacteristic element in the locality.    

 

Clause 6.3 states:

 

6.3 Setbacks of Parking Facilities 

Controls

 

i)       Garages and carports must comply with the side setback requirements stipulated in Sub-Section 3.3.

 

ii)       Entry to garages and carports off the rear lane must be setback a minimum of 1m from the lane boundary. 

 

iii)    Garages and carports built to the side boundary may be considered where: 

 

-    The adjoining property has its parking facilities or outbuildings constructed to the common boundary;

 -   The location of car parking is compatible with the streetscape character; 

-    Appropriate sightlines will be maintained for drivers and pedestrians; and 

-    Development seeks to amalgamate the driveway crossing with that of the adjoining property.

 

The carport is built to the side northern boundary of the site.  The nil side setback is consistent with the built form pattern in the street and therefore considered to be appropriate for the site.

 


 

6.6 Carport Configuration 

Controls

 

i)      Carports must have a simple, post-support design and not solid enclosing walls. The carport may only be semi-enclosed with timber or metal slats achieving minimum 30% openness. 

ii)     The carport must have a flat roof, lean-to roof or gable or hipped roof having a pitch angle that relates to the dwelling or the street. The roof must not be trafficable.   

iii)    The maximum width of a carport is as follow:

 - Single carport – 3m - Double carport – 6m 

 iv)   The minimum length of a carport is 5.4m. 

 v)    The maximum building height of carports is 2.6m for a flat roof or 3.0m for a pitched roof. 

 vi)   Carports must not use a solid panel or roller shutter door. 

 vii) The carport may be secured by a gate having minimum 30% openness. 

 viii) Carport gates must not encroach upon public land during operation. 

 

The existing structure complies with the carport design controls in that it is semi-enclosed (it is open on three sides) and has a flat roof. However, the bulky masonry design and the provision of a solid panel-lift door makes it more akin to a garage and exacerbates its visual dominance in the street. However, the structure is not an uncharacteristic element when viewed in the context of the wider streetscape and the visual impact is not unreasonable.

 

§ Privacy screen

The proposal includes installation of a privacy screen along the northern side of the carport above the existing boundary wall. This would result in a boundary fence in excess of 1.8 metres, which does not comply with Part C1 Clause 7.3 of Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013 – Side and Rear Fencing. There are no significant potential privacy impacts to warrant a screen at this location, and it would only serve to increase the bulk of the existing structure when viewed from Curtin Crescent to the north. On that basis the proposed privacy screen is not supported.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The development application (DA) seeks approval to legitimise the existing carport at the front of site adjacent to northern boundary, and installation of privacy screen above the fence on the northern side of the carport.

 

Whilst Council cannot grant retrospective approval for the works already completed, it can approve the use of the structure. Following an assessment against the relevant parking locational and design controls in RDCP 2013, the existing structure is considered to be appropriate for the site, particulalry given the built form context of the wider streetscape, which is charcterised by garages and carports and solid walls on the street boundary.

 

The use of the existing structure as a carport at the front of the site is therefore acceptable.

 

The overall height of the proposed privacy screen is excessive and would only serve to increase the bulk of the existing structure when viewed from Curtin Crescent to the north and therefore should not be supported.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 365/2017 to legitimise the existing carport at the front of site adjacent to the northern boundary at No. 20 Curtin Crescent, Maroubra, subject to the following 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

01 (Revision A)

Plan B

28 March 2017

02 (Revision A)

03 (Revision A)

 

2.       This approval does not include any building works that have been completed prior to the issue of the subject development consent.

 

3.       The privacy screen above the existing fence on the northern side of the carport shall be deleted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                               8 August 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D72/17

 

Subject:             150-174 Barker St & 181 Botany St & 1-7,18-21 Jane St & 8-20, 28-42 Young St, Randwick (DA/662/2016)

Folder No:                   DA/662/2016

Author:                   Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment     

 

Proposal:                    Stage 2 integrated development application for infrastructure works comprising site enabling works including demolition, site remediation, removal of existing trees, subdivision and provision of civil and road infrastructure works including new internal roads, in-ground infrastructure, and construction of a new public park

Ward:                     West Ward

Applicant:                Cbus Property Sydney Residential Pty Ltd

Owner:                        Cbus Property Sydney Residential Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=cb44392d-5e1e-48c3-a49f-2636809ea463&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan


 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

Proposal

 

This application seeks consent for site enabling and civil and road infrastructure works at the ‘Newmarket Randwick’ site, comprising

 

·      Site establishment and remediation works throughout the site;

·      Demolition of existing stable buildings and associated structures and retention of the heritage listed

·      ‘Newmarket House’ and ‘Big Stable’ buildings;

·      Subdivision of the site into nine (9) development lots, one (1) public open space lot, and four (4) public road lots;

·      Construction and dedication of a new 5,006m2 Public Park;

·      Construction and dedication of six (6) new internal streets with on-street car parking;

·      Removal of  existing trees and provision of new public realm landscaping including new tree plantings, shrubs, groundcovers; and

·      Provision of new in-ground infrastructure including electrical, telecoms, sewer, gas and water throughout the site.

 

Site

 

The subject site includes a number of allotments comprising the following addresses and respective lot and DP numbers including:

 

Address:

Lot and DP number

164-174 Barker Street, Randwick

Corner Lot A, DP 330407 Newmarket Stable

158-162 Barker Street, Randwick

Corner Lot 1, DP 1041725 Pt Stable 2

156 Barker Street, Randwick

Lot 4 DP 165055

152-154 Barker Street, Randwick

Lot 1 DP 81877 & Lot 4 DP 1039981

150 Barker Street, Randwick

Lot 1, DP 932027

1 Jane Street, Randwick

Lot B DP 344447

18 Jane Street, Randwick

Lot 1 DP 85107

21 Jane Street, Randwick

Lot B DP 312682

181 Botany Street, Randwick

Lot 3 DP 1102370

8-12 Young Street, Randwick

Lot 1 DP 87614

14-20 Young Street

Corner Lot 3 DP 1041725

28 Young Street, Randwick

Part Lot 1 DP 541576

30 Young Street, Randwick

Part Lot 1 DP 541576

32-42 Young Street, Randwick

Lot 1 DP 1102864

 

The site comprises of a total site area of 5.063 ha and is bound by roads including Barker, Young, Middle, Jane Botany and Meeks Street. Topographically the site falls approximately 1 metre from west to east along the Barker Street frontage, 3 metres from north to south along the eastern end and is relatively flat from east to west along the southern end of the site. The existing improvements on the site comprise of a commercial animal boarding/training establishment and other ancillary structures associated with horse stabling varying in the number of storeys.

 

The immediate context of the subject site, to the north of Barker Street is the Neuroscience Research Australia buildings at 31.2 metres (as measured to the top of the plant rooms) and approval has been granted to extend the width of the existing Neurosciences Research Building further west to Hospital Road. To the east is the Randwick Girls High School, to the west along Botany Road and Jane Street is single and two storey dwelling houses and to the south (rear) is Paine Reserve and Rainbow Street Public School. See Figure 1 of the site and surrounds.    

 

 

1.0      Relevant History

Staged Development application No 88/2016 was the subject of a S34 agreement pursuant to the Land & Environment Court Act. The approved ‘Concept proposal” provided for a mixed use development on the subject site comprising the following:

 

·      Site preparation including demolition of structures, removal of vegetation and excavation

·      Road infrastructure and public domain conceptual layout

·      Subdivision into 9 development lots and one public open space lots

·      Four new public streets intersecting from Young, Jane and Botany Street

·      A set of built form controls (dwelling types, storeys, heights, setbacks and landscape areas) that will guide the form and character of buildings to be erected on the site

·      19 buildings which range from 2 to 8 storeys with an indicative number of 650-750 residential dwellings, retail and commercial uses including an urban plaza.

·      Provision of parking at the basement level in addition to on-street parking across the site

·      Adaptive re-use of the Newmarket House and the Big Stable Building

·      Site remediation and earthworks

 

The proposal also included a new 5,000sqm public park within the eastern precinct which is consistent in its location with Section 3.4: Open Space Network and Landscaping of the Newmarket Green DCP. The roads would also be dedicated to Council as part of the subdivision.

 

The approved scheme allowed an exceedance of the height at the northern end of the site in providing for a part 8 storey to the buildings fronting Barker St and included a voluntary planning agreement which also provides a 1.5% contribution of affordable housing and the transfer of the Big Stable and its curtilage to Council. The following figure indicates the approved buildings envelopes and the urban structure associated with the concept approval.

 

Submissions

 

The subject development was advertised/notified to surrounding landowners for a period of 14 days between 21 May 2014 and 4 June 2014 in accordance with Council’s DCP. As a result 7 submissions from the following properties were received. It is noted that the submissions received referenced both applications that were advertised at the same time, being the Infrastructure works DA (subject application) and the buildings proposed for E1 (DA the subject of the Sydney Central Planning panel repot). As such some of the issues raised below are more relevant to the Concept Plan approval and the DA for the E1 stage.

 

·      23 Wark Avenue, Pagewood

·      Resident of Barker St, Kingsford (request not include personal details)

·      111 Barker Street, Kingsford

·      112 Barker, Kingsford

·      Unit 6, 80 Middle Street, Randwick

·      88 Middle St, Randwick

·      No residential address provided

 

Issues

Comments

Lack of residential and retail car parking for the development & invalidity of the Green Travel Plan

The proposed development will provide car parking in accordance with the approved concept proposal which incorporated rates that are greater than those nominated in Green Travel Plan and it’s anticipated that they would cater for the likely demand generated by the development.

Potential vermin associated with a vacant site

A DA has also been submitted with Council for demolition of nominated buildings and site preparatory works. This is likely to commence in the next few months. Notwithstanding, the owner of the land is obliged to ensure that premises is not left in an unhealthy or unsafe state.

Inappropriate increase in density, size and scale of buildings

 

The proposed density is consistent with the Concept Plan approval and provides for buildings of a size and scale that are commensurate with that approval

Adverse impact of the increased demand on the transport & traffic network, social infrastructure services such as schools hospitals, child care and local amenities

The increased demand that would be placed on existing infrastructure by the proposed development was a matter for consideration at the rezoning stage and was deemed not to be an impediment to the increased density on the site. Since the rezoning, a light rail system will be provided close to the site, there has been traffic signalisation at the intersection of Barker & Botany streets and an expansion of Prince of Wales hospital has just been announced. Consent was also granted recently for the expansion of Rainbow St public school. As part of the Voluntary Planning Agreement the Applicant will also dedicate the “Big Stable” building to Council for the purposes of a community facility and will provide a public park. Council’s S94A plan also continues to apply and the Applicant will be required to contribute towards local infrastructure.

Housing needs should be provided in low scale terrace housing

The Concept approval makes provision for a range of housing types and scale of buildings.

Impact of high density on neighbouring residents

The amenity impacts associated with the proposed density are consistent with those anticipated by the zoning of the land & the Concept approval.

Overshadowing impacts on neighbouring properties

The overshadowing impacts from the proposal have been minimised by the site strategy which has two north -south oriented buildings separated by a retail plaza and the increased setbacks of the upper levels.

Construction traffic impact on road network

A suitable condition is included in the recommendation requiring a construction traffic management plan to be prepared to minimise any construction traffic impacts.

No cycle path being provided

The approved Concept Plan for the site did not include a dedicated cycle way as the connection to the existing streets meant that a limited road width was only available. However, the road network will operate under a low speed environment which is conducive to cycling. Bicycle storage facilities throughout the development will also be provided.

No consideration of light rail road closures, adverse traffic impact on intersections, & traffic study

As part of the consideration of the Concept Plan, Council engaged a traffic expert that assessed the proposal in the context of the changes to the road network as result of the light rail. Council’s traffic expert did not object to the overall traffic generation of the development as it was consistent with that envisaged by the rezoning of the site at its increased density. However, it was identified that there was a need for a study about traffic calming in Middle and Meeks St and that forms part of the Concept approval. Traffic lights at the intersection of Barker & Botany St were also constructed as part of the light rail works to address the capacity issue.

Impact on residents from new clearways

The Roads & Maritime Services (RMS) have required conditions of the consent to in the Concept approval consent requiring clearway restrictions at the Avoca & Barker St intersections.

Does not satisfy the objectives of the RLEP2012

The proposal is generally consistent with the aims of the plan. The proposed uses and built form will provide the housing and economic needs of the community whilst enhancing the aesthetic character and protecting the amenity of the local residents.

Building separation is inadequate

The proposal complies with the building separation requirements under the ADG

Unsympathetic to the heritage listed buildings

The Concept approval has a adopted a site strategy that locates taller building envelopes onto Barker St and for lower built forms to be situated nearer to the finer grain pattern of development in the Struggletown Conservation area. This approach will ensure a sympathetic relationship with the items of environmental heritage that exist on and around the site

 

Key Issues

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012:

The subject site is zoned B1 Neighourhood Centre & R1 Residential under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.  The proposal is permissible in the zone with Council’s consent. The proposed development will promote the aims of the LEP in relation to the aesthetic character, sustainability, environmental qualities and social amenity of the locality. The proposal is consistent with the specific zone objectives as it will facilitate development consistent with the Concept Plan approval ensuring the ongoing economic viability of the neighbourhood centre whilst protecting the residential amenity of the locality. 

 

6.16   Special provision—land at Young Street Randwick

(1)    This clause applies to land at Young Street, Randwick, shown as Area 1 on the Key Sites Map.

(2)    Despite clause 4.5 (3), but subject to the other provisions of clause 4.5, the land to which this clause applies is taken to be a single site area for the purposes of applying a floor space ratio.

(3)    The consent authority may approve development with a floor space ratio of up to 1.3:1 on the land to which this clause applies but only if the consent authority is satisfied that:

 

(a)  a part of the land will be used for recreational purposes, and

(b)  that part will be contiguous and will have an area of at least 5,000m2, and

(c)  the configuration and location of that part will be appropriate for those recreational purposes.

 

The Concept Plan approval has addressed the above provision by providing the public reserve in accordance with the above criteria.

 

Policy Controls

The following policy controls apply in the assessment of the proposed development and are elaborated upon in the section below:

 

•       Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 & Newmarket Green Randwick DCP

This DCP provides detailed guidance for development applications (DAs) to supplement the provisions of the Randwick Comprehensive Local Environmental Plan (RLEP). The DCP includes objectives and controls for ensuring well designed, quality land use and development within the Local Government Area (LGA) to enhance Randwick City as a vibrant community and desirable place to live, work and visit. The Newmarket Green DCP was prepared for the purpose of supplementing the Randwick Comprehensive DCP and to set site specific controls for the subject site. As such it represents the primary considerations in the assessment of any applications given they are particular to the site and it was derived from the planning proposal. The subsequent Concept Plan approval that was granted addressed the provisions of the site specific DCP and provides for another layer of specificity in terms of the site’s urban structure and resultant built form. The proposed infrastructure works are consistent with the Concept Plan approval.

 

Heritage

Council’s Heritage Planner has provided the following comments on the proposed development:

 

“ The Site

The site comprises the northern, southern and eastern precincts, with the eastern precinct containing the Newmarket Sale Ring, Big Stable and Newmarket House and garden.  The Big Stable is also listed on the State Register.  The site partly within, and adjacent to the Struggletown heritage conservation area.  There are a number of heritage items in the vicinity of the site including nos.84, 88 and 90 Middle Street, nos.11 and 15 Jane Street, and no.139 Botany Street, as well as Rainbow Street Public School. 

 

Background

The site has been the subject of a Heritage Assessment prepared by Godden Mackay Logan Heritage Consultants and an Aboriginal Archaeology Preliminary Assessment prepared by Mary Dallas Consulting Archaeologists, in conjunction with the preparation of a Master Plan and Development Control Plan for residential and mixed use of the previous horse sales and stabling facility.  The development of the Master Plan has addressed a number of heritage concerns to minimise impacts of the development on the heritage values of the site and surrounding area. 

 

DA/88/2016 comprising a Stage 1 development application for a concept master plan for the development of the site was approved in the Land and Environment Court in April 2017.  No approval was sought for demolition or construction which was to be sought by subsequent development applications.  The concept master plan includes subdivision into 9 development lots, building envelopes to accommodate 65,000 m2 of floor area, adaptive reuse of the Big Stable and Newmarket House, provision of basement and on street car parking, road infrastructure and public domain concept design.  The concept master plan proposes 19 buildings ranging in height from 2 – 8 storeys, accommodating approx.750 residential dwellings and 2,000m2 of commercial floor space, an urban plaza, a 5,000m2 public park, four new public streets and the extension of Jane Street, and adaptive reuse of the two heritage buildings for residential and/or commercial uses. 

 

Proposal

The current applicant proposes infrastructure works across the site including demolition, site remediation, subdivision and civil and road infrastructure, as follows:

·      Demolition of existing stable buildings and associated structures and retention of the heritage listed Newmarket House and the Big Stable.

·      Subdivision of the site into 9 development lots, one public open space lot and 4 public road lots. 

·      Construction and dedication of new public park. 

·      Construction and dedication of 6 new internal streets. 

·      Removal of 74 existing trees and provision of new public landscaping. 

·      Provision of in-ground infrastructure including electrical, gas, telecommunications, water, drainage and sewerage. 

 

Submission

The application has been accompanied by a Conservation Management Plan and Heritage Impact Statement prepared by OCP Architects and an Aboriginal Archaeology Report prepared by Mary Dallas Consulting Archaeologists. 

 

Aboriginal Archaeology Preliminary Assessment (Mary Dallas)

The Archaeological Assessment notes that there is a likelihood that the least disturbed parts of the site may retain archaeological evidence of the Aboriginal use of the area.  These sensitive areas are associated with remaining older buildings in the south east portion of the complex and the undeveloped portion of the site around the day car park, which include some of the areas covered by the Infrastructure DA.  The Assessment notes that geotechnical testing was conducted across the site in May 2016, but that the presence of cultural remains in the deposits cannot be known until a program of test excavation is undertaken.  The timing of these investigations is tied to the pre- and post- demolition phases of the project and the infrastructure works, as access to the subsurface deposits is currently limited by buildings and paved surfaces.  The test excavations will lead to final management outcomes for the site. 

 

The Assessment notes that the Office of Environment and Heritage will not issue an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit without an approved development application.  The Assessment notes that MDCA have commenced the process of Aboriginal community and government authority consultation required to support the AHIP application to OEH. 

 

          Heritage Impact Statement (OCP Architects)

The HIA addresses heritage impact in relation to Demolition, Subdivision, New streets, Trees, Streetscape and the Public Realm, and the Public Park.  In relation to Demolition, the HIS notes that existing buildings to be demolished are indicated on the Masterplan DA drawings.  In relation to Subdivision, the HIS notes that Newmarket House together with its northern garden and trees will have its own lot, and that the Big Stable lot will include new buildings, but that the DCP provides appropriate height and setback restrictions within the heritage curtilage.  In relation to New streets, the HIS notes that the street locations proposed in the Masterplan in most cases conform to the DCP road network.  In relation to Trees, the SHI notes that all trees identified in the DCP and on Council’s Register of Significant Trees are to be retained.  In relation to Streetscape and Public Realm, the HIS notes that high quality streets and public spaces will be created, retaining significant trees, and complementing heritage items and the heritage conservation area.  In relation to the Public Park, the HIS notes that the park will retain several significant trees and part of the modern sales yard as an interpretative device. 

 

The HIS notes that the Newmarket Green Masterplan Statement of Heritage Impact concluded that the Masterplan development would not adversely impact on the heritage values of the site.  The HIS concludes that as the proposal including the demolition of existing buildings, subdivision, new streets, tree removal and retention is consistent with the Masterplan, it is consistent with the heritage provisions of Randwick LEP and DCP and acceptable in heritage terms. 

 

          Conservation Management Plan (OCP Architects)

The final CMP which has been submitted which includes Comparative Analysis, floor plans, Schedules of significant elements, and detailing relating to a number of Conservation Policies.  A costed Cyclical Maintenance Plan has also been included. 

 

In relation to Interpretation, the CMP requires that a variety of methods be used to interpret the identified significant values and associations of the site.  The CMP recommends that methods include conservation, reconstruction, introduction of interpretative devices, use of historic photographs, preserving evidence of original finish and fabric and allowing access for specialist study and/or presentation in publications. 

 

          Interpretation Strategy (OCP Architects)

The submission which has been received notes that the Interpretation Strategy provides a site-wide interpretative philosophy for the site which will guide future Interpretation Plans for each development stage which will be submitted for approval prior to implementation on site.  The Interpretation Strategy identifies opportunities and constraints, interpretation themes and examples of interpretative actions (including signage, multimedia, interpretation in the landscaping and archaeology and moveable collections), as well as suggested locations for interpretation.  In terms of implementation, the Interpretation Strategy recommends that Council accept the Interpretation Strategy as a framework for the development of Interpretation Plans to guide the approach to interpretation of the site and inform the design of individual interpretation devices and associated installations.  An implementation strategy for the development on individual interpretation plans is provided. 

 

Approvals

As the Big Stable is listed on the State Heritage Register, the proposal involving works affecting the Big Stable, require Heritage Division approval.  As the Heritage Division of the Office of Environmental and Heritage is the consent authority, Council cannot issue development approval until the Heritage Division has provided conditions of consent. 

 

Comments

The GML Heritage Assessment recommended that the design of proposed new residential blocks adjacent to retained elements of heritage significance or the main residential concentration of Struggletown to be further developed (articulation and materials) to enhance compatibility with their context.  As the current development application for infrastructure works only, such design development will need to occur prior to subsequent das. 

 

Demolition

The submission includes a demolition plan of buildings and trees to be removed and retained.  Existing stable buildings and associated structures are to be removed and heritage listed Newmarket House and the Big Stable are to be retained.  The extent of demolition appears to be consistent with the Newmarket Green DCP.  The demolition plan indicates that the existing sales yard in front of Newmarket House is to be removed.  The Heritage Impact Statement however advises that the public park will retain part of the modern sales yard as an interpretative device.  Further clarification should be sought as to which parts of the modern sales yard are to be retained, given that the current development application includes construction and dedication of the new park. 

 

The GML Heritage Assessment notes that the Newmarket site contains three simple timber Round Yards that are important components of the overall historic functioning of the site.  The Heritage Assessment notes that two of the Round Yards are within the boundary of the main Newmarket site and the third is within the Struggletown conservation area.  The Master Plan proposed that the two Round Yards within the main Newmarket site were to be retained.  One round yard is located to the north of the recent administration building (northern round yard) and to other to the north of the Big Stable (southern round yard).  The demolition plans do not indicate the retention of either of timber round yards.  Similarly, Landscape drawings do not indicate how these two Round Yards within the main Newmarket site are to be either retained and either reused, or interpreted within the landscape. 

 

The northern round yard is to be removed to allow for the construction of the two blocks in the north east corner of the site.  The southern round yard, within the curtilage of the Big Stable is apparently also to be removed.  A submission from OCP Architects has now been received in relation to two structures to the north of the Big Stable identified by the Heritage Division of the Office of Environment and Planning- the southern round yard and a garbage bin enclosure.  In relation to the smaller structure at the Young Street boundary, the submission notes that this structure was constructed after 1986, is of no heritage significance and is not considered worthy of retention.  In relation to the larger structure, the submission notes that this structure was constructed prior to 1943, is of rudimentary design and construction, and is not considered worthy of retention.  The round yards comprise hardwood posts, and a timber framed corrugated iron roof over a round timber fenced enclosure for corralling horses.  There are concerns that the removal of the two round yards will forgo the opportunity to either retain in situ or dismantle and reconstruct these structures, which may lend themselves for use as shade structures either within the public park or adjacent to the Big Stable, and which have important interpretative value. 

 

Subdivision

The submission includes subdivision plans indicating 9 development lots, one public open space lot and 4 public road lots.  Lot 38 which includes Newmarket House has a quadrant shaped boundary to the adjacent public park which generally reflects the existing curtilage in front of Newmarket House which is defined by the sales yard structures.  This boundary excludes the front garden of Newmarket House from the public park, allowing for the provision of fencing which retains the curtilage and setting of the heritage item.  Lot 39 which includes the Big Stable does not reflect its mapped curtilage under the Randwick LEP 2012, or its State Heritage Register listing.  The lot boundary provides minimal curtilage to the north of the Big Stable potentially limiting its useability.  It is unclear where parking for the Big Stable is to be accommodated.  The Heritage Division will provide comment on the appropriateness of the proposed Big Stable lot boundary. 

 

Construction and dedication of new public park

The submission includes a Landscape Report and Drawings which provide additional detail relating to the public park.  Drawings note “retain existing structure and transform reuse as a large scale play element.”  The demolition plan however indicates that the existing sales yard in front of Newmarket House is to be removed.  Perspectives indicate that the structure of the sales yard building including columns and trusses are to be retained, with the roof cladding removed.  Below the structure are to be accommodated play spaces including water jets and table tennis as well as mesh bridges and tubular slides. 

 

The public park incorporating the Sales Ring precinct is part of a view corridor from Barker Street towards the Big Stable.  The proposed play structures below the sale ring will have greater transparency than the existing roof cladding, and will not further interrupt the view corridor.  To the north east of the sales yard structure, it is proposed to provide a “community bbq and seating area with a series of outdoor garden rooms.”  It is unclear whether the proposed garden rooms are to be roofed, and further detail is required to clarify this issue and whether or not other shade structures are proposed within the public park which could impact on the view corridor.  As it appears that the sales yard structure is to be retained, the demolition plan should be amended accordingly. 

 

The public park is required to incorporate opportunities for interpretation of the broader history of the site and the sale ring in particular.  Further detail is also required of interpretative material which is to be incorporated into the construction of the park, prior to its dedication. 

 

Construction and dedication of 6 new internal streets

The submission includes subdivision plans and Civil Works drawings indicating the proposed internal streets.  The position and dimensions of new internal streets appears to be consistent with the Newmarket Green DCP. 

 

The GML Heritage Assessment notes that the Young Street sandstone kerb and guttering, dating from 1879 is of local heritage significance.  The HIS advises that public domain features such as the Young Street stone kerbing will be retained where feasible and incorporated into the new development. 

 

The sandstone kerb and guttering have been inspected by Council’s Co-ordinator Development Engineer and the Senior Development Manager Cbus Property.  The inspection revealed that sandstone gutters are in poor condition and that retention and repair of gutters would not address longevity, maintenance and liability issues.  The inspection revealed that sandstone kerbing can be retained and repaired in certain locations along Young Street.  It was proposed to pour new concrete gutters to the existing sandstone kerbing.  Landscape drawings should be provided to indicate the extent of existing sandstone kerbing to be conserved in conjunction with the pouring of new concrete guttering in Young Streets and surrounding streets, where existing road alignments are to be maintained.  Any sandstone kerb stones which are removed for protection during construction works are to be salvaged and stored for repair and reuse.  Repair of existing sandstone kerbing is to be carefully carried out by a suitably experienced stonemason in order to conserve the integrity of existing kerb stones and to maximise the extent of sandstone kerbing to be retained.  The sandstone gutters include incised channels to direct water flow and should be the subject of an archival recording prior to removal. 

 

Removal of 74 existing trees and provision of new public landscaping

The submission includes a demolition plan and Landscape drawings which indicate trees to be removed and retained.  Council’s Landscape Development Officer has confirmed that the Arborist’s Report which has been submitted conformed that no significant trees are to be removed.  There appear to be some discrepancies between the drawings however, in relation to several trees on the eastern boundary of the site adjacent to the Sales Ring and a group of trees along the eastern boundary adjacent to Barker Street. 

 

          Interpretation

An Interpretation Strategy for the site has now been prepared to guide interpretation of the broader history of the site and the sale ring in particular, especially its use over the last 140 years for horse sales.  Detailed Interpretation Plans providing interpretative media and locations for interpretative devices are then required for individual development stages, so that installation can be implemented in conjunction with the works.  The Interpretation Strategy identifies the public park as one of the key locations for interpretation.  The Interpretation Plan for Infrastructure Works is now required in order to inform the landscape design of the public park and sale ring precinct.  An appropriate consent condition should be included. 

 

Provision of in-ground infrastructure including electrical, gas, telecommunications, water, drainage and sewerage 

The submission includes Civil Works drawings including sections and services co-ordination plans.  Excavation for in-ground services and for construction of the new roads may impact on Aboriginal and Historical Archaeological resources on the site. 

 

In relation to Aboriginal Archaeology, the MDCA Archaeological Assessment notes that there is a likelihood that the least disturbed parts of the site may retain archaeological evidence of the Aboriginal use of the area.  Test excavation is required in conjunction with the pre- and post- demolition and infrastructure phases of the project which are covered by the current development application.  The Assessment notes that the Office of Environment and Heritage will not issue an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit without an approved development application.  An appropriate consent condition should be included. 

 

In relation to Historical Archaeology, the GML Heritage Assessment has assessed the various parts of the site for the potential of archaeological remains.  The HA provides a table of documented features and a site plan indicating areas of High, Moderate and Low archaeological potential.  The HA provides a recommendation in relation to Historical Archaeology and an appropriate consent condition should be included. 

 

Conclusion

 

Clarification is required in relation to the retention of existing sale yard structures within the public park, the extent of proposed roofed structures within the public park, retention of existing sandstone kerbing, and retention of existing trees, and amended drawings are to be submitted. 

 

An Interpretation Plan is required in order to inform the landscape design of the public park and sale ring precinct.  There are concerns in relation to the proposed removal of the two round yards which were to be retained under the Masterplan.  An appropriate condition should be included.”

 

In relation to the encroachment into the curtilage of the Big Stable, this has resulted from the approved loop road that will provide better permeability through the site. The loop road was also required to provide greater legibility and allows the proposed buildings along the eastern edge of the site to have direct pedestrian access form a public road. The NSW Heritage Office approval is set out below:

 

As delegate of the Heritage Council of NSW (the Heritage Council), I have considered the above integrated development application. In accordance with Section 91A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the following terms of approval are proposed to be granted:

 

1.    Development must be in accordance with:

 

(a)    Architectural Drawings prepared by: at & l

 

Dwg. No.

Drawing Title

Date

Rev

Project Name: Newmarket Green Randwick

SKC 053

Infrastructure Staging Plan Sheet 2

10/04/2017

P1

(b)    Report entitled Newmarket Green Randwick Infrastructure and Public Realm Works, prepared by Bates Smart, dated September 2016.

(c)    The Big Stable & Newmarket House Conservation Management Plan prepared by OCP Architects Pty Ltd Issue C dated September 2016.

(d)    Aboriginal Archaeological Heritage Assessment Newmarket Green Infrastructure DA prepared by MDCA dated September 2016.

(e)    Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Urbis dated September 2016

(f)     Submissions to Public Notification of IDA Application.

 

EXCEPT AS AMENDED by the conditions of this approval:

 

2.       A schedule of repair and maintenance works shall be submitted to and approved by the Heritage Council or its delegate prior to the construction certificate being issued for the works related to this application. The approved schedule of works shall be carried out as part of the project prior to the dedication of the proposed road to Randwick Council.

3.       A landscaping plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Heritage Council or its delegate prior to the commencement of the construction works for Stage 1A.

4.       A suitably qualified and experienced heritage consultant must be nominated for this project. The nominated heritage consultant must provide input into the detailed design and supervise the works to minimise impacts to heritage values. The nominated heritage must be consulted prior to the selection of appropriate tradespersons, and must be satisfied that all work has been carried out in accordance with the conditions of this consent.

5.       Heritage Council approval is required at any development application stage where proposed works will disturb land likely to contain archaeological remains and for works within the Big Stable curtilage.

6.       Significant elements are to be adequately protected during the works from potential damage. Protection systems must ensure historic fabric is not damaged or removed.

7.       The Applicant must ensure that if unexpected archaeological deposits or relics not identified and considered in the supporting documents for this approval are discovered, work must cease in the affected area(s) and the Heritage Council of NSW must be notified. Additional assessment and approval may be required prior to works continuing in the affected area(s) based on the nature of the discovery.

8.       Should any Aboriginal ‘objects’ be uncovered by the work, excavation or disturbance of the area is to stop immediately and the Office of Environment & Heritage is to be informed in accordance with Section 89A of the National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1974 (as amended). Works affecting Aboriginal ‘objects’ on the site must not continue until the Office of Environment and Heritage has been informed. Aboriginal ‘objects’ must be managed in accordance with the National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1974.

COMPLIANCE

9.       Officers of the Office of Environment and Heritage, Heritage Division are to be permitted entry to the site at any time as a condition of this approval and may photograph, take samples or request records in relation to any aspects of the approved activity.

10.     The Applicant and the nominated Heritage Consultant may be required to participate in random audits of Heritage Council approvals to confirm compliance with conditions of consent at any time.

SECTION 60 APPLICATION:

11.     An application under section 60 of the Heritage Act 1977 must be submitted to and approved by the Delegate of the Heritage Council of NSW prior to work commencing.

 

Suitable conditions are included in the recommendation to address the matters raised by the NSW Heritage Office & Council’s Heritage Planner.

 

SEPP 55 Remediation of Land

Council’s Environmental Health Officer has provided the following comments on the proposed remediation of the site:

 

Proposed Development:

Proposed stage 2 integrated development for infrastructure works including site enabling works with demolition, site remediation, removal of trees, subdivision and provision of civil and road infrastructure, in-ground infrastructure and new park.

 

Comments:

 

The matter was listed before the Land and Environment Court (Appeal No: 2016/249149). Environmental Health Conditions were agreed upon referenced: D02981970 and L&E Court Appeal No 2016/249149. These conditions have been copied below and reformatted to suit. Additional information has been submitted, reference D02981723.

 

Land Contamination

A preliminary investigation contamination report prepared by Douglas Partners (project 71659.03) dated June 2015 was submitted with the development application, which identifies that the site may be contaminated. The report concludes that based on the results of the contamination investigation, it is considered that the site, for the most part, is suitable for future residential and open space land uses, subject to appropriate management of identified contamination. It was also identified that detailed site investigations were required.

 

Subsequently a Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) on contamination was prepared by Douglas Partners (project no. 71659.04) dated July 2016. Based on the results of the current DSI and previous investigations, EHU considered that the site can be made suitable for future residential and open space land uses, subject to appropriate management of identified contamination in soil and groundwater.

 

Sources of contamination identified include the former dry cleaner site where there are underground storage tanks and a localised plume of perchloroethylene was identified. This source of contamination is proposed to be removed under DA/347/2016 as per the remedial action plan (RAP) prepared by ME Tech Consulting (Project no. EP39-RP02) dated 17 May 2016. It is noted that the DA is just to remove tanks and no remediation was undertaken as part of the works.

 

Hydrocarbons have been identified in the groundwater and it is noted that the nearby source is from the 7 Eleven, has an obligation under their voluntary management plan to continue treatment and monitoring of groundwater contamination as regulated by NSW EPA.

 

The DSI envisages that further management and monitoring of the identified contamination will be required which is to include but not limited to the preparation of an RAP for the entire site, implementation and validation of the RAP and implementation of an acid sulfate soils (ASS) management plan where it is identified that disturbance of ASS will occur.

 

Following the DSI a RAP has been prepared by Douglas Partners (project no. 71659.08) dated September 2016 with details of the remedial strategies considered to be the most appropriate for practicality and cost effectiveness.

 

Based on the staged development and the complexity and extent of contamination it is agreed that a site auditor be required to review the investigations and the proposed remediation strategies. Accordingly, Site Audit Statements’ (SAS) will be required.

 

Suitable conditions are included in the recommendation to address the matter raised above.

 

Landscape design

Council’s Landscape Officer has provide the following comments on the proposed retention & removal of trees on the site and design of the new park:

 


 

Tree Management

The original Arborists Report dated 12/02/16 assessed a total of 169 trees for this development, both within the subject site, on existing nature strips and neighbouring private properties/close to common boundaries; of which, 75 were nominated for removal, comprising 3 with a ‘high priority for retention’, 50 with a ‘medium’ rating, 15 that should be ‘considered for removal’ and 7 with a ‘priority for removal’.

 

Given the large quantity of trees at this site, as well as uncertainty over exactly what will be able to be retained and what will need to be removed, conditions in this report require that, before consent is granted for any tree removal, the applicant will be required to submit a separate Masterplan for Council’s approval, where they will demonstrate that removal of each tree is warranted and justified, with adequate replacement planting will be provided in their place.

 

Conversely, 59 trees were identified for retention, including 21 with a ‘priority for retention’, 29 that should ‘considered for retention’, and 9 that should be ‘considered for removal’. 

 

As only a Preliminary Arborist Report and covering letter have been provided up until this point in time, conditions require the submission of a final, detailed Arboricultural Impact Assessment, including a Tree Protection Plan and Specification, along with a Pruning Specification, for Council’s approval, and will need to elaborate on the current recommendation that where either demolition or excavation works are proposed within the TPZ of any trees being retained, tree-sensitive construction methods be employed so as to minimize any impacts. Importantly, both the Arborists Report & Arborists covering letter confirm that a total of 12 trees at this site are included in Council’s Register of Significant Trees, all of which will be protected, retained, and incorporated as existing site features into the works, and is non-negotiable as part of any approval issued for this site.

 

Planting/Street trees

There are existing street trees within the grass verges of several frontages, including Jacaranda’s in Barker Street, Peppercorns in Young Street, a variety of species in Middle Street, with no trees within Jane Street due to a lack of available space in the verges.

 

The applicant has been previously advised that in order to streamline the transition between existing streetscapes and new areas, existing themes should be retained and supplemented where possible, and were directed to Council’s Street Tree Masterplan in order to inform species selection.

 

However, while the documentation shows both the removal and retention of existing street trees throughout the site, it is unlikely that these same plans have considered the additional impact of the major civil works that Council’s Development Engineers are requiring be performed in these same areas; including the construction of new public footpaths, kerb and gutter, road widening, stormwater/hydraulic services, as well as the undergrounding of power, all of which would involve major excavations that would require their removal.

 

To clarify this issue, conditions require that once the applicant has reviewed all conditions, a Street Tree Management Plan must then be provided for Council’s approval so that a clear picture is provided of exactly what will be able to be retained and what will need to be removed.

 

Council’s Coordinator Tree Management was consulted on these issues and expressed his preference that all street tree removals be performed by Council, wholly at the applicant’s cost; however, all new street trees can be provided by the applicant, providing by the applicant, providing that they meet all of Council’s specifications.

Park/playground

A new publicly accessible 5,006sqm Public Park in the eastern part of the site will be dedicated to Council, including a new playground, open spaces, feature trees and decorative mass-planting.

 

Major features of this space will include the retention of large and significant listed Fig Trees and a Norfolk island Pine, with the Sales Ring to be ‘reinterpreted’ and converted into an interactive children’s playground, along with other facilities such as BBQ, pergola’s and seating, all for future public use.

 

Council’s Coordinator of Open Space Assets & Landscape Architect were both consulted on these aspects of the proposal, with their feedback having been incorporated as conditions in this report, and requires that additional information/amended plans be provided for Council’s approval to ensure that all items to be dedicated meet our requirements.”

 

The matters raise above are suitably addressed by proposed conditions of consent.

 

Road & Drainage Infrastructure

Council’s Development Engineer has provided the following comments on the civil infrastructure:

 

“Drainage Comments

The development site was the subject of a Stage 1 Application (DA/88/2016). The development consent for DA/88/2016 established the critical drainage conditions. The drainage conditions within this report are consistent with the development consent for DA/88/2016. Conditions relating to the preparation of a design and construction specification for all drainage related civil works have been included within this report.

 

Conditions relating to the design of internal drainage systems for the individual development lots (including onsite detention requirements) will be included in any development consents for the development lots.

 

Council must be the PCA for works the subject of this development consent. Council will not accept dedication of any drainage infrastructure (or civil works in general) that have not been constructed in accordance with the approved specification.

 

Parking Comments

This infrastructure DA relates to the provision of civil infrastructure within the site and surrounds. A condition of consent requiring the applicant to identify proposed on-street parking spaces and to demonstrate compliance with the consent for DA/88/2016 has been included within this report.

 

Service Authority Comments

All power / communications services must be located underground. Conditions requiring amendment to existing overhead cables and provision of all new cables underground have been included within this report. Standard service authority conditions have been included within this report.

 

Paving/surfacing/streetscape

While a site specific design and material selection would be accepted for the Barker Street frontage in order to present the development to the public domain, Council’s Manager of Technical Services have confirmed that while being a ‘high-end finish’, they would not accept exposed aggregate in any public footpaths due to concerns over future matching/damage from service trenching and similar, and as such, the civil conditions specify that standard finishes be applied to all public areas.”

 

The above matters addressed by suitable conditions included in the recommendation.

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

 

The proposed development will be subject to a VPA that will provide Council with a range of community assets that will require ongoing expenditure and future budget allocations.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed infrastructure works and establishment of the public park are consistent with the Concept Plan approval for the site. The proposed development satisfies the relevant statutory assessment criteria and will result in an urban structure that will provide greater permeability and an enhanced public domain. As such, the application is recommended for approval.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 662/2016 for Stage 2 integrated development application for infrastructure works comprising site enabling works including demolition, site remediation, removal of existing trees, subdivision and provision of civil and road infrastructure works including new internal roads, in-ground infrastructure, and construction of a new public park at No. 150-174 Barker St & 181 Botany St & 1-7,18-21 Jane St & 8-20, 28-42 Young St, Randwick, subject to the following 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

SKC053 - Issue P1 - Infrastructure Staging Plan Sheet 2 -

At&l

20-02-17

SKC052 Issue P1 - Infrastructure Staging Plan Sheet 1

At&l

20-02-17

SKC050 Issue P1 - 1% AEP Peak Water Level Plan

At&l

20-02-17

C087 Issue A - ST3 Street Overtaking Turning Path Plan

At&l

24-11-16

C086 Issue A - ST2 Street Overtaking Turning Path Plan

At&l

24-11-16

C085 Issue B - Lot N1, S2 & S3 Turning Path Plan

At&l

09-09-16

C084 Issue C - ST1 Street Turning Path Plan

At&l

10-04-17

C083 Issue C - Jane Street & ST2 Street Turning Path Plan

At&l

24-11-16

C082 Issue C - Jane Street, RL1 Street & ST3 Street Turning Path Plan Sheet 3

At&l

24-11-16

C081 Issue C - Jane Street, RL1 Street & ST3 Street Turning Path Plan Sheet 2

At&l

28-11-16

C080 Issue D - Jane Street, RL1 Street & ST3 Street Turning Path Plan Sheet 1

At&l

28-11-16

C079 Issue B - Botany Street &  DV1 Street Turning Path Plan

At&l

09-09-16

C078 Issue C - DV1 Street, Jane Street & RL1 Street Turning Path Plan Sheet 2

At&l

28-11-16

C077 Issue C - DV1 Street, Jane Street & RL1 Street Turning Path Plan Sheet 1

At&l

28-11-16

C076 Issue B - Young Street, ST1 & DV1 Street Turning Path Plan Sheet 2

At&l

09-09-16

C075 Issue B - Young Street, ST1 & DV1 Street Turning Path Plan Sheet 1

At&l

09-09-16

C074 Issue C - Young Street &  ST3 Street Turning Path Plan

At&l

24-11-16

C073 Issue C - Young Street-Middle Street Turning Path Plan

At&l

24-11-16

C072 Issue C - Young Street, ST1 & ST2 Street Turning Path Plan Sheet 2

At&l

24-11-16

C071 Issue C - Young Street, ST1 & ST2 Street Turning Path Plan Sheet 1

At&l

24-11-16

C070 Issue B - Barker Street-Young Street Turning Path Plan

At&l

09-09-16

C062 Issue B - Sedimentation & Erosion Control Details

At&l

09-09-16

C061 Issue D - Sedimentation & Erosion Control Plan Sheet 2

At&l

10-04-17

C060 Issue C - Sedimentation & Erosion Control Plan Sheet 1

At&l

10-04-17

C055 Issue C - Services Co-Ordination Plan Sheet 6

At&l

10-04-17

C054 Issue D - Services Co-Ordination Plan Sheet 5

At&l

10-04-17

C053 Issue D - Services Co-Ordination Plan Sheet 4

At&l

10-04-17

C052 Issue E - Services Co-Ordination Plan Sheet 3

At&l

10-04-17

C051 Issue D - Services Co-Ordination Plan Sheet 2

At&l

10-04-17

C050 Issue C - Services Co-Ordination Plan Sheet 1

At&l

10-04-17

C045 Issue C - Pavement, Signage & Linemarking Plan Sheet 6

At&l

10-04-17

C044 Issue D - Pavement, Signage & Linemarking Plan Sheet 5

At&l

10-04-17

C043 Issue D - Pavement, Signage & Linemarking Plan Sheet 4

At&l

10-04-17

C042 Issue D - Pavement, Signage & Linemarking Plan Sheet 3

At&l

10-04-17

C041 Issue D - Pavement, Signage & Linemarking Plan Sheet 2

At&l

10-04-17

C040 Issue C - Pavement, Signage & Linemarking Plan Sheet 1

At&l

18-11-16

C032 Issue B - Road Longitudinal Sections Sheet 3

At&l

09-09-16

C031 Issue B - Road Longitudinal Sections Sheet 2

At&l

09-09-16

C030 Issue B - Road Longitudinal Sections Sheet 1

At&l

09-09-16

C025 Issue D - Siteworks Stormwater Drainage Plan Sheet 6

At&l

10-04-17

C024 Issue E - Siteworks Stormwater Drainage Plan Sheet 5

At&l

10-04-17

C023 Issue E - Siteworks Stormwater Drainage Plan Sheet 4

At&l

10-04-17

C022 Issue F - Siteworks Stormwater Drainage Plan Sheet 3

At&l

10-04-17

C021 Issue D - Siteworks Stormwater Drainage Plan Sheet 2

At&l

10-04-17

C020 Issue C - Siteworks Stormwater Drainage Plan Sheet 1

At&l

18-11-17

C016 Issue B - Stormwater Details Sheet 2

At&l

09/09/16

C015 Issue B - Stormwater Details Sheet 1

At&l

09/09/16

C010 Issue B - Siteworks Details

At&l

09/09/16

C008 Issue D - Typical Cross Sections Sheet 4

At&l

10-04-17

C007 Issue E - Typical Cross Sections Sheet 3

At&l

10-04-17

C006 Issue D - Typical Cross Sections Sheet 2

At&l

10-04-17

C005 Issue D - Typical Cross Sections Sheet 1

At&l

10-04-17

C003 Issue F - General Arrangement Plan

At&l

10-04-17

C002 Issue C - Notes & Legend

At&l

18/11/17

 

 

Heritage conditions

2.       There are discrepancies between the demolition and landscape plans regarding retention of the Sales Yard structure within the public park.  Amended demolition and landscape plans should clarify which parts of the sales yard structure are to be retained, given that the current development application includes construction and dedication of the new park.  Amended drawings are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. 

 

3.       The public park incorporating the Sales Ring precinct is part of a view corridor from Barker Street towards the Big Stable.  Further detail is required to clarify the detail of the proposed outdoor garden rooms to the north east of the sales yard structure, including whether or not the proposed garden rooms are to be roofed, and whether other shade structures are proposed within the public park which could impact on the view corridor.  Additional drawings are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. 

 

4.       There are discrepancies between the demolition and landscape plans regarding retention of existing trees, particularly in relation to several trees on the eastern boundary of the site adjacent to the Sales Ring and a group of trees along the eastern boundary adjacent to Barker Street.  Amended demolition and landscape plans, consistent with the Arborist’s Report, should clarify which existing trees are to be retained.  Amended drawings are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. 

 

5.       An Interpretation Plan for the public park and sale ring precinct site is to be prepared to guide interpretation of the broader history of the site and the sale ring in particular, especially its use over the last 140 years for horse sales.  The Interpretation Plan is to be based on the Interpretation Strategy prepared by OCP Architects and is to include interpretative media, locations for interpretative devices, text, images and design details.  The Interpretation Plan is to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.  The Interpretation Plan is to be implemented in conjunction with the infrastructure works including the constrcut8in of the public park. 

 

6.       Landscape and demolition drawings should be provided to indicate the extent of existing sandstone kerbing to be conserved in conjunction with the pouring of new concrete guttering in Young Streets and surrounding streets, where existing road alignments are to be maintained.  Any sandstone kerb stones which are removed for protection during construction works are to be salvaged and stored for repair and reuse.  Details of the storage location/locations are to be provided in the Demolition and Construction Waste Management Plan (WMP) which must be developed and implemented for the development.  Repair of existing sandstone kerbing is to be carefully carried out by a suitably experienced stonemason in order to conserve the integrity of existing kerb stones and to maximise the extent of sandstone kerbing to be retained.  Amended drawings are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. 

 

7.       An Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 is required prior to work commencing.  A copy of the required archaeological excavation permit under the National Parks and Wildlife Act, shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. 

 

8.       Consultation with the Aboriginal community in relation to the proposal works is required in accordance with the Aboriginal cultural heritage consultation requirements for proponents 2010.

 

9.       Heritage Council approval is required as the proposed works will disturb land likely to contain historical archaeological remains.  A copy of the excavation permit required under Section 140 of the Heritage Act, 1977, shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. 

 

10.     The two existing round yards on the site shall be dismantled and reconstructed for use as shade structures within the public park given their important interpretative value.  Details to be submitted to Council’s Heritage Planner for approval prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

11.     Consideration should be given to relocation of a representative example of the twentieth century stable building designed by Timothy Court and Company to Warwick Farm but should recorded prior to removal.

 

NSW HERITAGE OFFICE GTAs

12(a)          Development must be in accordance with:

 

(g)                Architectural Drawings prepared by: at & l

 

Dwg. No.

Drawing Title

Date

Rev

Project Name: Newmarket Green Randwick

SKC 053

Infrastructure Staging Plan Sheet 2

10/04/2017

P1

(h)      Report entitled Newmarket Green Randwick Infrastructure and Public Realm     Works, prepared by Bates Smart, dated September 2016.

(i)            The Big Stable & Newmarket House Conservation Management Plan prepared by       OCP Architects Pty Ltd Issue C dated September 2016.

(j)            Aboriginal Archaeological Heritage Assessment Newmarket Green Infrastructure        DA prepared by MDCA dated September 2016.

(k)      Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Urbis dated September 2016

(l)            Submissions to Public Notification of IDA Application.

 

EXCEPT AS AMENDED by the conditions of this approval:

 

A schedule of repair and maintenance works shall be submitted to and approved by the Heritage Council or its delegate prior to the construction certificate being issued for the works related to this application. The approved schedule of works shall be carried out as part of the project prior to the dedication of the proposed road to Randwick Council.

 

A landscaping plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Heritage Council or its delegate prior to the commencement of the construction works for Stage 1A.

 

A suitably qualified and experienced heritage consultant must be nominated for this project. The nominated heritage consultant must provide input into the detailed design and supervise the works to minimise impacts to heritage values. The nominated heritage must be consulted prior to the selection of appropriate tradespersons, and must be satisfied that all work has been carried out in accordance with the conditions of this consent.

 

Heritage Council approval is required at any development application stage where proposed works will disturb land likely to contain archaeological remains and for works within the Big Stable curtilage.

 

Significant elements are to be adequately protected during the works from potential damage. Protection systems must ensure historic fabric is not damaged or removed.

 

The Applicant must ensure that if unexpected archaeological deposits or relics not identified and considered in the supporting documents for this approval are discovered, work must cease in the affected area(s) and the Heritage Council of NSW must be notified. Additional assessment and approval may be required prior to works continuing in the affected area(s) based on the nature of the discovery.

 

Should any Aboriginal ‘objects’ be uncovered by the work, excavation or disturbance of the area is to stop immediately and the Office of Environment & Heritage is to be informed in accordance with Section 89A of the National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1974 (as amended). Works affecting Aboriginal ‘objects’ on the site must not continue until the Office of Environment and Heritage has been informed. Aboriginal ‘objects’ must be managed in accordance with the National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1974.

 

COMPLIANCE

Officers of the Office of Environment and Heritage, Heritage Division are to be permitted entry to the site at any time as a condition of this approval and may photograph, take samples or request records in relation to any aspects of the approved activity.

 

The Applicant and the nominated Heritage Consultant may be required to participate in random audits of Heritage Council approvals to confirm compliance with conditions of consent at any time.

 

SECTION 60 APPLICATION:

An application under section 60 of the Heritage Act 1977 must be submitted to and approved by the Delegate of the Heritage Council of NSW prior to work commencing.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO ABOVE GROUND BUILDING WORKS COMMENCING OR ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE OR SUBDIVISION

The following conditions of consent must be complied with during the remediation and earth works.

 

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.

 

12.     A SAS section (A) and Summary Site Audit Report (SSAR) is to be provided to the Council prior to the issue of any subdivision certificate/construction certificate for building work (other than shoring work, piling work, retaining structures or any other work which is necessary to carry out remediation works) in each stage of the development, to certify that the site is suitable for its intended uses.

 

It is noted that any proposed development and remediation strategies must be undertaken in such a manner that minimise the potential for cross contamination of land and ground water during the staged the development.

 

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

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

Section 94A Development Contributions

14.     In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 21 April 2015, based on the development cost of $18,498,519 the following applicable monetary levy must be paid to Council: $184,985,19.00

 

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 9093 6999 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

15.     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.

 

16.     Prior to the lodgment of a Construction Certificate Council must be appointed the Principal Certifying Authority for all works the subject of this development application.

 

17.     Prior to the lodgment of a Construction Certificate Council must appoint a suitably qualified Certifying Authority to provide the private certification services for the civil works the subject of this development application. The Certifying Authority shall be selected in consultation with the applicant and shall be to the satisfaction of both the applicant and Council.

 

18.     Prior to the lodgment of a Construction Certificate a detailed Service Agreement between Council, (as the PCA), the Certifying Authority and the applicant must be developed and ratified by all parties. This Service Agreement will specify the level of certification and documentation required prior to the issuing of any Occupation Certificate or any Subdivision Certificate for any stage of the development. Together with all relevant conditions of this development consent the service agreement must be referenced and complied with prior to issuing any Occupation Certificate or Subdivision Certificate. The Service Agreement must reference compliance certificates, works as executed plans/drawings and certification of public utility services as a minimum.

 

Security Deposit

19.     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:

 

·           $25,000.00 -      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.

 

Electricity Substation

20.     The applicant must liaise with Ausgrid prior to obtaining a construction certificate (for any above ground works), to determine whether or not an electricity substation is required for the development. Any electricity substation required for the site as a consequence of this development shall be located within a development lot, (i.e. not in any road reserve or recreational area), and shall be screened from view. The proposed location and elevation shall be shown on relevant construction certificate and landscape plans.

 

Undergrounding of Power

21.     The applicant shall meet the full cost of the removal and/or placing underground of any existing overhead power lines and telecommunication cables located within Young Street, the Jane Street frontage to the site and the southern side of the Barker Street frontage to the site. All redundant power poles are to be removed. The applicant shall liaise directly with the relevant service utility authorities to organise for the wires/cables to be relocated. All wires/cables must be relocated underground to the satisfaction of the relevant service utility authority and all new power lines and telecommunication cables required to serve any further development on the site must be located underground. The Construction Certificate plans must demonstrate compliance with this requirement. No Occupation Certificate or Subdivision Certificate will be issued until it is clearly demonstrated that this condition has been complied with to the satisfaction of Council.

 

Sydney Water

22.     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 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/tapin

 

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

 

Construction Specification

23.     Prior to the lodgement of any Construction Certificate for the proposed works the applicant shall submit to Council for approval, and have approved, engineering details, specifications, plans and quality plans for all filling/excavation works, drainage construction works, roadworks, kerb and gutter construction, footpath construction, construction of earth retaining structures, landscaping works and site regrading, (including detailed levels, contours and cross sections that make reference to both existing and proposed surface levels). The engineering details and specifications shall specifically relate to those areas within the development site that are either currently Council controlled assets or are proposed for dedication to Council and shall include level and survey information, materials to be used, construction techniques and testing procedures and shall be prepared in consultation with Council. Particular reference is made to the treatment and reuse of sandstone kerb in Young Street. Reference is also made to the likely deletion of permeable pavement from the application. The engineering details and specifications must be prepared by suitably qualified engineering consultants who must certify that the details and specifications meet best engineering practice and relevant standards. The applicant must liaise with Council’s Development Engineer Coordinator prior to preparation of the subject details/specification. Note: Council will not take dedication of any area/infrastructure that has not been constructed in strict compliance with the approved details/specification.

 

24.     The minimum design serviceable life for all granular road pavement base courses shall be 100 years with a 25 year design serviceable life for asphalt wearing courses, (with the minimum design traffic ESA’s determined from the development’s traffic modelling) and designed in accordance with AUSTROADS PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL DESIGN GUIDE. All other infrastructure i.e. kerb and gutter, footpaths, pipe drainage etc shall be in accordance with Council standard drawings.  Structural elements including retaining walls, customised drainage structures, bridges etc shall have a minimum design serviceable life of 80 years. The specification and engineering details prepared for the Construction Certificate Application/s must demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

25.     Council requires that all new stormwater pipelines be of sufficient capacity to provide for a storm recurrence interval of 20 years (5% AEP event) with an overland floodway that is to be capable of containing the critical 1%AEP event (1 in 100 year flood) within the boundaries of the road reserves or drainage easements / reserves. Landscaping and site works over such pipes, easements or reserves must ensure that the natural floodway or water course is not blocked or altered in such a way to flood private properties. No buildings or structures must be located within the road reserves, easements or drainage reserves.

 

26.     Prior to lodging a Construction Certificate the applicant must submit to Council a detailed staging plan for the provision of civil infrastructure within the development site. The staging plan must be prepared in consultation with Council and the applicant shall be responsible for meeting all costs associated with construction of civil infrastructure in accordance with the approved staging plan and the approved engineering details, specifications, plans and quality plans for all filling/excavation works, drainage construction works, roadworks, kerb and gutter construction, footpath construction, construction of earth retaining structures, landscaping works and site regrading.

 

27.     Prior to lodging a Construction Certificate the applicant must submit to Council a detailed staging plan for subdivision of the development site. The staging plan must be prepared in consultation with Council and must include full documentation on the required certification / compliance certificates to be obtained prior to the issuing of each Subdivision Certificate.

 

Drainage and Flooding

28.     Prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate the applicant must undertake a detailed analysis of the existing flowpath regime through/surrounding and downstream of the development site and compare that with proposed flowpaths post development. The applicant must provide sufficient documentation/evidence to Council to indicate that the proposed development will not increase the depth of overland flow in areas outside the development site and that no property downstream of the development site will be adversely affected as a result of the proposed development for storm events up to the critical 1%AEP (1 in 100 year) storm event.

 

29.     Prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate the applicant must undertake a detailed analysis of the existing site stormwater drainage system and the proposed stormwater drainage system, (piped and overland flow). The applicant must provide sufficient documentation/evidence to Council that the proposed site stormwater drainage system will not increase the depth of overland flow in areas outside the development site, will not adversely impact on Council’s stormwater drainage infrastructure and that no property downstream of the development site will be adversely affected as a result of the proposed development for storm events up to the 1%AEP event (1 in 100 year ARI event).

 

30.     Prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate the applicant must provide full details of any proposed private drainage easements or drainage easements over private land in favour of Council.

 

 

31.     Prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate for the site the applicant must submit to Council for approval, and have approved, a flood study which determines the critical 1%AEP (1 in 100 year) flood level for all areas within the development site. The applicant must liaise with Councils Development Engineer Coordinator prior to lodgement of the flood study to obtain all of Council’s requirements for the study and any supporting data. The floor level of all habitable and storage areas shall be a minimum of 500 millimetres above the calculated 1%AEP (1 in 100 year) flood level or suitably waterproofed up to this same level. The proposed internal driveways (and any other openings into the basement carparks) must be designed with a high point at least 300 mm above the determined 1%AEP (1 in 100 year) flood level. All windows, vents and other openings into the basement carparks must be located at least 500 mm above the determined 1%AEP flood level.

 

32.     The proposed internal roadways, any drainage easements and overland flow routes shall be designed to drain the 1%AEP storm event and to consider personal and structure safety and the hazard factor, (product of velocity and depth of flow) This safety factor shall not exceed a value of 0.4 at any location. (i.e. VD< 0.4). The Construction Certificate must document how these requirements are to be met.

 

33.     All stormwater runoff being discharged from the site shall be directed to Council’s underground drainage system. Details must be included in the Construction Certificate to the satisfaction of Council. All stormwater run-off naturally draining to the site must be collected and discharged through this property's stormwater system. The Construction Certificate plans must demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

34.     The internal stormwater drainage systems for development lots within the site must be suitably designed such that stormwater discharge from the development site for all storms up to the 1 in 20 year storm event does not exceed that which would occur for the 5%AEP (1 in 5 year) storm of 1 hour duration for the existing site conditions. Onsite stormwater detention system/s must be provided to ensure compliance with the above requirement. All other stormwater run-off from the site for all storms up to the 5% AEP (1 in 20 year) storm is to be retained on the site for gradual release to the street drainage system. An overland escape route or overflow system (to Council’s street drainage system) must be provided for storms having an annual exceedance probability (AEP) of 1% (1 in 100 year storm), or, alternatively the stormwater detention system is to be provided to accommodate the 1% AEP (1 in 100 year) storm.The plans/drainage calculations for the Construction Certificate must demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

Arboricultural Impact Assessment

35.     Both the Preliminary Arboricultural Report by Tree IQ, rev A, dated 12/02/16, and Covering Arborists Letter by Tree IQ, dated 06/09/16 (“the Arborists Reports”) must be developed further into a final, detailed Arboricultural Impact Assessment, including a Tree Protection Plan and Specification, along with a separate, detailed Pruning Specification, relating to all of those trees that are being retained at the site, and must maintain existing tree identification numbers.

 

36.     These Reports, Plans & Specifications can only be prepared by an AQF Level 5 Arborist, (who is eligible for membership with a nationally recognized organization/association) and must be submitted to, and be approved by, Council’s Director City Planning.

 

 

37.       These Plans & Specifications must report on all of those private and public trees that will be directly or indirectly affected by the works, and must detail the measures that will need to be employed both on the plans as well as on-site during the course of the works, to ensure the retention of those trees that have already been identified in the “Arborist Reports”, and at minimum, must elaborate further on the topics that are raised in the Arborists Covering Letter dated 06/09/16.

 

38.     All plans submitted with the Construction Certificate, and all works performed on-site, must comply with the approved Tree Protection Plan, Specification and Pruning Specification at all times, with any works associated with retention of the tree only able to be performed by the site appointed Project Arborist; or; under their direct supervision.

 

39.     Where a refundable deposit/bond needs to be imposed in order to ensure the retention of public trees or other assets, the required fee 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, the approved Plans and Specifications, and ultimately, protection of public assets.

 

The refundable deposit will be eligible for refund following the issue of a Final 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 (9093-6613).

 

Any contravention of Council's conditions at any time during the course of the works, or prior to the issue of a Final 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.

 

40.     The applicant must ensure that all plans are consistent in terms of clearly identifying exactly what trees are being retained and those that are being removed.

 

41.     Separate Plans & Specifications, prepared in the same manner as described above, will also need to be provided for all subsequent applications for each of the future Lots/Stages, and the trees contained therein.

 

42.      The retention of each of those twelve (12) trees within this site that are included in Volume 4 of Council’s Register of Significant Trees, being T1-5, 12-14, 16, 22, 37 & 160 is non-negotiable, with additional measures to be recommended and imposed where necessary to ensure this.

 

Tree Removal

43.     The approved Reports, Plans & Specifications must also identify those trees that are sought for removal in order to accommodate the works, with reasonable justification needing to be provided in each and every case that demonstrates why removal is warranted; why it is the only option available; and why re-designs or similar could not be undertaken so as to result in their retention.

 

Street Tree Removal

44.     The removal, stump-grinding and disposal of trees from public property, only as identified in the approved Street Tree Management Plan, can only be performed by Council or Council’s approved contractors, wholly at the applicant’s cost, and in this regard, the applicant must contact Council’s Landscape Development Officer on 9093-6613 to obtain the total cost for this work.

 

45.      The required fee must be paid into Tree Amenity Income at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre, prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development, following which, the applicant must advise Council’s Landscape Development Officer (9093-6613) of the receipt number, and giving at least four working weeks-notice (allow longer for public holidays or extended periods of rain) to arrange for their physical removal from site.

 

46.     After this, any further enquiries regarding scheduling/timing or completion of works are to be directed to Council’s Coordinator Tree Management 9093-6609.

 

47.     Figures shall be provided listing how many private and public trees will need to be removed, and how many new trees, on both private and public land, will be provided back in their place, to ensure that suitable compensatory planting is provided, and that reasonable levels of environmental amenity are maintained.

 

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, Council’s development consent conditions and to achieve reasonable levels of environmental amenity.

 

Compliance with the Building Code of Australia

48.     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.

 

Design Alignment levels

49.     The design alignment level for all development lots (the finished level of concrete, paving or the like) at the property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, shall be generally 2.5% above the top of kerb level at all points opposite the kerb.

           

The design alignment levels at the property boundary as issued by Council and their relationship to the roadway/kerb/footpath must be indicated on the Construction Certificate plans. The design alignment level at the street boundary, as issued by the Council, must be strictly adhered to.

 

Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Development Engineer on 9093-6881/9093-6923.

 

Traffic and Parking

50.     The Construction Certificate plans must show the proposed location of all access driveways. All internal access driveways 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). The internal driveways and carpark areas must be designed for 2 way traffic movements. Details of compliance are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

51.     The Construction Certificate plans must provide details of all proposed on-street parking spaces. The parking spaces must be in full compliance with the development consent and plans approved for Development Application 88/2016. The Construction Certificate must demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

52.     Prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate the applicant must demonstrate to Council, through the use of detailed swept path analysis, that the internal road design will operate satisfactorily for service and delivery vehicles, (i.e. will satisfy Section 3 of AS 2890.2-2002).

 

53.     Prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the site the applicant shall submit for approval and have approved by Council's Traffic Engineer a detailed construction traffic management plan. The plan shall demonstrate how construction and delivery vehicles will access the development site during the demolition and construction phase of the development. All traffic associated with the subject development shall comply with the terms of the approved construction traffic management plan.  

     

          Landscaping/Planting

54.     The Certifying Authority/PCA must ensure that all Landscape documentation for both private and public land that is submitted as part of the approved Construction Certificate, are substantially consistent with the Infrastructure & Public Realm Works by Arcadia Landscape Architecture, dwg’s 3.1 – 3.10, Issue 1 dated September 2016; as well as the plans: Public Park, dwg’s 4.1 – 4.9, issue 1, dated December 2016 and Appendix, dwg’s 100 – 120, issue C, dated September 2016.

 

55.     These Landscape Plans must be revised further to include, but not be limited to, the following additional items:

 

a.       Site plans at an appropriate scale showing existing site boundaries, existing private and public trees to be removed or retained (in accordance with the approved Street Tree Management Plan), existing and proposed ground levels shown as spot heights and/or contours over the site, at site boundaries, and at the base of the trees to be retained, proposed building envelope, areas of pavement and landscaped areas.

b.  A planting plan at a scale of 1:100 or 1:200, with all species to be drawn at their mature size.

 

c.  The Planting Plan and Plant Schedule must nominate only those species that will actually be used on-site, with the quantity/density/spacing to be provided.

 

d.  New trees which will attain a minimum height of 6m; and/or; a canopy spread of 4m, must be located a minimum distance of 2.5m from all parts of any buildings/dwellings and similar, both to allow for future growth both above and below ground, as well as to avoid t