RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

Tuesday 13 February 2018

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Centre 30 Frances Street Randwick 2031

Telephone: 1300 722 542

Fax: 02 9319 1510

 council@randwick.nsw.gov.au

www.randwick.nsw.gov.au


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                          13 February 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Planning Committee Meeting

 

Notice is hereby given that a Planning Committee Meeting of the Council of the City of Randwick will be held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, 90 Avoca Street Randwick on Tuesday, 13 February 2018 at 6:00pm

 

Committee Members:          The Mayor L Shurey, Andrews, Bowen (Deputy Chairperson), Da Rocha, D’ Souza, Hamilton, Luxford, Matson, Neilson, Parker, Roberts, Said, Seng, Stavrinos (Chairperson) and Veitch

 

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 - 14 November 2017

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Committee by Members of the Public

Privacy warning;

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

Urgent Business

Development Application Reports (record of voting required)

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

D1/18       185 Boyce Road, MAROUBRA (DA/847/2016/A) (Deferred)........................ 1

D2/18       122 Bundock Street, South Coogee (DA/70/2017) (Deferred).................... 9

D3/18       20 Dundas Street, Coogee (DA/150/2017) (Deferred)............................. 25

D4/18       417-439R Bunnerong Road, Maroubra (DA/679/2017)............................... 43

D5/18       417-439R Bunnerong Road, Maroubra (DA/689/2017)............................... 47

D6/18       385 Maroubra Road, MAROUBRA (DA/767/2017)...................................... 51

D7/18       212 Arden Street Coogee (DA/427/2016/A)............................................ 59

D8/18       50 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly (DA/536/2017)............................................ 65

D9/18       58-60 Carr Street, Coogee  (DA/116/2014/A)......................................... 87

D10/18      211-215 Maroubra Rd, Maroubra (DA/233/2017/A)................................. 113

D11/18      446 to 448 Bunnerong Road, Matraville (DA/685/2014/D)........................ 123

D12/18      7 Torrington Road, Maroubra (DA/531/2016/B)...................................... 135

D13/18      2A-2B Smithfield Avenue, Coogee (DA/3/2016/A)................................... 145

D14/18      4 Conway Avenue, RANDWICK  NSW  2031(DA/629/2016/A).................... 157

D15/18      293-297 Alison Road, Coogee (DA/11/2015/D)....................................... 163

D16/18      6 Chapel Street, Randwick (DA/66/2016/B)........................................... 177

D17/18      27 Meeks Street and 65 Willis Street, Kingsford (DA/795/2015/B)............. 183

D18/18      44 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (DA/472/2017)........................................ 191

D19/18      33 Todman Ave, Kensington (DA/564/2017) ......................................... 203

Miscellaneous Reports (record of voting NOT required)

M1/18       IHAP Community Representatives ....................................................... 207   

Closed Session

M2/18       Appointment of expert members to IHAP

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (a) (c) Of the Local Government Act, as it deals with personnel matters concerning particular individuals (other than Councillors); AND information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business. (This report includes recommendations for expert members on Council's IHAP. This information should not be publically available until the decision has been made and individuals involved have been notified of the outcome (i.e. offered positions). Further, if applicants are aware of the recommendations before the report is considered, they may jepardise the process by making representations to staff or councillors seeking special consideration)

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil  

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Planning Committee                                                                                          13 February 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D1/18

 

Subject:             185 Boyce Road, MAROUBRA (DA/847/2016/A) (Deferred)

Folder No:                   DA/847/2016/A

Author:                   Chahrazad  Rahe, Senior Assessment Planner      

 

Introduction

 

The application for Section 96 modification of the approved development to delete condition 2(f) that requires deletion of the void areas at first floor level of both dual occupancies at No. 185 Boyce Road, MAROUBRA was referred to the Planning Committee Meeting on 14 November 2017. It was resolved at that meeting:

 

“(Andrews/D'Souza) that the application be deferred in accordance with the applicants’ request.”

 

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 Council’s 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 be substantially the same development as that previously approved. 

 

The request to retain the void areas in both approved dual occupancies are not supported.  However, Condition 2 (f) has been slightly modified to allow for more solar access and ventilation into the living areas of both dual occupancies.

 

Recommendation

 

The application is referred to Planning Committee for consideration.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

185 Boyce Road, Maroubra (DA 847 2016 A) November, 2017 Meeting - pdf

 

 

 

 


185 Boyce Road, Maroubra (DA 847 2016 A) November, 2017 Meeting - pdf

Attachment 1

 

 


 

 

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                          13 February 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D2/18

 

Subject:             122 Bundock Street, South Coogee (DA/70/2017) (Deferred)

Folder No:                   DA/70/2017

Author:                   Jonathan Blackmore, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Introduction

 

The subject application is for the demolition of the existing garage and construction of a new two storey outbuilding with garage/carport at ground floor level and secondary dwelling at first floor level.

 

The application was recommended for approval and reported to the Council meeting of the 24 October 2017. At the meeting it was resolved;

 

(Matson/Stavrinos) that the application be deferred to allow all the East Ward Councillors the opportunity to participate in the debate on this matter and to enable mediation between the applicant and objector.”

 

Issues

 

Mediation Session

Mediation was held on 7 December 2017 between the applicant and objectors. The following comments were provided by the Mediator:

 

a)     The applicant has agreed to remove window 9

b)     Windows 3, 6 and 7 have a minimum sill height of 1.6m above floor level and be fixed with frosted glass and double glazing

c)     Windows 4 and 5 have a minimum sill height of 1.6m above floor level with clear glass

d)     Privacy screens retained as per plan

e)     The objectors are prepared to withdraw their objection [subject to the above].

 

The following comments are provided in response to the items above:

 

-      Items a) to c) can be implemented through recommended consent conditions (see condition 2, below)

-      The fixing of windows 3, 6 and 7 will not present BCA compliance issues as w4 to bedroom 2 can achieve an opening size of 6.3% of the room area and window 5 to bedroom 1 can achieve an opening size of 5.8% of the room area.

-      In regards to item d), the recommended condition in the original DA report that requires the deletion of the privacy screens to the south facing windows at first floor level shall be deleted to ensure these privacy screens are being retained as per the mediation outcome.  

 

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 applicant and objectors have attended mediation. Consent conditions have been recommended to reflect the outcome of the mediation.

 

The proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria will not result in any adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

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/70/2017 for the demolition of the existing garage and construction of a new two storey outbuilding with garage/carport at ground floor level and secondary dwelling at first floor level, at No. 122 Bundock Street, South Coogee, 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

DWG No. DA/01  to DA/07 V1.1

MC Design Architects

May 2017

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

823828S

23 May 2017

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

a.   Window 9 to the dining room shall be deleted.

b.   The following windows must have a minimum sill height of 1.6m above floor level and be fixed with frosted double glazing:

·           W3 (bed 2)

·           W6 (bed 1)

·           W7 (bed 1)

c.   The following window/s must have a minimum sill height of 1.6m above floor level:

·           W4 (bed 2)

·           W5 (bed 1)

 

REQUIREMENTS BEFORE A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE CAN BE ISSUED

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

 

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

 

Consent Requirements

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

 

External Colours, Materials & Finishes

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

 

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

 

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

 

Section 94A Development Contributions

5.       In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 21 April 2015, based on the development cost of $292,325 the following applicable monetary levy must be paid to Council: $2,923.25.

 

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

 

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

 

IDC = ODC x CP2/CP1

 

Where:

IDC = the indexed development cost

ODC = the original development cost determined by the Council

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

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

 

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

 

Compliance Fee

6.       A development compliance and enforcement fee of $292 shall be paid to Council in accordance with Council’s adopted Fees & Charges Pricing Policy, prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate for development.

 

Long Service Levy Payments

7.       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.

 

REQUIREMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

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

 

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

 

Compliance with the Building Code of Australia

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

 

BASIX Requirements

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

 

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

 

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

 

Stormwater Drainage

10.     Surface water/stormwater (from the redeveloped portion of the site) must be drained and discharged to the street kerb and gutter in Bundock Lane to the satisfaction of the certifying authority and details of the proposed stormwater drainage system are to be included in the construction certificate details for the development.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORKS

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

 

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

 

Certification, PCA & Other Requirements

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

c)     a principal contractor must be appointed for the building work, or in relation to residential building work, an owner-builder permit may be obtained in accordance with the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989, and the PCA and Council are to be notified accordingly; and

 

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

 

e)     at least two days notice must be given to the Council, in writing, prior to commencing any works.

 

Home Building Act 1989

12.     In accordance with section 80 A (11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 98 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989 must be complied with.

 

Details of the Licensed Building Contractor and a copy of the relevant Certificate of Home Warranty Insurance or a copy of the Owner-Builder Permit (as applicable) must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council.

 

Dilapidation Reports

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

 

·           excavations for new dwellings, additions to dwellings, swimming pools or the like which are proposed to be located within the zone of influence of the footings of any dwelling, associated garage or other substantial structure located upon an adjoining  premises,

·           new dwellings or additions to dwellings sited up to shared property boundaries (e.g.  additions to a semi-detached dwelling or terraced dwellings),

·           excavations for new dwellings, additions to dwellings, swimming pools or the like which are within rock and may result in vibration and or potential damage to any dwelling, associated garage or other substantial structure located upon an adjoining  premises,

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

 

The report (including photographs) are required to detail the current condition and status of any dwelling, associated garage or other substantial structure located upon the adjoining premises.  A copy of the dilapidation report is to be given to the owners of the premises encompassed in the report/s before commencing any works.

 

Construction Noise & Vibration Management

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

 

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

 

Construction Site Management Plan

15.     A Construction Site Management Plan must be developed and implemented prior to the commencement of any works. The construction site management plan must include the following measures, as applicable to the type of development:

·           location and construction of protective fencing / hoardings to the perimeter of the site;

·           location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

·           location of building materials for construction;

·           provisions for public safety;

·           dust control measures;

·           site access location and construction

·           details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

·           protective measures for tree preservation;

·           provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

·           location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

·           details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

·           provisions for temporary stormwater drainage;

·           construction noise and vibration management;

·           construction traffic management details.

 

The site management measures must be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and be maintained throughout the works, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

A copy of the Construction Site Management Plan must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to commencing site works.  A copy must also be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

Public Utilities

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

 

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

 

REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION & SITE WORK

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

 

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

 

Inspections during Construction

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

 

The Principal Certifying Authority must specify the relevant stages of construction to be inspected and a satisfactory inspection must be carried out, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to proceeding to the subsequent stages of construction or finalisation of the works (as applicable).

 

Site Signage

19.     A sign must be erected and maintained in a prominent position on the site for the duration of the works, which contains the following details:

 

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

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

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

 

Restriction on Working Hours

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

 

Activity

Permitted working hours

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

·   Monday to Friday - 7.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

Excavating of rock, use of jack-hammers, pile-drivers, vibratory rollers/compactors or the like

 

·   Monday to Friday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - No work permitted

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

 

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

 

Demolition Work Requirements

21.     All work and activities must be carried out in accordance with the relevant regulatory requirements and Randwick City Council policies, including:

 

·           Work Health and Safety Act 2011

·           Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001

·           Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos Removal Work) Regulation 2001

·           WorkCover NSW Code of Practice for the Safe Removal of Asbestos

·           Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

·           The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

·           Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005

·           Relevant Office of Environment & Heritage / Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and WorkCover NSW Guidelines.

·           Randwick City Council Asbestos Policy (adopted 13 September 2005)

 

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

 

Removal of Asbestos Materials

22.     Work involving the demolition, storage or disposal of asbestos products and materials must be carried out in accordance with the following requirements:

 

·           Relevant Occupational Health & Safety legislation and WorkCover NSW requirements

 

·           Randwick City Council’s Asbestos Policy

 

·           A WorkCover licensed demolition or asbestos removal contractor must undertake removal of more than 10m2 of bonded asbestos (or as otherwise specified by WorkCover or relevant legislation).  Removal of friable asbestos material must only be undertaken by contractor that holds a current friable asbestos removal licence.  A copy of the relevant licence must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

·           On sites involving the removal of asbestos, a sign must be clearly displayed in a prominent visible position at the front of the site, containing the words ‘DANGER ASBESTOS REMOVAL IN PROGRESS’ and include details of the licensed contractor.

 

·           Asbestos waste must be stored, transported and disposed of in compliance with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005.  Details of the landfill site (which must be lawfully able to receive asbestos materials) must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

·           A Clearance Certificate or Statement, prepared by a suitably qualified person (i.e. an occupational hygienist, licensed asbestos removal contractor, building consultant, architect or experienced licensed building contractor), must be provided to Council and the Principal certifying authority upon completion of the asbestos related works which confirms that the asbestos material have been removed appropriately and the relevant conditions of consent have been satisfied.

 

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

 

Sediment & Erosion Control

23.     Sediment and erosion control measures, must be implemented throughout the site works in accordance with the manual for Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, published by Landcom, to Council’s satisfaction.

 

Details must be shown in a Sediment and Erosion Control Plan, including; a site plan; indicating the slope of land, access points & access control measures, location and type of sediment & erosion controls, location of existing vegetation to be retained, location of material stockpiles and storage areas, location of building operations and equipment, methods of sediment control, details of drainage systems and details of existing and proposed vegetation.

 

A copy of the Sediment and Erosion Control Plan must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and a copy must be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

Public Safety & Site Management

24.     Public safety and convenience must be maintained at all times during demolition, excavation and construction works and the following requirements must be complied with:

 

a)     Public access to the building site and materials must be restricted by existing boundary fencing or temporary site fencing having a minimum height of 1.5m, to Council’s satisfaction.

 

Temporary site fences are required to be constructed of cyclone wire fencing material and be structurally adequate, safe and constructed in a professional manner.  The use of poor quality materials or steel reinforcement mesh as fencing is not permissible.

 

b)     Building materials, sand, soil, waste materials, construction equipment or other articles must not be placed upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time.

 

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

 

d)     Building operations such as brick cutting, washing tools or equipment and mixing mortar are not permitted on public footpaths, roadways, nature strips, in any public place or any location which may lead to the discharge of materials into the stormwater drainage system.

 

e)     Sediment and erosion control measures, must be implemented throughout the site works in accordance with the manual for Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, published by Landcom, to Council’s satisfaction.

 

f)      Site fencing, building materials, bulk bins/waste containers and other articles must not be located upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time without the prior written approval of the Council.  Applications to place a waste container in a public place can be made to Council’s Health, Building and Regulatory Services department.

 

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

 

h)     Temporary safety fencing is to be provided to any swimming pools under construction, pending the completion of all building work and the pool must not be filled until a fencing inspection has been carried out and approved by the principal certifying authority.

 

Support of Adjoining Land, Excavations & Retaining Walls

25.     In accordance with section 80 A (11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 98 E of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition that the adjoining land and buildings located upon the adjoining land must be adequately supported at all times.

 

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

 

Retaining walls, shoring or piling must be provided to support land which is excavated in association with the erection or demolition of a building, to prevent the movement of soil and to support the adjacent land and buildings, if the soil conditions require it.  Adequate provisions are also to be made for drainage.

 

Details of proposed retaining walls, shoring, piling or other measures are to be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

27.     Prior to undertaking any demolition, excavation or building work in the following circumstances, a report must be obtained from a professional engineer which details the methods of support for the dwelling or associated structure on the adjoining land, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority:

 

·           when undertaking excavation or building work within the zone of influence of the footings of a dwelling or associated structure that is located on the adjoining land;

·           when undertaking demolition work to a wall of a dwelling that is built to a common or shared boundary (e.g. semi-detached or terrace dwelling);

·           when constructing a wall to a dwelling or associated structure that is located within 900mm of a dwelling located on the adjoining land;

·           as may be required by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

The demolition, excavation and building work and the provision of support to the dwelling or associated structure on the adjoining land, must also be carried out in accordance with the abovementioned report, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

Survey Requirements

28.     A Registered Surveyor’s check survey certificate or other suitable documentation must be obtained at the following stage/s of construction to demonstrate compliance with the approved setbacks, levels, layout and height of the building to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA):

 

·           prior to construction (pouring of concrete) of the footings or first completed floor slab,

·           upon completion of the building, prior to issuing an occupation certificate,

·           as otherwise may be required by the PCA.

 

The survey documentation must be forwarded to the Principal Certifying Authority and a copy is to be forwarded to the Council, if the Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority for the development.  

 

Building Encroachments

29.     There must be no encroachment of any structures or building work onto Council’s road reserve, footway, nature strip or public place.

 

Road / Asset Opening Permit

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

 

The owner/builder must ensure that all works within or upon the road reserve, footpath, nature strip or other public place are completed to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the issuing of a final occupation certificate for the development.

 

For further information, please contact Council’s Road / Asset Opening Officer on 9093 6691 or 1300 722 542.

 

Tree Management

31.     Approval is granted for the removal of those trees directly affected the proposed garage, with granny flat, subject to the planting of 1 x 25L broad canopied replacement tree (not palm) within the site. The species selected shall be one that will attain a minimum height of 6m at maturity.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

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

 

Note:  For the purpose of this consent, any reference to ‘occupation certificate’ shall also be taken to mean ‘interim occupation certificate’ unless otherwise stated.

 

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

 

Occupation Certificate Requirements

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

 

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

 

BASIX Requirements

33.     In accordance with Clause 154B of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, a Certifying Authority must not issue an Occupation Certificate for this development, unless it is satisfied that each of the required BASIX commitments have been fulfilled.

 

Relevant documentary evidence of compliance with the BASIX commitments is to be forwarded to the Council upon issuing an Occupation Certificate.

 

Council’s Infrastructure, Vehicular Crossings, Street Verge

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS

The following operational conditions must be complied with at all times, throughout the use and operation of the development.

 

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

 

External Lighting

36.     External lighting to the premises must be designed and located so as to minimise light-spill beyond the property boundary or cause a public nuisance.

 

Waste Management

37.     Adequate provisions are to be made within the premises for the storage and removal of waste and recyclable materials, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

Plant & Equipment

38.     The operation of all plant and equipment on the premises shall not give rise to an ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

In this regard, the operation of the plant and equipment shall not give rise to an LAeq, 15 min sound pressure level at any affected premises that exceeds the background LA90, 15 min noise level, measured in the absence of the noise source/s under consideration by more than 5dB(A) in accordance with relevant NSW Office of Environment & Heritage (EPA) Noise Control Guidelines.

 

Rainwater Tanks

39.     The operation of plant and equipment associated with rainwater tanks are to be restricted to the following hours if the noise emitted can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises:

 

·       before 8.00am or after 8.00pm on weekends or public holiday; or

·       before 7.00am or after 8.00pm on weekdays.

 

ADVISORY NOTES

The following information is provided for your assistance to ensure compliance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, or other relevant legislation and Council’s policies.  This information does not form part of the conditions of development consent pursuant to Section 80A of the Act.

 

A1      The requirements and provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, must be fully complied with at all times.

 

Failure to comply with these requirements is an offence, which renders the responsible person liable to a maximum penalty of $1.1 million.  Alternatively, Council may issue a penalty infringement notice (for up to $3,000) for each offence.  Council may also issue notices and orders to demolish unauthorised or non-complying building work, or to comply with the requirements of Council’s development consent.

 

A2      In accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, building works, including associated demolition and excavation works (as applicable) must not be commenced until:

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

A5      A Local Approval application must be submitted to and be approved by Council's Building Approvals & Certification team prior to commencing any of the following activities on a footpath, road, nature strip or in any public place:-

 

§  Install or erect any site fencing, hoardings or site structures

§  Operate a crane or hoist goods or materials over a footpath or road

§  Placement of a waste skip or any other container or article.

 

For further information please contact Council’s Building Approvals & Certification team on 9399 0944.

 

A6      Specific details of the location of the building/s should be provided in the Construction Certificate to demonstrate that the proposed building work will not encroach onto the adjoining properties, Council’s road reserve or any public place.

 

A7      This consent does not authorise any trespass or encroachment upon any adjoining or supported land or building whether private or public.  Where any underpinning, shoring, soil anchoring (temporary or permanent) or the like is proposed to be carried out upon any adjoining or supported land, the land owner or principal contractor must obtain:

 

§  the consent of the owners of such adjoining or supported land to trespass or encroach, or

§  an access order under the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 2000, or

§  an easement under section 88K of the Conveyancing Act 1919, or

§  an easement under section 40 of the Land & Environment Court Act 1979, as appropriate.

 

Section 177 of the Conveyancing Act 1919 creates a statutory duty of care in relation to support of land.  Accordingly, a person has a duty of care not to do anything on or in relation to land being developed (the supporting land) that removes the support provided by the supporting land to any other adjoining land (the supported land).

 

A8      The finished ground levels external to the building must be consistent with the development consent and are not to be raised, other than for the provision of approved paving or the like on the ground.

 

A9      Underground assets (eg pipes, cables etc) may exist in the area that is subject to your application. In the interests of health and safety and in order to protect damage to third party assets please contact Dial before you dig at www.1100.com.au or telephone on 1100 before excavating or erecting structures (This is the law in NSW). If alterations are required to the configuration, size, form or design of the development upon contacting the Dial before You Dig service, an amendment to the development consent (or a new development application) may be necessary. Individuals owe asset owners a duty of care that must be observed when working in the vicinity of plant or assets. It is the individual’s responsibility to anticipate and request the nominal location of plant or assets on the relevant property via contacting the Dial before you dig service in advance of any construction or planning activities.

 

A10     The applicant is to advise Council in writing and/or photographs of any signs of existing damage to the Council roadway, footway, or verge prior to the commencement of any building/demolition works.

 

A11     Further information and details on Council's requirements for trees on development sites can be obtained from the recently adopted Tree Technical Manual, which can be downloaded from Council’s website at the following link, http://www.randwick.nsw.gov.au - Looking after our environment – Trees – Tree Management Technical Manual; which aims to achieve consistency of approach and compliance with appropriate standards and best practice guidelines.

 

A12     Building owners and occupiers should consider implementing appropriate measures to prevent children from falling from high-level window openings and balconies (e.g. by installing window locking devices; installing heavy-duty screens to window openings; limiting the dimensions of any openings to 125mm; ensuring balustrades to balconies are at least 1m high and; locating fixtures, fittings and furniture away from high-level windows and balconies).

 

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

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                          13 February 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D3/18

 

Subject:             20 Dundas Street, Coogee (DA/150/2017) (Deferred)

Folder No:                   DA/150/2017

Author:                   Jonathan Blackmore, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

 

Introduction

 

The subject application seeks to legitimise the use of the existing garage as a one bedroom dwelling with a single car park and private open space area occupying the former driveway. 

 

The application was recommended for refusal and reported to the Council meeting of the 28 November 2017. At the meeting it was resolved;

 

(Matson/Stavrinos) that this application be deferred to allow the applicant sufficient time to submit a clause 4.6 exception.”

 

Issues

 

Floor Space Ratio – Clause 4.6

The proposal involves a variance to a development standard contained within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012).

 

Pursuant to Clause 4.4 of the RLEP 2012, the floor space ratio of the building must not be more than 0.65:1 on the site. A floor space ratio of 0.891:1 is proposed.

 

The variation is summarised in the table below:


 

Floor Space Ratio

Development standard

0.65:1

Existing

0.796:1

Proposal

0.891:1

Excess above the standard

37%

 

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

 

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

 

Clause 4.6 RLEP Request to Vary Development Standard

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assessing Officer’s Comments:

It is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the standard – the proposed dwelling is not well designed in terms of providing for the environmental and energy needs of future occupants (residential amenity). The unit will be partly below ground and will have to rely significantly on its eastern elevation for natural light and ventilation. Two small windows to the side elevations will be insignificant for ventilation and solar access purposes. Inadequate outdoor space is provided for the unit.

 

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

 

The applicant’s written request has not successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. As discussed above, the proposal does not achieve the objectives of the Floor Space Ratio Standard (Clause 4.4 of the RLEP 2012), the proposed dwelling is not well designed in terms of providing for the environmental and energy needs of future occupants (residential amenity).

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

 

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is inconsistent with the objectives of the floor space ratio standard of the RLEP 2012. The relevant objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (Zone R2 – Low Density Residential) are:

 

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.

 

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

 

-       The proposal will not provide quality housing to meet the housing needs of the community.

-       The proposal will provide poor amenity for future occupants of the building. The proposal fails to comply with relevant objectives and controls of the RDCP 2013 relating to private open space, and energy efficiency and natural ventilation. 

 

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

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

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

 

Comments:

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

 

Variation from the adherence to the maximum floor space ratio standard on this occasion is considered to not be of benefit to the orderly use of the site and there is a public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance.

 

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

 

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 substandard residential amenity and set an undesirable precedent.

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council does not support the exception to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clause 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to the Floor Space Ratio standard, on the grounds that the proposed development does not comply with the objectives of the above clause, and will adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning & Environment be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, refuses development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/150/2017 for an application to legitimise the use of the existing garage as a one bedroom dwelling, at No. 20 Dundas Street, Coogee, for the following reasons:

 

1.     The proposed development is inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone under RLEP 2012 in that it will provide poor amenity for residents of the dwelling.

 

2.     The proposal does not comply with Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio standard under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in that the poor residential amenity outcomes would make the floor space ratio non-compliance inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the RLEP 2012 and unsupportable. Therefore, the Clause 4.6 variation to the development standard is not well founded.

 

3.     The proposed development fails to satisfy the relevant objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013, in relation to the following:

 

Part B7 – Transport, traffic, parking and access

-      3.2 Vehicle parking rates

 

Part C1 – Low Density Housing

-      2.5 Private Open Space

-      3.1 Floor Space Ratio

-      3.3 Setbacks

-      5.2 Energy Efficiency and Natural Ventilation.     

 

4.     The proposal is unacceptable pursuant to the provisions of Section 79C(e) to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 in that the proposal’s non-compliances and inconsistencies with the provisions of adopted environmental planning instrument and a development control plan together with the public submissions received are not in the public interest.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

20 Dundas Street, Coogee (DA 150 2017) report on 28 November, 2017

 

 

 

 


20 Dundas Street, Coogee (DA 150 2017) report on 28 November, 2017

Attachment 1

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                          13 February 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D4/18

 

Subject:             417-439R Bunnerong Road, Maroubra (DA/679/2017)

Folder No:                   DA/679/2017

Author:                   Plandev Pty Ltd, Thomas Mithen      

 

Proposal:                    Installation of flood lights to ten tennis courts at Heffron Park.

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                Randwick City Council

Owner:                        NSW Department of Industry - Lands

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=4130562e-af14-47b4-8643-195496701e18&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The subject development application is referred to the Planning Committee as it relates to Heffron Park, which is under the care, control and management of Randwick City Council.

 

Proposal

 

The application seeks approval for the installation of flood lights to ten tennis courts at Heffron Park, known as the Heffron Park Tennis Centre. A total of fifteen light poles having 12m high are proposed to be operational until 10pm, 7 days a week. The proposal has been designed in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards. The proposal is consistent with the Heffron Park Plan of Management 2009 and facilitates the identified need for replacement tennis facilities within Heffron Park.

 

It should be noted that the tennis courts (as outlined to the Works Committee on 13 June 2017 under Works Report No. W11/17) do not form part of this application. These works are being carried out as ‘development without consent’ under State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 with a Review of Environmental Factors undertaken pursuant to Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Site

 

The subject site is legally described as Lot 7026 in DP 1026884 and forms part of Heffron Park Crown Reserve (R81741).

 

The site of the proposed development within the park is bordered to the north by new synthetic playing fields, to its west by the recently constructed Bunnerong Road carpark, and to the south by the existing tennis facility.  To the east is un-remediated land that will be remodeled in accordance with the adopted masterplan and the proposed playing field to its south.

 

The site is approximately 110m from the nearest residential properties to the west on Bunnerong Road.

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development and a public notice was advertised in local newspapers for 14 days in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. No submissions were received by Council.

 

Key Issues

 

Light Spill

As previously noted, the proposal has been designed to minimise any potential adverse impacts from light spill and glare in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards. In this regard, the proposal is considered to be of minimal environmental impact and is unlikely to have any adverse light spill impacts as the nearest residential properties to the west are approximately 110m away.

 

Acoustic Impacts

While the proposed tennis courts do not form part of this application, the evening use of the courts up to 10pm seven days a week will be facilitated by the proposed flood lights. A Noise Impact Assessment prepared by Koikas Acoustics was submitted as a part of this DA to assess the potential acoustic impacts of the tennis courts on the nearest residential receivers approximately 110m away on Bunnerong Road to the west. The Report concludes that the predicted noise levels of the tennis courts will comply with the relevant sleep disturbance criteria for evenings and night periods in accordance with the NSW Industrial Noise Policy. In order to ensure that the recommendations of the Acoustic Report are implemented, conditions will be imposed requiring the flood lights to be switched off at 10pm and to be switched on no earlier than 7am, seven days per week.

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 3:       An Informed and Engaged Community.

Direction 3c:      A community involved in shaping and enhancing our City

Outcome 4:       Excellence in Urban Design and Development

Direction 4a:     Improved design and sustainability across all development

Outcome 5:       Excellence in recreation and lifestyle opportunities

Direction 5a.      Maximise opportunities for residents and visitors to enjoy both active and passive open space uses

 

Financial impact statement

 

The proposed cost of works is $407,345 and forms part of the Heffron Park Tennis Centre upgrade designated within the 2017-2018 capital works budget.

 

Conclusion

 

The development application seeks approval for the installation of flood lights to ten tennis courts at Heffron Park, known as the Heffron Park Tennis Centre.

 

Following an assessment against the relevant controls in RDCP 2013, the proposal is considered to be appropriate for the site.

 

The installation of flood lights to facilitate evening use of the future tennis courts will not result in any unreasonable amenity impacts and will facilitate the provision of the identified need for replacement tennis facilities reflective of current requirements in accordance with the Heffron Park Plan of Management.

 

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. 679/2017 for installation of flood lights for ten future tennis courts, at No. 417-439R Bunnerong Road Maroubra, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

Hours of Operation

23.     The flood lights are to be switched off at 10pm and switched on no earlier than 7am, seven days per week.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 417-439R Bunnerong Road, MAROUBRA 

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                          13 February 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D5/18

 

Subject:             417-439R Bunnerong Road, Maroubra (DA/689/2017)

Folder No:                   DA/689/2017

Author:                   Plandev Pty Ltd, Thomas Mithen      

 

Proposal:                    Construction and operation of 3x12m, and 2x7m high flood light poles for handball courts and half basketball court at Heffron Park.

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                Randwick City Council

Owner:                        NSW Department of Industry - Lands

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=4130562e-af14-47b4-8643-195496701e18&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The subject development application is referred to the Planning Committee as it relates to Heffron Park, which is under the care, control and management of Randwick City Council.

 

Proposal

 

The application seeks approval for the construction and operation of three x 12 metre, and two x 7 metre high flood light poles for the handball courts and half basketball court located in the western precinct of the Heffron Park. The flood lights are proposed to be operational until 10pm, seven days a week. The proposal has been designed in accordance with the relevant Australia standard. The proposal is consistent with the Heffron Park Plan of Management 2009 and facilitates the identified need for replacement handball facilities within Heffron Park.

 

It should be noted that the handball courts do not form part of this application. These works are being carried out as ‘development without consent’ under State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 with a Review of Environmental Factors undertaken pursuant to Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Site

 

The subject site is legally described as Lot 7026 in DP 1026884 and forms part of Heffron Park Crown Reserve (R81741).

 

The site of the proposed development within the park is located in the western precinct of Heffron Park, approximately 60 metres east of Bunnerong Road bordered to the north by new synthetic playing fields, to its west by the recently constructed Bunnerong Road carpark, and to the south by the existing tennis facility. To the east is un-remediated land that will be remodeled in accordance with the adopted masterplan and the proposed playing field to its south.

 

The site is approximately 60 metre from the nearest residential properties to the west on Bunnerong Road.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Key Issues

 

Light Spill

As previously noted, the proposal has been designed to minimise any potential adverse impacts from light spill and glare in accordance with the relevant Australian Standard. In this regard, the proposal is considered to be of minimal environmental impact and is unlikely to have any adverse light spill impacts as the nearest residential properties to the west are approximately 60 metres away. The selected luminaries are designed to minimise light spill and glare beyond the courts.

 

Acoustic Impacts

While the handball and half basketball courts do not form part of this application, the evening use of the courts up to 10:00 pm, seven days a week will be facilitated by the proposed flood lights. A Noise Impact Assessment prepared by Koikas Acoustics was submitted as a part of this DA to assess the potential acoustic impacts of the handball and basketball courts on the nearest residential receivers, approximately 60 metres away on Bunnerong Road to the west. The Report concludes that the predicted noise emissions from the courts are expected to comply with the relevant criteria in the NSW Industrial Noise Policy based on the assumption the courts would not be occupied after 10:00pm and before 6:00am. Although the courts may be used until 10:00 pm each night, only the one hour period between 7:00 am and 8:00 am on a Sunday morning is considered to be within ‘night time hours’, where there is greatest potential for noise impacts on the nearest residential receivers. A screening test for sleep disturbance to nearby residential receivers during the early morning hours has calculated there would be a low probability of sleep disturbance. In order to ensure that the recommendations of the Acoustic Report are implemented, a condition will be imposed requiring the flood lights to be switched off at 10:00 pm and switched on no earlier than 7:00 am, seven days per week.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 3:       An Informed and Engaged Community.

Direction 3c:      A community involved in shaping and enhancing our City

Outcome 4:       Excellence in Urban Design and Development

Direction 4a:      Improved design and sustainability across all development

Outcome 5:       Excellence in recreation and lifestyle opportunities

Direction 5a.      Maximise opportunities for residents and visitors to enjoy both active and passive open space uses

 

Financial impact statement

The proposed cost of works is $66,000 and forms part of the upgrade of facilities for Heffron Park designated within the capital works budget.

 

Conclusion

 

The development application seeks approval for the installation of flood lights to the handball and half basketball courts at Heffron Park, known as the Heffron Park Handball Courts.

 

Following an assessment against the relevant objectives and controls in RLEP 2012 and RDCP 2013, the proposal is considered to be appropriate for the site.

 

The installation of flood lights to facilitate evening use of the handball courts and half basketball court will not result in any unreasonable amenity impacts and will facilitate the provision of the identified need for replacement handball facilities reflective of current requirements in accordance with the Heffron Park Plan of Management.

 

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. 689/2017 for installation of flood lights for handball and half basketball courts at No. 417-439R Bunnerong Road, Maroubra, subject to the following non standard condition and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

Hours of Operation

23.     The flood lights are to be switched off at 10pm and switched on no earlier than 7am, seven days per week.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

 

DA Compliance Report - 417-439R Bunnerong Road, MAROUBRA

Included under separate cover

  


Planning Committee                                                                                          13 February 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D6/18

 

Subject:             385 Maroubra Road, Maoubra (DA/767/2017)

Folder No:                   DA/767/2017

Author:                   Plandev Pty Ltd, Thomas Mithen      

 

Proposal:                    Enclosure of an existing deck to the rear of the dwelling

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                Essential Planning

Owner:                        Mr R J Colyer & Ms B J Johnson

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=53c176f3-67e2-41be-b445-4979d4491698&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application was assessed by external consultant and referred to Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Andrews, Stavrinos and Seng.

 

1.         Proposal

 

The proposal is for alterations and additions at the rear of the existing dwelling to enclose the existing ground floor deck comprising a flat roof and predominately glass enclosure. The alterations include raising the roof profile flush with the underside of the balcony above. The proposal would not result in any additional floorspace beyond what the existing deck currently provides at 14 sqm.

 

Refer to the Site Plan and 3D perspective at Figures 2 and 3 below.

 

Figure 2Site Plan

 

Enclosed deck

Figure 3 – 3D Perspective

 

 

 

2.         Site

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Maroubra Road, approximately 36 metres southeast of its intersection with Malabar Road.

 

The site has an area of 284.5m2 and is rectangular in shape with a frontage of 5.2 metres to Maroubra Road and a depth of 46 metres.

 

The site contains a two storey dwelling house, which shares a party wall with the adjoining dwelling house at No.385A Maroubra Road. 

 

The rear of the dwelling includes a part subterranean floor level room which opens onto the rear yard area. Above this lower level is an existing elevated deck accessed from the internal living area and stairway from the rear yard.

 

The western boundary adjoins the rear yard of five residential properties fronting Malabar Road.

 

The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of detached and semi-detached dwelling houses of 1-2 storeys. The adjoining property to the northwest contains a 2-3 storey residential flat building.

 

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

 


 

399 and 401 Malabar Road

Issue

Comment

Inaccurate and misleading plans submitted with the DA, particularly in relation to the location of the deck relative to the adjoining properties and the proposed height of the new roof above the deck

The applicant submitted updated plans correcting the location of the existing deck on the site relative to the property boundaries.

Lack of sufficient information in the SEE to describe the proposed alterations, particularly in regard to the roof above the proposed enclosed deck.

The description of the works in the SEE refer to “alterations and addition at the rear of the existing dwelling house comprising a glass room style enclosure of the existing ground floor deck.” The enclosure of the existing deck includes raising the roof profile flush with the underside of the balcony above. This alteration is shown on the plans submitted with the DA.

The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the R2 zone in RLEP in terms of adverse impacts on the adjoining properties

The proposal would not result in any unreasonable amenity impacts to the adjoining properties. Refer to Section 4.

View Impacts

The existing views to Malabar Headland will not be impacted by the proposal. The potential view impacts are addressed in Section 4.1.

The SEE fails to address the light spill impact associated with the usage of the enclosed deck at night time

The potential light spill impacts are addressed in Section 4.6.

Acoustic Impacts

The potential acoustic impacts are addressed in Section 4.3.

Visual Privacy

The potential visual privacy impacts are addressed in Section 4.2.

 

4.         Key Issues

 

4.1   View Impacts

Part C1 Section 5.6 of RDCP 2013 contains objectives and controls in relation to view sharing. Concerns in relation to view impacts have been raised by the owners of the properties at 399 and 401 Malabar Road, which contain a pair of two storey semi-detached dwellings.

 

An assessment of the view impacts is based on the view sharing principles from the Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 140 case.

 

Step 1 - The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (eg 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, eg a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.

 

The properties at 399 and 401 Malabar Road have distant views of Malabar Headland to the south.

 

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.

 

399 Malabar Road

The existing view to Malabar Headland is across the rear and side boundary of the site to the south. The existing views are from the rear facing balcony adjoining the living area at ground level and the bedroom balcony at the first floor.

 

401 Malabar Road

The existing view to Malabar Headland is predominately across the rear and side boundary of the site to the south. The existing views are from the rear facing balcony adjoining the living area at ground level and the side facing bedroom balcony and rear facing bedroom window at the first floor.

 

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.

 

399 Malabar Road

The proposed enclosure of the existing deck at the rear of the dwelling is located to the northeast of the dwelling at 399 Malabar Road. The proposal will therefore not affect the existing views of Malabar Headland to south. The proposed enclosure of the existing deck would not impact any significant views or outlook from the rear of this property.

 

401 Malabar Road

The proposed enclosure of the existing deck at the rear of the dwelling is located to the northeast of the dwelling at 401 Malabar Road. The proposal will therefore not affect the existing views of Malabar Headland to south. The proposed enclosure of the existing deck would not impact any significant views or outlook from the rear of this property.

 

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

 

The proposed development complies with Council’s maximum external wall height and building height controls in DCP 2013. The proposed enclosure of the existing deck would not change the overall height, bulk and scale of the existing dwelling when viewed from the adjoining properties at the rear. The design outcome is considered acceptable.

 


 

4.2.  Visual Privacy

Part C1 Section 5.3 of RDCP 2013 contains objectives and controls in relation to ensure the design of building optimises privacy by minimising cross viewing and overlooking to adjoining dwellings. Concerns have been raised by the landowner at 399 and 401 Malabar Road in relation to the potential for increased usage of the enclosed space and the additional privacy impacts.

 

The proposed enclosure of the existing outdoor deck with glazing would potentially make this space more useable due to all-weather protection. Notwithstanding, the proposal would not result in a significant increase in overlooking of the adjoining properties as the quantum of floorspace does not change compared to the existing outdoor deck.

 

Also, the incidence of overlooking is common amongst the neighbours due to the topography and elevated decks and window openings at the rear of the dwellings on the surrounding properties. The dwellings at 399 and 401 Malabar Road also have elevated decks and windows, which directly overlook the rear yards of the adjoining residential properties including the subject site.

 

The proposal is acceptable in terms of privacy impacts to the adjoining properties.

 

4.3.  Acoustic Impacts

Part C1 Section 5.4 of RDCP 2013 contains objectives and controls to ensure the design of buildings and spaces minimises the intrusion of noise to adjoining dwellings. The proposed enclosure of the existing outdoor deck would potentially reduce noise associated with its use, resulting in improved acoustic impacts to the adjoining properties.

 

4.4   Overshadowing

Part C1 Section 5.1 of RDCP 2013 contains objectives and controls to ensure the design and siting of new development does not result in any unreasonable overshadowing impacts to neighbouring properties. The additional shadow cast by the new enclosed deck would be minor given the relatively small size of the building alteration. The proposal would not result in any unreasonable shadow impacts to the rear yard of the adjoining property to the south.

 

4.5   Building Design/Wall Length

Part C1 Section 4.1 of RDCP 2013 contains a 12 metre wall length control to ensure the design incorporates sufficient articulation to break up its visual mass when viewed from adjoining properties. The existing wall length at ground level on the northern side of the dwelling is approximately 19.7 metres. The proposal would increase the wall length by 3 metres. Given the proposed enclosure is predominately glazing it would not add any significant visual bulk when viewed from the adjoining properties. The proposed bulk and scale is considered acceptable.

 

4.6   Light Spill

Concern has been raised by the landowner at 399 and 401 Malabar Road in relation to light spill associated with the use of the proposed glass enclosure at night. RDCP 2013 does not contain any specific controls in relation to light spill. It is noted the existing outdoor deck can be illuminated at night by an external floodlight currently fixed to the rear wall of the dwelling. Whilst the glazed enclosure would be visible at night, it is not considered that it would result in any significant additional light spill to the adjoining properties compared to the existing situation. The internal illumination of this space is not expected to generate any unreasonable light spill beyond what would normally be expected from a dwelling. The proposal is considered acceptable in terms of light spill.

 


 

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 is generally consistent with the relevant objectives and controls in RLEP 2012 and RDCP 2013. The proposal would not change the overall height, bulk and scale of the existing dwelling when viewed from the rear of the adjoining properties. The proposed enclosure of the existing outdoor deck would reduce noise to the adjoining properties associated with the use of this space. The proposal would not result in any significant additional light spill compared to the existing situation. The incidence of overlooking is common amongst neighbours and the proposal would not result in any unreasonable privacy impacts to the adjoining properties. The proposal is therefore appropriate for the site.

 

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. 767/2017 for enclosure of an existing deck to the rear of the dwelling, at No. 385 Maroubra Road, Maroubra, subject to the following standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 385 Maroubra Road, MAROUBRA

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                          13 February 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D7/18

 

Subject:             212 Arden Street Coogee (DA/427/2016/A)

Folder No:                   DA/427/2016/A

Author:                   Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 modification to development consent to modify condition 18 & 19 and delete conditions 21 & 29

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                C-Inc Pty Ltd

Owner:                        Simmattown 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 application was determined at the Planning Committee Meeting on 14 February 2017.

 

 

 

 

Proposal

 

This application seeks to modify the original development consent by way of a Section 96 application. The modifications sought are to amend conditions 18 and 19 and delete conditions 21 and 29.

 

The original proposal sought to install four sets of bi fold windows within the Sports Bar area of the hotel which faces Coogee Bay Road. The windows will replace existing windows in the same location.

 

 

Location of existing windows

 

Conditions 18, 19, 21 and 29 state;

 

          Validation Acoustic Report

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

 

         The validation report is to incorporate a certificate or statement which identifies what equipment and items are connected to the noise limiter settings.  A plan or map of all equipment installed including a description that easily identifies the referenced equipment (e.g. model numbers, system type and make) shall be incorporated on this plan or map and also be contained within the validation report. 

 

Plan of Management

19.     A plan of management shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessment prior to the issue of an occupation certificate, which details the measures to be implemented to:

 

·       ensure compliance with the relevant conditions of approval,

·       ensure compliance with relevant noise criteria and minimise noise emissions and associated nuisances,

·       minimise the potential environmental and amenity impacts upon nearby residents,

·       effectively minimise and manage anti-social behaviour,

·       effectively manage and respond to resident complaints,

·       ensure responsible service of alcohol and harm minimisation,

·       provision of adequate security and surveillance,

·       ensure that the maximum number of patrons does not exceed the authorised capacity, in accordance with Council’s consent.

 

Television Positioning

21.     To avoid excessive footpath crowding all current and future television sets or screens within the sports bar shall be fixed mounted in positions and oriented so that the screens are not readily viewable from the Coogee Bay Road footpath.

 

29.     An additional acoustic report, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, must be provided to the Council upon reasonable request, which demonstrates and confirms that the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the noise criteria and requirements contained in this consent has been satisfied (including any relevant approved acoustic report and recommendations).  The assessment and report must include all relevant fixed and operational noise sources.

 

Condition 18 is proposed to be amended to include only the area of the proposed development, as the areas of these works will have no impact upon the other areas of the hotel. The imposition of the current condition will be time consuming, repetitive and unnecessary.

 

Condition 19 is proposed to be amended to include specific reference to the use of the area around the Sports Bar on Coogee Bay Road.

 

Condition 21 is proposed to be deleted as the applicant proposes to amend condition 19 for the Plan of Management to include reference to the Sports Bar.

 

Condition 29 is proposed to be deleted as the additional acoustic report has the same information requirements as the validation acoustic report in condition 18. An extra acoustic report is unnecessary as it would be a duplication of the validation request contained in condition 18 prior to the issue of an occupation certificate.

 

Site

 

The site is located on the southern side of Coogee Bay Road on the corner of Arden Street opposite Coogee Beach and contains the Coogee Bay Hotel. The location of this proposal is in an area known as the ‘Sports Bar’ which is situated within the Coogee Bay Road frontage of the hotel.

 

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 nature of the approved development and will remain consistent with the original consent. It is recommended that condition21 be retained as it is considered desirable to limit potential impacts outside the subject site.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Issue

Comment

 

11/120-124 Beach Street Coogee

-Objects to bi fold doors opening onto the footpath as it will impact upon the privacy of pedestrians using the footpath

 

 

5 Cairo Street South Coogee

-Objects to condition 21 being removed as it may lead to excessive footpath crowding which will not lead to a safe public domain.

 

6/142 Beach Street Coogee

-Objects to any change to the development as would remove a barrier between the hotel patrons and pedestrians.

 

25 Powell Street Coogee

-There are concerns that smokers from the hotel will linger on the footpath leading to congestion and potential unruly behavior.

 

7/108 Brook Street Coogee

-The proposal will result in more use of the footpath in conjunction with the hotel, including the use by smokers and also further congestion on the footpath

 

No address provided

-The proposal will lead to further congestion of the footpath area

 

 

Coogee Precinct Committee

-The proposal will lead to further footpath congestion, smoking on the footpath and problems of interactions between hotel patrons and pedestrians.

 

 

The bi fold doors were approved under the original development consent, this application seeks to modify or delete conditions of consent only

 

 

It is recommended that condition 21 remain in place

 

 

 

 

The proposal was already approved under the original development consent, this application seeks to modify and delete conditions of consent

 

 

The conditions of consent will seek to regulate the number of patrons on the footpath by restricting the location of the television screens

 

 

The conditions of consent will seek to regulate the number of patrons on the footpath by restricting the location of the television screens

 

 

The conditions of consent will seek to regulate the number of patrons on the footpath by restricting the location of the television screens

 

The conditions of consent will seek to regulate the number of patrons on the footpath by restricting the location of the television screens

 

 

 

 

 

Referrals

 

Environmental Health

This application has been referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officers for consideration and comment.

 

The advice provided is that there are no objections to conditions 18 & 19 being amended and condition 29 being deleted as they will not impact upon the environmental amenity of the locality.

 

NSW Police

The proposal has been referred to the Licensing Unit of the NSW Police, Maroubra Local Area Command for consideration. The advice provided is that there are no objections to the Section 96 modifications.

 

Key Issues

 

The main issue in relation to the original application and this proposal to modify the original development consent is the potential impact upon the amenity of the locality by the installation of the bi fold windows opening from the Sports Bar onto the Coogee Bay footpath area.

 

The modification of conditions 18 and 19 will serve the same purpose as the original conditions of consent in relation to potential noise nuisance mitigation and there are no objections to those conditions being amended to specifically reference the Sports Bar. Likewise condition 29 can also be deleted as other conditions of consent will also regulate and specify the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

 

Condition 21 can be deleted as appropriate measures will be incorporated in the Plan of Management to ensure the excessive footpath crowding does not occur around the Sports Bar area on Coogee Bay Road and smoking patrons are to be advised of designated smoking areas inside the hotel. Further, no objection was raised by the Police in relation to the deletion of Condition 21.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The application to modify development consent be approved to modify conditions 18 & 19 and delete condition 29. Condition 21 is recommended to remain as it will assist in regulating the use of the adjoining footpath for pedestrian use.

 

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. DA/427/2016/A for the section 96 modification of the approved development at 212 Arden Street Cooge by modifying conditions 18 & 19 and deleting condition 29 in the following manner:

 

A.        Amend Conditions 18 and 19 to read:

 

Validation Acoustic Report

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

 

         The validation report is to incorporate a certificate or statement which identifies what equipment and items are connected to the noise limiter settings.  A plan or map of all equipment installed including a description that easily identifies the referenced equipment (e.g. model numbers, system type and make) shall be incorporated on this plan or map and also be contained within the validation report. 

 

19.     The approved Plan of Management for the whole of the premises shall be amended to incorporate the appropriate measures to ensure that the footpath crowding does not occur around the Sports Bar area on Coogee Bay Road. Patrons wishing to smoke are to be advised of designated smoking areas of the hotel. The amended Plan of Management shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessment prior to the issuing of the Occupation Certificate.

 

B.        Conditions 21 and 29 be deleted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                          13 February 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D8/18

 

Subject:             50 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly (DA/536/2017)

Folder No:                   DA/536/2017

Author:                   Planning Ingenuity, Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                    Alterations and additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling house including new upper level addition and alteration to existing carport (variation to building height control)

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Ms E N Brown-Garrett

Owner:                        Ms E N Brown-Garrett

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=e9bebd8e-f3f6-432e-bae5-141d71f1e489&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Council for determination as it has a cost of works greater than $2 million.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal is for alterations and additions to an existing semi-detached dwelling at No.50 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly.  The works include minor alterations to the internal structural walls of the dwelling and new works maintaining the existing front, side and rear setbacks and increasing the height of the dwelling.  Works also include new decking to the front and rear and a new stacked space carport to replace the existing single carport.

 

Amended plans

 

Following preliminary assessment the applicant has revised the proposal to:

 

§ Lower the roof from a maximum height of RL33.01 to RL32.87 such that the roof height complies with the height of building control to the LEP of 9.5m;

§ Lower the finished floor level of  the uppermost level from RL29.07 to RL28.89;

§ Lower the floor to ceiling height of the mid level to 2.5m;

§ Comply with the external wall height control; and

§ Lower the party wall parapet by changing the roof design and materials and still achieve fire separation requirements under BCA and have the majority of the party wall compliant with the height control with the exception of the peak being a maximum height of 9.702m.

 

Site

 

The site known as No.50 Shackel Avenue and has a legal description of Lot B in Deposited Plan 438371.  The site is located at the cul de sac at the eastern end of Shackel Avenue and has a southerly aspect with a slope downwards away from the street.

 

The site is an irregular L-shaped lot with the boundary to Shackel Avenue being 3.67m.  The majority of the site has an east-west width of 6.35m and a north-south length of 49.435m.  The total area of the site is 358.9m2.

 

The site is the eastern dwelling of a pair of semi-detached dwellings.  Both semis have carports to nil setbacks adjacent to the boundary with Shackel Ave.  There are clusters of established canopy trees along the eastern side boundary of the site.  Trees are located on neighbouring properties but are close to the shared boundary.

 

Photographs of the site are included in Figures 1 to 3.

 

Figure 1: Streetscape of Shackel Avenue looking east – site indicated by red arrow

 

Figure 2: Northern front façade of semi detached dwellings at No.50 and No.48 Shackel Avenue (No.50 on left side of photo)

 

Figure 3: View of No.50 Shackel Avenue from the north showing existing carport

 

The semi detached building is not readily visible as part of the Shackel Avenue streetscape as shown in Figure 1.  Due to the irregular shape of the allotment the front facades of the semi detached building are oriented north and the street front boundary is to the north west.

 

The existing semi detached building is single storey to the north and two storey to the rear as the site slopes downwards to the south.

 

Surrounds

 

Surrounding development is a mix of semi detached dwellings, free standing dwellings and dual occupancies along Shackel Avenue as shown in Figures 4 and 5.  There are three and four storey residential flat buildings and two storey large dwellings to the east of the site fronting Ocean Street.  Views of these buildings from the subject site are included in Figures 6, 7 and 8.

 

Figure 4: Semi detached dwellings to the north of the site in Shackel Avenue

 

Figure 5: Streetscape of southern side of Shackel Avenue

 

Figure 6: Residential flat building and 3 storey dwelling to the east of the site as viewed from the eastern boundary of the site

 

Figure 7: Dwellings and residential flat building to the east of the site as viewed from the eastern boundary of the site

 

Figure 8: Three storey residential flat building adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site as viewed from the rear yard of the site

 

Clause 4.6 Assessment – Exceptions to Development Standards – Building Height

Clause 4.3 to Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 applies a maximum height of buildings control of 9.5m to the subject site. 

 

The applicant submitted a written request for variation to the building height development standard as is required by Clause 4.6 to RLEP 2012.  The request for variation applied to the original form of the proposal where both the maximum roof height and party wall height exceeded 9.5m.  The variation to the development standard sought by the original proposal was equivalent to 7.7%.  The original proposal exceeding the height control by a maximum of 740mm for the top of the party wall and a maximum of 320mm for the roof ridge.

 

As described above, the proposal has been revised such that the entire roof is now fully compliant with the height of buildings control in Clause 4.3 to Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.  The party wall is mostly compliant with the height of buildings control to the LEP with the exception of a minor exceedance of a maximum 205mm which is equivalent to a variation of 2.1%.  The external wall height of the dwelling does not comply with the DCP control and an examination of the external wall height is incorporated into this Clause 4.6 assessment to give an overall evaluation to the building envelope height.  The fundamental issues to be addressed with a Clause 4.6 variation remain the same for the revised scheme and are assessed below.

 

Clause 4.6 to RLEP 2012 provides authority and procedures for the consent authority to consider, and where appropriate grant consent to, development even though the development would contravene a particular development standard.  The objectives of Clause 4.6 are to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying development standards and to provide better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility.  The provisions of Clause 4.6 may be applied to the height of buildings development standard of RLEP 2012.

 

In accordance with Clause 4.6(3), for Council to consent to an exception to a development standard it must have considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to demonstrate that:

 

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

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

 

The applicant has submitted a written request for variation under Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012 which formed part of the Statement of Environmental Effects submitted with the development application.

 

The reasons advanced by the applicant in support of the height variation that are relevant to the assessment and Clause 4.6 are summarised as follows:

 

·      The proposal is compatible with the low density residential character of the locality;

·      The proposal integrates with the features of the existing dwelling and the site;

·      There will be no detrimental impacts to the amenity of surrounding properties;

·      The proposal is consistent with the objectives for development in Zone R2;

·      The alterations and additions are compliant with the FSR control;

·      Objectives (a) and (c) of Clause 4.3 are satisfied as the design fits in the context of the site and locality, is consistent with the character of residential development in the locality and it compatible with the streetscape;

·      The non-compliance relates to minor sections of the party wall and the majority of the built form is compliant;

·      The sections of non-compliant party wall will not have impacts in terms of privacy;

·      The roof design improves solar access and natural ventilation and creates visual interest and articulation;

·      The height of the party wall is compliant with the requirements for fire separation in accordance with the Building Code of Australia and the achievement of natural light and ventilation through the central split in the roof and careful nomination of building materials; and

·      The proposal has positive outcomes for internal amenity, maintaining views and outlooks and protecting privacy and solar access in comparison to a compliant built form.

 

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of Clause 4.3 to RLEP 2012 and thereby satisfies the requirements of Clause 4.6(3)(a) and the first part of the test set out in Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) NSW LEC 827.

 

The reasons presented in the request are supported.  The request for variation to the height of buildings development standard to Clause 4.3 of RLEP 2012 is considered to have addressed the required matters of Clause 4.6.  The proposed variation to the height of buildings control in Clause 4.3 is minor in numeric terms and in terms of the portions of the party wall that are non-compliant

 

For these reasons the variation to the height control as proposed does not result in a building form, scale and density or external impacts which might otherwise be achieved by a building height which is entirely compliant with Clause 4.3.

 

Pursuant to Clause 4.6(4)(a) consent cannot be granted unless Council is satisfied that:

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

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

 

Pursuant to Clause 4.6(4)(a)(i), the applicant’s written request has adequately responded to and addressed the matters required by Clause 4.6(3).  The arguments that the applicant has advanced are supported in the circumstances. The merit assessment of the matters specific to the site and the proposal concludes that the variation to the development standard for building height is warranted in this case.

 

In relation to Clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii), the applicant’s Clause  4.6 variation request responds to the objectives of the standard.

 

In light of the above, the applicant has submitted a variation request in relation to the building height limit that demonstrates that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the building height standard and that compliance with the height standards is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, as required by Clause 4.6(4) of the LEP.

 

Applying the flexibility granted under Clause 4.6 in this instance, the variation to the height of buildings control is consistent with the objectives of Clause 4.6 as it will represent an appropriate degree of flexibility to allow a better outcome for and from the development in the circumstances.

 

The site shares a boundary with several residential flat development sites of three and four storeys and the typical building height and massing in the immediate area generally exceeds the scale of the proposed dwelling.  The dwelling is well below the maximum floor space ratio control for the site (the control is 0.75:1 and the proposal has a floor space ratio of 0.66:1).

 

The merit assessment of the matters specific to the site and the proposal concludes that the variation to the development standard for building height is warranted in this case.  The variation does not raise any matters of State or regional strategic planning significance.

 

External Wall height

DCP Control 4.4 requires a maximum external wall height of 8m.  The proposal exceeds the external wall height by maintaining the alignment of the existing eastern external wall.  The maximum external wall height proposed is 9.5m.

The objectives for the external wall height control are as follows:

“• 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 roof form has visual interest by preserving the most visually prominent section of the original roof form as viewed from Shackel Avenue and by minimising the visual impact of the new roof as shown to the right hand side of Figure 9.  In this regard it meets the objectives for an appropriate degree of visual interest.

 

The new roof proposes a central split that enhances the environmental performance of the dwelling by allowing natural light and ventilation to the upper and middle levels (see Figure 10).  The proposal meets the objective for providing light and quality interior spaces.

Figure 9:  Extract from east elevation

 

As viewed from the street, the new roof will be recessive behind the section of the original roof to be retained and is compatible with the streetscape although the dwelling does not have a prominent appearance in the streetscape overall given it has a narrow frontage to the cul de sac.  The new roof will be more visually recessive than the roof of the additions to the neighbouring semi detached development at No.44 and 46 Shackel Avenue as shown in Figure 10.  The portion of the new roof most visible from Shackel Avenue roof tapers back front the front elevation giving a recessive appearance in contrast to the vertical elements of the additions shown in Figure 10.  In this regard the proposal achieves the objective for compatibility with streetscape.

Figure 10:  Photo of property to the west No.44 and 46 Shackel Ave

 

The external dimensions of the dwelling and overall height will be within the context and setting established by nearby residential buildings as shown in the extract from the southern elevation in Figure 11 where the heights of existing neighbouring buildings are included. 

Figure 11: Extract from South Elevation

 

The external wall height along the eastern façade maintains the setback of the existing dwelling and integrates with existing floor levels to retain the screening vegetation established along the eastern boundary and protects privacy and amenity.  Established screening vegetation is shown in Figure 12. Retaining existing vegetation will assist in maintaining neighbour privacy and is consistent with the objective.

 

Figure 12: Eastern façade of existing dwelling showing screening vegetation along the site boundary

 

The upper level windows in the eastern façade include narrow slot windows and low header windows to the living room which prevent a direct line of sight to neighbouring properties.  The kitchen window is to be fitted with a bench to prevent overlooking and focus outlooks to distant view corridors between buildings to the east. The window arrangements for the eastern façade have considered the protection of neighbour amenity and is consistent with the objective.

 

The window and deck arrangements for the rear (southern) façade is similar to the layout and finished levels of surrounding residential buildings which are generally oriented towards the south as shown in Figure 14.  The southern façade will be well separated from nearby dwellings and privacy screens required for the eastern edge of both mid level and upper level decks to achieve aural and visual privacy.  The proposed window and deck layout for the southern façade will not have unreasonable impacts on neighbour privacy and is consistent with the objectives.

 

The shadow to be cast by the proposed external wall height will not substantially increase the shadow impacts to neighbouring properties to the east during midwinter afternoons due to the substantial change in finished ground levels and internal shadows cast by existing retaining walls, boundary fencing, screening landscaping and surrounding three and four storey buildings.

 

In consideration of roof height and external wall height the proposal will not impact on existing outlooks from neighbouring properties in comparison to a compliant building envelope.  The proposal has been designed to retain existing outlooks and views from neighbouring properties as well as optimise views and outlooks to the east and south from the interior spaces of the dwelling and new decks oriented to the rear.

 

The roof design provides a central split which allows cross ventilation and natural light into the upper two levels of the dwelling in the centre of the building.  This roof design and glazing material requires the party wall to extend to the height proposed to achieve fire isolation.  Materials have been selected to minimise the height requirements for the party wall.  The revised plans have made notable effort to minimise the overall building height and account for the existing floor and ceiling heights.

 

The proposed built form is considered to be a positive architectural response in applying the planning controls to an existing building to achieve better planning outcomes through a reduced visual impact and improved environmental performance of the dwelling.  The site has an unusual setting being adjacent to three and four storey buildings including residential flat buildings of substantial bulk and scale.  The dwelling is also set amongst established built forms which, despite local topography, do not establish clear, continuous view corridors or view lines through the residential neighbourhood towards the foreshore.

 

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, the following three (3) submissions were received from:

 

·      27 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly;

·      33 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly; and

·      31 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly.

 

The following issues were raised in submissions and were common to the submissions and relevant to the assessment of the application.

 

Issue: Proposal exceeds the building height control and the control for maximum external wall height with impacts to surrounding properties and sets a negative precedent

 

Assessment comment:  The proposal has been revised to achieve to reduce the degree of non-compliance with the building height control.  The proposed roof profile is fully compliant with the 9.5m height of buildings control to the LEP.  The proposed party wall has been reduced in height to exceed the height control by a maximum of 205mm.  The variations to external wall height controls and building height control have been examined above.

 

The proposed height of the dwelling will have no unreasonable detrimental impacts to surrounding properties as explained above and below in this report.  The minor variation to the building height control has been assessed and supported for reasons detailed in the compliance report.  The proposed exceedance is minor in numeric terms and applies to the party wall only which is a minor component of the overall built form.  The height of the party wall is necessary to achieve compliance with the Building Code of Australia and the roof design and materials have been revised to minimise the height required for the party wall to achieve fire separation.

 

The variation to the external wall height control has been examined and determined to be appropriate in the context and setting.

 

The design achieves positive outcome in terms of an innovative roof design which is visually recessive and incorporates clerestory windows and ventilation to greatly enhance the environmental performance and internal amenity of the dwelling.

 

The scale of the proposed dwelling will not be out of character with the scale of surrounding dwellings and residential buildings.  The floor space ration and overall scale of the building is significantly less than the maximum permissible FSR of 0.75:1.

 

The architectural design is a response specific to the site, integrating new works with existing floor levels and preserving the context and frontage features of the semi detached dwelling pair.

 

For these reasons the proposal does not set a potential detrimental precedent.

 

Issue:  The proposal exceeds the control for the maximum side elevation of 12m

 

Assessment comment:  The proposal integrates new work with the building footprint of the existing dwelling.  No section of external wall has an unarticulated section that exceeds 12m.  Every external wall is provided with a high degree of articulation in terms of steps in the external wall alignment, window placement, decks and balconies and variations in colours, materials and finishes.

 

Issue: The potential for similar scale of development at No.48 will have negative impacts on streetscape, public space and surrounding properties

 

Assessment comment:  Any works proposed for No.48 Shackel Avenue will be subject to separate assessment.  There are examples of semi detached buildings in the locality where additions and alterations have resulted in both semi detached dwellings being significantly enlarged in comparison to their original form and there are examples of alterations and additions to semi detached dwellings which do not maintain the character of the original built form of the pair of dwellings (such as 27 and 29 Shackel Ave immediately north of the site as shown in Figure 9).  The Shackel Avenue streetscape demonstrates a wide variety of dwelling sizes and styles and the façade of the subject dwelling does not directly present to Shackel Avenue.  For these reasons the proposal will not have a detrimental impacts to the streetscape.

 

The proposal will have no impacts on public space.

 

The proposal will have no unreasonable detrimental impacts to surrounding properties as demonstrated later in this report.

 

The scale of the proposal is not out of character with the scale of the variety of detached dwellings, semi detached dwellings and residential flat buildings in the immediate vicinity.  The surrounding buildings include three and four storey residential flat buildings and two and three storeys dwellings.  In addition to the photos demonstrating the variety of building scales in Figures 4 to 8, Figure 10 is a photograph taken from the rear yard of the subject site looking north and shows large three storey and four storey residential buildings on adjoining and nearby sites.  The proposal will be of a scale which fits within the vast range of building sizes already well established in the neighbourhood.

 

Figure 13: 27 and 29 Shackel Ave north of the subject site

 

 

Figure 14: View from the rear yard of the subject site looking north showing the variety of bulk and scale of residential buildings in close proximity

 

Issue: Inaccuracies in the drawings issued with notification letters.

 

Assessment comment:  There were minor errors on the finished floor levels of the lower ground level indicated in the notification plans.  However, the floor to ceiling heights and height data for upper levels and the overall building height are correct on the notification plans and the full set of architectural plans submitted with the development application.  The minor errors could not have resulted in a mis-interpretation of overall building height, finished levels of new works, setbacks or other data related to the proposal which are essential in determining compliance.  The full set of architectural plans submitted with the development application are accurate and complete and contain appropriate information for assessment purposes. The revised plans are accurate and complete.

Issue:  View loss from No.33 Shackel Avenue to the north of the site

 

Assessment Comment:  The proposal has been revised such that the external wall heights and the roof line achieve compliance with Council’s controls.  The only non-compliance relates to the top of the party wall which exceeds the height control by 205mm at most.

 

This non-compliance has a negligible impact on views from No.33 Shackel Avenue.

 

Figures 15 and 16 are 3D images of the modelled outlook from the upper windows of No.33 Shackel Avenue.  Figure 15 shows the external dimensions of the proposal including the party wall extending at most 205mm above the height of buildings control.  Figure 16 shows a schematic roof form with an alternative roof design which is 9.5m in height.  It is clear that the proposal (Fig 15) is lower in the general view line than a roof line which meets the 9.5m height of buildings control (Fig 16).

 

Figure 15: Proposal as viewed from upper levels of No.33 Shackel

 

Figure 16: A schematic of a roof design which complies with the 9.5m height of buildings control

 

Figure 17 is a photograph taken from the existing first floor rear deck on the subject site.  It shows that view lines towards Clovelly Bay to the south are distant views mostly obstructed by existing dwellings. The view from No.33 Shackel Avenue over the subject site is from a position further upslope and further from Clovelly Bay. 

 

Figure 17: View lines from the subject site in the same direction as extended from No.33 Shackel Avenue across the subject site

 

Figures 18, 19 and 20 are photographs of the views from properties to the north of the site and across the road being 31, 29 and 33 Shackel Avenue respectively and shows similar views including views over the top of the roofs of dwellings on the southern side of Shackel Avenue and beyond.

 

Figure 18: View from 31 Shackel Avenue north west and upslope of the site

 

View from ground floor level of 29 Shackel Ave

Figure 19: View from lower level of 29 Shackel Avenue looking south

 

Figure 20: View from lower level of No.33 Shackel Avenue looking south

In accordance with the four step planning principle for the assessment of view sharing as formulated by Senior Commissioner Roseth in the Land and Environment Court judgement Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004] 347 NSWLEC the assessment for the 200mm section of party wall which exceeds the height control is as follows.

 

Principle: “ The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (eg 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, eg a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.”

 

In accordance with the first principle, the views are of water (ocean) which are highly valued.  The views are over existing residential buildings.

 

Principle: “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.”

 

The line of outlook towards Clovelly Bay is from the front façade of the dwellings north and upslope from the site.  It is possible to view the Bay from sitting and standing positions and from lower and upper floor windows.  The view is a distant view over other residential properties.

 

Principle: “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. It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.”

 

The extent of the impact in comparison to a compliant building height relates to the central section of the party wall which is to be 205mm above the maximum building height control and which will be viewed in narrow profile from the northern side of Shackel Avenue.  The non-compliant section of the party wall will be negligible in terms of the outlook towards the south and Figures 15 and 16 show that the roof profile of the proposal obstructs less of the outlook than an alternative roof design which complies with the 9.5m height of buildings control.

 

The section of the eastern façade which is non-compliant with the external wall height makes minimal contribution to the overall building dimensions.  As shown in Figures 15 and 16, deleting the top edge of the eastern external wall would mostly reveal the building forms further south.

 

The view loss from lower levels of dwellings on the northern side of Shackel Avenue is likely to be moderate or severe in terms of the scale of change to the current outlook.  The view loss from upper levels of the same dwellings is considered to be minor or negligible.

 

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

 

The roof line of the proposal is compliant with the LEP height of buildings controls.  The exceedance required for the party wall is minor in terms of the numeric measure and view impacts.  The height of the external wall along the eastern façade is non-compliant with the DCP control.  However, insisting on full compliance would not achieve notable environmental planning benefits in terms of privacy, shadowing or view loss in comparison to the general building form which could be anticipated for the subject site.

 

The proposed built form is considered to be an appropriate architectural response in applying the planning controls to an existing building to achieve better planning outcomes through an appropriate visual impact, retaining character elements of the front façade of the semi detached dwelling and improved environmental performance of the dwelling with a split roof and void spaces enhancing natural light and natural ventilation.  For these reasons the proposed section of the party wall which exceeds the height control is not considered to have unreasonable detrimental impacts on views from dwellings immediately north of the site.

 

Issue:  Overlooking of No.33 Shackel Avenue

 

Assessment Comment:  No.33 Shackel Avenue is located to the north and upslope from the subject site.  The minimum separation between the two facades will be 27m which is further enhanced by the natural topography.  The proposal includes the extension and replacement of the existing carport located between the subject dwelling and No.33 Shackel Avenue.  The new carport will create ground level privacy screening between the front setback areas of the two properties.  At upper levels the windows in the southern façade of No.33 Shackel Avenue are bedroom windows and the upper level window proposed to the northern façade of the proposed additions is limited to a media room window.  The overall relationship between the existing dwelling at No.33 Shackel Ave and the proposed built form and layout of No.50 are considered to provide an appropriate level of privacy between the dwellings and will not result in unreasonable overlooking.

 

Issue: Bulk and scale of car parking structure

 

The dimensions of the new carport will be limited in height by recommended conditions of consent and are considered to be entirely appropriate in the cul de sac circumstances.  In the eastern section of Shackel Avenue on-street parking is regularly at capacity and there are no other alternatives but to provide increased on-site parking than in the manner proposed.  There are open form carports with nil setbacks currently servicing No.48 and No.50 Shackel Avenue and the proposal will greatly improve the streetscape in comparison to the existing carport.

 

Key Issues

 

The key issues to be examined in the assessment of this development application are:

 

·      Building height and external wall height;

·      Overshadowing

·      Impacts on views and outlooks

·      Privacy and overlooking.

 

These matters have been examined in the development assessment process and the proposal has been found to be compatible with the conditions of the site and surrounds.  It has been determined that the proposal is an appropriate response to the application of the planning controls to works which are integrated with the existing dwelling footprint and ground floor level to achieve an innovative design and layout compatible with the adjoining semi-detached dwelling and neighbouring properties.  The height of the proposal has been assessed as satisfactory on merit as detailed in the assessment of the Clause 4.6 variation request above.

 

The proposal has been designed to optimise existing view corridors whilst preserving outlooks from neighbouring properties.  The minor additional shadow to be cast in midwinter is compliant with the DCP requirements.  The building envelope from which the shadows are to be cast is compliant with setbacks, external wall heights and compliant roof heights.  The section of the party wall which exceeds the height by 200mm will not contribute to additional shadows as it is positioned in the centre of the building mass.

 

The new windows in the eastern façade at the uppermost level have been designed and oriented to focus on distant lines of sight.  The fitout of benches in the kitchen will prevent lines of sight into neighbouring rear yards.  Windows and decks at the rear of the dwelling replicate the current orientation of living room windows and decks.  The layout is also consistent with the orientation and layout of neighbouring and nearby dwellings as demonstrated in Figures 10 and 11.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal complies with the relevant controls and objectives of the LEP with the exception of a minor variation to the height of buildings control.  The request for variation to the height of buildings control pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LEP is well founded and demonstrates that numeric compliance with the height control is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances.  It is also considered that the proposed architectural response which leads to the minor height non-compliance results in a better planning outcome through reduced overall visual bulk and improved environmental performance and internal amenity.

 

The proposal complies with the relevant controls and objectives of the DCP with the exception of a minor variation to the external wall height.  The variation is a consequence of the site topography and working with the existing building footprint and ground levels.  The non-compliance will have no unreasonable detrimental impacts.

 

Overall the proposal will not result in any adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining properties or the character of the locality.

 

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

Recommendation

 

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

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/536/2017 for Alterations and additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling house including new upper level addition and alteration to existing carport, at No. 50 Shackel Avenue (Lot B DP 438371), subject to the the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report.

 

Non standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.          A privacy screen having a height of 1.6m (measured above deck level) shall be provided to the eastern edge of the rear decks at mid and upper floor levels.

 

Privacy screen/s must be constructed with either:

 

·       Translucent or obscured glazing;

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

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

 

b.     The overall height of the carport shall not exceed 2.6m above the finished floor slab.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 50 Shackel Avenue, CLOVELLY 

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                          13 February 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D9/18

 

Subject:             58-60 Carr Street, Coogee  (DA/116/2014/A)

Folder No:                   DA/116/2014/A

Author:                   Planning Ingenuity, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 (AA): Section 96 (AA): Application to modify the consent by adding new service/storage area, a pedestrian gate fronting Carr St at lower ground floor level, modify entry including new lift and internal reconfiguration to cafe, enclosure of car spaces at ground floor level, increase size of balconies and new roof to upper level balconies, changes to openings on elevations and installation of mechanical ventilation system and associated acoustic attenuation box on the southern corner of the site and amendment to consent to allow residential works to be completed and occupied separately from the completion of the cafe works. Original consent: Alterations and additions to existing residential flat building including new cafe.

 

Ward:                     East Ward

 

Applicant:                McGregor Westlake Architecture

Owner:                        The Owners - Strata Plan No. 2004

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=d21e5b14-d864-4f87-916a-f10d81157069&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Council for consideration as the original applicant was determined by Land and Environment Court.

 

Proposal

The Section 96AA Application seeks to modify DA/116/2014/A, which was approved by the New South Wales Land and Environment Court (LEC) on 16 September 2015 (McGregor Westlake Architecture v Randwick City Council [2014] NSWLEC 10828), following Council’s earlier refusal of the application at its Ordinary Council meeting of 26 August 2014.

 

Consent was granted by the LEC to DA116/2014, as amended, for alterations and additions to the existing flat building including a new café subject to the conditions in Annexure A of the Court order.

 

The applicant seeks to modify the approval in order to improve the functionality and amenity of balconies, the internal movement of pedestrians at ground level, the internal configuration of the café kitchen and the layout of some of the car parking spaces. One of the principal changes relates to staging (or separation) of the construction and occupation certificates related to residential and commercial components of the application given that the works are unlikely to be completed simultaneously.

 

The section 96AA application was modified on 24 August 2017 and 21 December 2017, and this report relates to the final submission of plans. The amended submission rectified an increase in the capacity of outdoor seating for the café beyond that approved by the Court to retain the capacity approved. The relevant plans are listed below:

 

·      Ground Floor Plan (Dwg No. 101 Revision AA)

·      Lower Ground Floor Plan (Dwg No. 101 Revision T)

·      First Floor Plan (Dwg No. 102 Revision V)

·      Typical Floor Plan (Dwg No. 103 Revision O)

·      Roof Plan (Dwg No. 104 Revision M)

·      Elevations North + West (Dwg No. 201 Revision R)

·      Elevations South + East (Dwg No. 202 Revision P)

·      Section (Dwg No. 203 Revision N)

·      Garage, garbage room and side boundary (Dwg No. 205 Revision P)

·      Materials and Finishes (Dwg No. 301 Revision I).

 

The modification application does not change the approved development in terms of the intensity of the use or the allocation of floor space to residential or commercial floor space (subject to clarification made below in relation to internal seating). The modifications can be summarised as follows:

 

1. Lower Ground Floor Level

·      Services/storage area added underneath proposed Ground Floor level entry verandah

·      Pedestrian gate added adjacent to Carr Street vehicle entrance

·      Fire rated wall to be constructed on the eastern boundary for fire separation

 

2. Ground Floor Level

·      Reconfiguration of access to residential bin storage and adjacent car parking spaces. Car parking spaces to have blade walls inserted for fire protection.

·      New slab added to allow for vehicle turning

·      Replace stair from street level and stair lift with platform lift

·      Minor revisions to layout of bathrooms and kitchen

·      Minor glazing changes and columns moved

·      Fire rated wall to be constructed on the eastern boundary for fire separation

 

3. First Floor Plan

·      Balcony on eastern elevation extended by 200mm to the south to comply with BCA fire separation requirements. The balcony is also to be extended to the north. The setback from the eastern side boundary is to be retained as approved.

·      Floor level of balcony on eastern elevation re-labelled to be consistent with the RL on the survey.

·      Balcony on western elevation extended to the south. The setback from the western side boundary is to be slightly reduced by 0.1m. Existing window adjacent to extension partially cut down to create a glass door.

·      The existing awning above the entry on Kurrawa Avenue to be demolished and replaced with a new awning.

·      Roof beam above café terrace revised.

·      The awning above the café terrace on the eastern side of the site be reduced from RL15.55 to RL15.40.

·      Columns on the northern terraces to be deleted and replaced with columns set further into building.

·      The first floor plan shows 14 x 4 seat tables (56 capacity) compared with approval which had 12x 4 seat tables. This increase is not referred to in the application and a condition of approval is recommended to set an internal limit on the basis of the Court approval.

 

4. Typical Floor Plan

·      Balcony on eastern elevation extended by 200mm to the south to comply with BCA fire separation requirements. The balcony is also to be reduced on the northern side. The setback from the eastern side boundary is to be retained as approved.

·      Column adjacent to eastern balcony deleted.

·      Balcony on western elevation extended. The setback from the western side boundary is to be slightly reduced by 0.1m. Existing window adjacent to extension partially cut down to create a glass door.

·      Northern balconies amended (same total area of 12m2 each). The columns have been rearranged in order to improve views from adjacent living rooms.

 

5. Roof Level

·      Roofs over balconies modified to correspond to balconies below.

·      There is an error in the plans showing an increase in the plant/lift overrun height at roof level. A condition is recommended to rectify this.

 

There will be no change to any of the following:

·      The approved height and FSR of the building

·      The number and size of approved dwellings

·      The approved mix of uses

·      The capacity (subject to condition on internal seating) or hours of operation of the café.

 

The applicant has submitted an additional acoustic assessment prepared by Renzo Tonin & Associates dated 16 October 2017 to address noise impacts associated with mechanical ventilation of the lower ground level car park required by the BCA and Australian Standards. Willana Associates on behalf of the applicant has also submitted a response to the objections in a letter dated 14 July 2017.

 

The applicant submitted additional information on 21 December 2017 including additional plans deleting a reference to a loading bay on the elevation plans and including an additional exhaust fan at ground floor. Additional information was again provided on 12 January 2018 including an air quality assessment report, alternative engineering solutions for ventilation report and mechanical engineering drawings. Those reports are addressed in this report.

 

Site

The subject site, SP 2004, known as 58-60 Carr Street, Coogee, is irregular in shape. Its frontage to Carr Street is 18.04m, with a splayed corner. The site has a 32.64m boundary to Kurrawa Avenue. The southern boundary is 32.41m. The eastern boundary is irregular. The total site area is 836m².

 

The site is currently used for residential purposes. It contains a seven (7) storey residential flat building, with a total of 28 units. The building has parking split across a ground floor, rear podium and sub-basement level, which are predominantly not enclosed. There are driveways from both Carr Street and Kurrawa Avenue. Pedestrian access is from Kurrawa Avenue. The frontage to Carr Street is currently delineated by a palisade fence.

 

The site is located at the southern end of Coogee Beach, opposite Goldstein Reserve. Coogee has a variety of land uses, being predominantly residential and commercial. There are cafés, hotels, restaurants and retail uses within the vicinity of the site. It is generally a medium density area with a number of larger mixed use buildings in the area.

 

Figure 1: Subject Site

 

Directly opposite the Site, is a parkland area, known as Goldstein Reserve, which provides access to Coogee Beach.

 

Adjoining the site to the east, at the front of the Site is a two storey commercial building containing a large restaurant on the ground floor and a health studio, which runs Yoga classes on the first floor. Adjoining the site at the rear, to the east, is a heritage item at 64 Carr Street, Coogee.

To the rear, the site adjoins a two storey residential flat building which fronts Beach Street to the east and has rear access to Kurrawa Avenue. Further to the south, running up Kurrawa Avenue are a number of residential flat buildings.

 

The western boundary of the site adjoins Kurrawa Avenue. On the opposite side is a six storey building with retail, commercial and restaurant uses on the ground floor fronting Kurrawa Avenue, Carr Street and Arden Street at the rear.

 

Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the site’s relationship to neighbouring properties to the south (136 Beach Street) and the east (62-64 Carr Street).

 

 

Figure 2: Southern side of existing RFB adjoining No. 136 Beach Street and rear of No. 62-64 Carr Street

 

 

Figure 3:   Eastern elevation of existing RFB and adjoining development to the south and east

 

Submissions

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. A total of 22 submissions were received as a result of the notification process with five (5) submitters making multiple submissions and one (1) submission from the Coogee Precinct Committee.  Submissions were received from the addresses listed below (noting that some submissions were made via email and did not identify a residential address):

 

·      56 Carr St,Coogee

·      83 Beach St, Coogee

·      1005/56 Car St, Coogee

·      3 Kurrawa Ave, Coogee

·      603/56 Carr St, Coogee

·      902/56 Carr St, Coogee

·      10/56 Carr St, Coogee

·      62 Carr St, Coogee

·      136A Beach St, Coogee

·      6/142 Beach St, Coogee

·      9/154 Beach St, Coogee

·      3/138 Beach St, Coogee

·      4/138 Beach St, Coogee

 

The responses to the notification period raised the following issues:

 

·      Loss of solar access and views (x2).

·      Objection to machinery removing carbon monoxide from underground carpark (x7).

·      Noise and odour from garbage room (x4).

·      Noise, loss of privacy and views resulting from enlarged balconies (x6).

·      Objection to size of restaurant (x6).

·      Any commercial development should be limited to area immediately in front of Windsor Towers.

·      Proposal does not suit the surrounding residential environment of the south end of Coogee.

·      Proposed enlarged balconies do not comply with setback controls;

·      Objection against replacement of carport with built structure, since this will reduce light (x3).

·      Bin enclosure should be 1300mm from boundary as per LEC approval, not 1200mm proposed in s96.

·      Development has consent from LEC, should not be subject to further amendments.

·      Objection to 35 restaurant patrons on terrace, should be 20 as per LEC consent.

·      Parking issues resulting from restaurant size (x3).

·      Noise issues from enlarged balconies exacerbated since many of these units are rented short-term to people on holidays etc.

 

The applicant provided a separate response addressing the abovementioned matters which makes the following points in summary:

 

i.   Enlarged balconies will not require columns, and won’t result in any view loss.

ii.   Jet fan meets requirements of BCA. Suggestion to include conditions of consent to minimise impact.

iii.  Jet fan is located in the only possible functional area with an acoustic attenuator proposed to minimise impact. An acoustic report supports the proposal.

iv.  No change in size of bin enclosure, only relocation of bin enclosure access point.

v.  Proposal is not amending the design of café in a way that will increase patron numbers.

vi.  Increase in balcony size will improve residential amenity.

vii. Enlarged balconies will not result in loss of solar access or overshadowing.

viii. The proposal is not amending the zoning or approved use of the site.

ix.  Side setbacks are being maintained as approved.

x.  Proposal is not increasing the Gross Floor Area or height.

xi.  Building separation from modified balconies to neighbouring properties is compliant

xii. The uses are consistent with the zone and general mixed use character of the area. The proposed changes are minor.

 

Further Submission 20 December 2017

 

An additional submission was received on 20 December 2017 from the owners of Units 3 and 4/138 Beach Street, Coogee, in relation to the proposed mechanical ventilation. The owners commissioned Jeff Smith Consulting Pty Ltd (Building Services and Tunnel Ventilation Mechanical Engineer) to review the proposed fan and vent system from the rear underground carpark and the openings from the proposed residential bin enclosure and the potential impacts on the residents of No. 138 Beach Street. The submission concludes:

 

It is my opinion that the proposed works depicted in the S96 application are flawed and not in compliance with prescriptive ventilation and fire separation requirements details in NCC and referred Australian Standards.

 

Noise, vehicle emissions and odour issues affecting the health and amenity of adjacent residences have been created as a result of the proposed works. The car park intake attenuator, rising vertically adjacent to 138 Beach St will, when the car park mechanical ventilation is not running, act like a low level chimney. The chimney action will draw vehicle pollutants and odours from the LGP and depositing these in the enclosed, wind protected void created by the garbage room construction adjacent neighbouring buildings.

 

A space between the proposed garbage room and adjoining residences has been created with limited access control and which cannot be monitored. This space, if the proposed plans are approved will further add security risk to adjoining properties.

The 20m² void, as shown in LEC approved plans, if retained, would remove the need for mechanical ventilation to the lower ground parking. The proposed car park mechanical ventilation scheme shown is a significant source of health risk to identified immediately adjacent properties.

 

The proposal, in its current form, must be rejected due to code non-conformances, health risks, security and nuisance issues.

 

The report has been reviewed by the relevant Council Officers, in addition to the additional reports submitted to Council by the applicant in December 2017 (which do not appear to have been reviewed by Mr Smith as part of his submission). It is noted that the acoustic attenuator box would need to be upgraded with the provision of fire damper to comply with the relevant fire safety provisions of the BCA and relevant conditions have already been incorporated in the original Court approval.

 

Overall, the proposal is considered to be acceptable, subject to conditions of consent being imposed to require acoustic, ventilation and building code compliance reports to be provided prior to the issue of the Construction Certificates. Further detail on these issues is provided in the Key Issues section of this report.

 

Further Submission 1 February 2018

 

A further submission from 4/138 Beach Street dated 1 February 2018 was submitted to Council.  The submission raises the following points:

 

·      Adverse impact of “proposed air conditioning and refrigeration plant” shown on Proposed Ground Level Layout Mechanical Services drawing no.AM573-MO3 Issue E dated 27 December 2017 prepared by ARIM Services Consulting P/L (received by Council on 12 January 2018) and potential generation of noise and 12m separation from neighbouring living areas;

·      Non-compliant use of the proposed concrete slab at ground floor level east of the commercial bin store room and south of the rear ramp ‘back of house’ access to the café for “loading”;

·      There is no need for the concrete slab at ground floor level east of the commercial bin store room and south of the rear ramp ‘back of house’ access to the café;

·      There is no need for the jet fan and vent at the rear of the site if the concrete slab is not installed and natural ventilation is maintained;

·      The jet fan vent would act as a chimney and suck up CO and other pollutants from the underground car park when the fan was not in use.

·      Odour from the roof vent and access doors to the bin enclosure which is 2m west of apartments at 3 and 4 / 138 Beach Street;

·      Non-compliant horizontal separation of fan intake vent; and

·      Incorrect diagram on Page 19 of Desanco report.

 

In relation to the “proposed air conditioning and refrigeration plant” the plans do not provide details of such plant and equipment and the works do not form part of this Section 96 modification application.  Specific conditions are recommended to ensure that the consent does not relate to this element on the plan.

 

The most recent architectural plans to form part of the recommended notice of determination indicate this section of the concrete slab to be available for vehicle turning.  No loading/unloading is to occur on this section of the Ground Floor area.

 

This section of concrete slab that is at ground floor level east of the commercial bin store room and south of the rear ramp ‘back of house’ access to the café is required for manoeuvring space for vehicles using the car parking area accessed via Kurrawa Avenue.  Accounting for the adjustment to the siting of the three (3) garages and residential bin storage room since the original lodgement of the Section 96 modification application, the vehicles entering the three garage spaces in a forward direction will need to reverse into the turning space created by the concrete slab in order to leave the site in a forward direction.

 

The slab also provides pedestrian movement space between the “back of house” entry to the café and the commercial bin store.

 

Information has been submitted with the Section 96 modification application demonstrating the need for mechanical ventilation of the lower ground car parking area and the details of the mechanical ventilation system have been assessed as referenced throughout this report.

 

The residential bin store room is to be positioned in the south east corner of the site at ground level.  The bin room is to be fully enclosed with solid external walls and a metal sheet roof with roof vents oriented to the west towards Kurrawa Avenue.  The roof vents are to be approximately 8m from the southern site boundary and 3.5m from the eastern site boundary and oriented away from neighbouring properties.  The bin enclosure has been designed to maintain access at the furthest point from the windows of the neighboring property, ensuring that movement of bins and opening of doors have minimal impacts. The door on the southern side of the bin storage room will only provide access for maintenance purposes, will be used infrequently and will not contribute to noise. The setback of the structure from the boundary at 1.2m remains largely the same as that approved by the Court (1.3m). Enclosure of the car parking spaces adjacent to the bin storage room is likely to improve acoustic amenity for neighbours to the rear in terms of reducing noise, exhaust and headlight glare impacts in particular.

 

The separation of all mechanical ventilation structures and their treatment to achieve compliance with the relevant requirements is detailed later in this report and has been assessed by Council’s Environmental Health Officer.  This assessment has taken into consideration the various revised plans and additional reports submitted to Council throughout the assessment process.

 

In relation to the potential chimney effect from the opening of the jet fan, it should be noted that the jet fan system would have limited opening for air intake only (similar to the air-conditioning system) and the car park areas will be fitted with CO/NO sensors to ensure compliance with the relevant requirements under the BCA and AS1668.2-2012. The jet fan operation will be triggered by the CO/NO sensors and therefore it is appropriate to assume when the jet fan system is not in use, the air quality within the car park areas would be acceptable and therefore any potential air that may leaked from the jet fan opening (in the unlikely event) would be similar to the existing condition.

 

Further Submission 2 February 2018

 

A further submission from Jeff Smith Consulting dated 2 February 2018 was received by Council.  The submission challenges the technical content, modelling, design details and scope of the reports prepared by ARIM Services Consulting regarding the potential mechanical ventilation of the lower ground level car parking area.

 

The submission has been reviewed by Council’s Manager of Health, Building and Regulatory Services with the particular attention on whether the additional concrete slab (turning bay) at ground floor level would trigger the need for the jet fan system. The Manager confirmed that the need for the jet fan system is not related to the additional concrete slab area, the original Court approved development with the provision of void area in the middle of the carpark does not comply with the relevant natural ventilation requirements for car parks under AS 1668.4-2012 (i.e. Part 4.3 of AS 1668.4-2012) and therefore an alternative solution including the installation of jet fan system to aid natural ventilation in the car park areas is required to achieve full compliance with the Australian Standard.

 

All other issues raised in the submissions which are relevant to the assessment of the Section 96 Modification application are addressed throughout this report.

 

Key Issues

 

1.1 View loss due to balcony changes

The changes proposed to the balconies on the north, west and east elevations are minor and are unlikely to facilitate increased use/activity of the outdoor balconies or reduce views from neighbouring properties.  The increase in the width of the balconies is only 200mm which is not enough to increase the number of people able to use the spaces or the nature and intensity of the use and therefore are unlikely to contribute to increased noise and disturbance.

 

In relation to the eastern boundary, the side setbacks are retained at 3.080m to the first floor level and 2.475m for the floor levels above, maintaining the view corridor provided by the plans approved by the LEC.

 

In relation to the west facing balconies there is a reduction in the setback from Kurrawa Avenue from 1.1m to 900mm which would not make any discernible difference to views given its location towards the rear of the building.

 

In relation to the Carr Street balconies (north elevation), again the change to the balcony size is very minor maintaining a useable area of 12m2 with the outside edge of the balcony changed to run parallel with the building.   

 

Figure 4 below illustrates the approved Typical Floor Plan (Dwg No. 103 Revision G) as approved by the Land and Environment Court compared with Figure 5 being the proposed Typical Floor Plan (Dwg No.103 Revision O) which forms part of the Section 96 application. A comparison of the two plans illustrates the minor extent of the changes proposed, which can be supported.

 

 

Figure 4: LEC approved Typical Floor Plan (Dwg No. 103 Revision G)

 

 

Figure 5: Section 96 Typical Floor Plan (Dwg No.103 Revision O)

 

The balcony materials remain unchanged (glass) in relation to the upper residential floor levels and consequently the proposal is substantially the same as that approved by the Land and Environment Court.  There are no valid reasons to refuse consent to the balcony changes proposed given the minor nature of the amendments and the minimal impacts arising.

 

1.2 Impact of changes to bin enclosure and toilets

Objections have been raised in relation to the changes to the residential bin enclosure and height of the accessible toilet at ground floor level, particularly in relation to view impacts.

 

The enclosure of the three (3) existing car spaces and bin storage area in the south-east corner of the site does not contribute to any further loss of views along the driveway corridor of No.58-60 Carr Street for the occupiers of the development to the rear at No. 138 Beach Street. In fact, the garbage room enclosure is lowered to RL15.50 adjacent to the eastern boundary which maximises the view sharing opportunity for the neighbours to the rear (and slightly improves it compared with the original approval).

 

In addition, the bin enclosure has been designed to maintain access at the furthest point from the windows of the neighboring property, ensuring that bins are not wheeled adjacent to the neighbour’s ensuite and main bathroom windows. A new door is proposed on the southern side of the bin storage room however, this will only provide access for maintenance purposes and will not contribute to noise associated with the movement of bins or the placement of rubbish. In addition, the setback of the structure from the boundary at 1.2m remains largely the same as that approved by the Court (1.3m). It is considered that the minor variation of 100mm will not have a material impact upon the neighbouring property. Enclosure of the car parking spaces adjacent to the bin storage room is likely to improve acoustic amenity for neighbours to the rear.

 

In relation to the number and location of toilets for the approved café, the Section 96 does not seek to increase the numbers which remain at four (4) and includes one (1) accessible toilet. However, the location of the toilets has changed to improve circulation and access. Regardless of how the approved space is set out, the extent of the ground floor extension for the terrace and toilets remains as approved with a depth of 15.7m from the Carr Street frontage. While the depth of the outdoor terrace is slightly longer (12m) compared to that shown on the original plans (9.82m) the number of seats permitted on the outdoor terrace is still limited to 20. The additional space provides for improved circulation area and access to the toilet facilities. It should be also noted that the height of the accessible toilet remains the same as the court approval (ie. RL15.4) and will not result in any additional view loss.

 

1.3 Floor area of restaurant and seating capacity

The capacity of the restaurant remains a significant concern of neighbouring residents and is required to comply with Condition 66 of the LEC approval which states:

 

“Patron Numbers
The patron number on the outdoor terrace area shall be limited to a maximum of 20 and a maximum of 35 for the footway dining area.”


The original S96 plans (dated 14 March 2017) indicated a greater number of outdoor seats to both the terrace and the footpath dining area but has since been amended to comply with the above condition as shown on the amended Section 96 plans (dated 17 August 2017).  

 

In relation to the capacity of the indoor dining space this is also in keeping with the original approval which provided 100m2 of enclosed dining and kitchen space. The court approved plans indicate 12 tables inside providing seating for 48, whereas the S96 plans indicate 14 tables providing seating for 56 people which represents an increase of 8 seats. The provision of chairs and tables within the building was never limited by the LEC approval, however given that the original Court approval was premised on acoustic assessment for 48 persons and that the applicant has not dealt with this increase in the application (in the SEE or acoustic assessment), it is recommended that a condition be imposed that limits the internal capacity to 48 persons.

 

It is noted above that the number of toilets has not changed, although the configuration of them has changed which has allowed a slight increase in the length of the outdoor terrace adjacent to the eastern boundary.  Figure 6 below illustrates the LEC approved terrace (9.82m), while Figure 7 illustrates the terrace proposed (12m) as part of the Section 96 application.

 

Figure 6: LEC approved outdoor terrace and seating (Ground Floor Plan 101 Revision M)

 

 

Figure 7: S96 outdoor terrace and seating (Ground Floor Plan 101 Revision AA)

 

The above changes do not increase the capacity of the outdoor terrace seating but improve the circulation areas between the kitchen, dining areas and bathroom facilities. It is noted that the relationship between the outdoor terrace and adjoining yoga studio at ground floor level remains the same as a new boundary wall (to RL14.8) to comply with the BCA and the wall is still proposed along the common boundary as shown in the Carr Street elevation.

 

The overall capacity of the restaurant is still limited to 20 on the terrace and 35 within the footpath dining area. As the floor area of the enclosed part of the café/restaurant has not changed there are no variations sought to the capacity of the café use over and above that permitted by the Court approval.  The maximum capacity of the restaurant is therefore 48 (internal, subject to new condition), 20 (terrace) and 35 (street dining) which is a total capacity of 103 people.

 

It is noted that the DA Acoustic Assessment prepared by Renzo Tonin & Associates dated 16 October 2017 indicates that the internal capacity of the café is 70, however, this is unable to be achieved given the approved floor area and is not consistent with the approved plans which indicate an internal capacity of 48 or the Section 96 plans which show 56. The application does not expressly request an increase in internal capacity. 

 

The Acoustic assessment concludes that the proposed use is predicated to comply with the established noise criteria at all receiver locations external to the subject site. The report recommends acoustically absorptive finishes be incorporated into the design of some external areas and that windows on the eastern side at all levels looking down onto the exterior terrace shall be upgraded to a thicker glazing with a minimum acoustic rating of RW35. In principal these changes are supported and are discussed further in the Environmental Health Officer input.

 

1.4 Acoustic Attenuator

A requirement under the BCA to provide mechanical/natural ventilation to the lower level carpark was unable to be achieved given the limited headroom for ductwork and consequently an alternate engineering solution was investigated. 

 

The applicant’s mechanical and acoustic engineers have proposed the use of a jet fan to aid natural ventilation together with an acoustic attenuator to ensure compliance with conditions 56, 59 and 60 of LEC approval in relation to noise. As stated by the acoustic consultant, the alternate solution is considered “beneficial as it will also improve the noise impact at 138 Beach Street as noise from the car park is currently unmitigated with the existing void”.

 

Council’s Environmental Health Officer has recommended inclusion of new conditions to address this amendment to the design in a manner which will satisfactorily protect the amenity of all nearby residents.

 

1.5 Air Quality and Mechanical Ventilation

Additional information was requested by Council in November 2017 requiring:

 

“An odour/air quality impact assessment (odour emission assessment) is to be undertaken by a suitably qualified persons in air quality assessments, to verify that the use of mechanical ventilation systems, (including the car park jet fan and food premises mechanical ventilation systems) will not generate any odour or air quality impacts to the most affected residential receivers.

 

The assessment should consider wind direction influences on emissions from the ventilation systems and all contaminants of concern associated with car park air pollutants (including but not limited to carbon monoxide emissions) and odours associated with cooking emissions.”

 

An Air Quality Assessment Report was submitted to Council in December 2017 which concluded:

 

“SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd was engaged by Alldis & Cox on behalf of Body Corporate 2004 to perform an Air Quality Assessment for the proposed redevelopment of an existing building located at 58-60 Carr Street, Coogee. This report presents a qualitative Air Quality Assessment for the proposed modifications and recommends mitigation measures.

 

Jet fans, triggered by carbon monoxide (CO) sensors, are proposed to be installed in the car park area in order to aid natural ventilation. The air exhausted from the car park has the potential to contain small quantities of gaseous pollutants from the combustion of fuel in the vehicles running inside the car park. A rise in the CO concentration within the car park will activate the jet fans in order to ensure that combustion gas levels inside the car park are maintained below the levels prescribed by the National Construction Code (NCC), 2016.

 

A compliant duct has been provisioned for kitchen exhaust gases to aid with the dispersion of cooking odours. The café tenant will be responsible for connecting an appropriate pollution control / filtration system to the provisioned duct in compliance with the relevant legislation.

 

A qualitative risk-based assessment of the potential impacts upon surrounding sensitive receptors concluded that there is a neutral risk of air quality impacts at nearby sensitive receptors as a result of the vehicle emissions within the car parks.

It is recommended that ‘turn off engine’ signage be installed in the car park area to further reduce the potential for impact from the car park air emissions.

 

The qualitative assessment concluded that depending on the nature of the cooking, the risk of air quality impacts at nearby sensitive receptors as a result of the café operations can range from neutral to intermediate. However, no matter what method of cooking is used on site, the risk of air quality impacts can be reduced to neutral if appropriate controls are put in place. This can range from Australian Standard AS 1668 compliant extraction system for small scale kitchens with no odour intensive cooking, to a combination of additional control methods for highly odorous operations (e.g. smoking, charcoal grilling, etc.).

 

It is recommended that once the tenant is known, a detailed review be carried out to ensure that any proposed controls are appropriate for the type of cooking and that the café extraction and exhaust is in compliance with Australian Standard AS 1668 Parts 1 & 2.”

 

Separate reports were submitted to council in December 2017 in relation to alternative engineering solutions for natural ventilation for the lower ground and ground floor car parks, for compliance with performance requirements of the Building Code of Australia. The reports conclude:

 

“A ventilation assessment has been performed for the proposed car park at 58 Carr Street, Coogee in NSW. Using CFD analysis, the two-level car park was investigated, and the CO concentrations predicted.

 

It was found that the maximum observed CO concentration is 49 ppm on Ground level; This is less than the 1-hour average criterion of 60 ppm (Refer to Section 1.6 for background information). In addition, the average CO concentrations vary from 24 ppm on Lower ground level to 43 ppm on ground level.

 

Based on the good air movement and overall low CO levels observed for the car park, it is recommended that the proposed jet fan arrangement, car park entry openings and natural ventilation openings be employed. It has been demonstrated that this Alternative Solution would comply with the BCA and AS1668.2.”

 

These documents have been reviewed by Council’s Environmental Health Officer and conditions are recommended to ensure the jet fan located on the southeastern corner of the lower ground floor level car park is for air “intake” only, a ‘turn off engine’ sign be installed in the carpark, and a BCA Compliance Report are to be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificates (refer to the recommendations and conditions at the end of this report). It is considered that this suite of conditions will appropriately address the potential impacts (and management of) the mechanical ventilation system.

 

1.6 Increased height of building to lift overrun

There is a drafting error (as confirmed by the applicant) on the amended plans in relation to the building height lift overrun which increases the height of the building by 5m above parapet level. Amended plans are required to ensure that the lift overrun is consistent with the LEC approved plans with a height of 1.740m above parapet. This requirement is addressed by a recommended condition.

 

1.7 Separate occupation/construction certificates

The applicant has requested separate construction and occupation certificates for each use which does not impact upon the original consent or the conditions imposed by the Court. Amendments are proposed to the section of the consent titled ‘Requirements before a Construction Certificate Can Be Issued’ and Condition 52 (occupation certificate requirements) to allow each use to proceed independently of each other, provided all relevant conditions are met. This raises no planning issues. 

 

1.8 Future Plant Equipment

Mechanical services drawing (AM573-M03) contains a note showing the potential location for future external A/C & refrigeration plant for the café (see image below).

 

 

This area is to be used as turning area for cars and as such the area cannot be occupied by any plant equipment. A condition of consent is recommended to ensure the turning area is not compromised and any future A/C unit and plant equipment is to be located in other suitable location subject to separate approval where required.

 

3.         REFERRALS:

 

3.1      Environmental Health & Building

 

Referral response No. 1

 

Noise

The proposed section 96 application is for amendments to the current development consent that includes (but is not limited to) the installation of a jet fan on lower ground level. The jet fan is required to maintain effectiveness of mechanical ventilation for areas within the carpark and is limited to one spot due to a requirement for natural air intake. This location is on the boundary shared with 138 Beach Street, Coogee.

 

An acoustic memorandum has been prepared by Renzo Tonin and Associates which states that the jet fan and acoustic attenuator in combination with enclosing the car parking area will assist with overall control of noise from the carpark and that further insertion losses of the attenuator will be further investigated and confirmed during the Construction Certificate ('CC') stage of the approved development when the noise emission from the jet fan is assessed cumulatively with other new plant and equipment.

 

It is also advised that the proposal is considered beneficial as it will also improve the noise impact at 138 Beach Street as noise from the carpark is currently unmitigated with the existing void.

 

The environmental health team raised concerns regarding the jet fan and requested a full acoustic report prior to the determination of this application.

 

An acoustic report prepared by Renzo Tonin & Associates report no TF645-02F05 dated 16 October 2017 was received by council in response to Council’s request for further information on acoustic impacts.  The further report advised that noise from the mechanical equipment including the jet fan will comply with the relevant noise criteria provided specific recommended acoustic attenuation measures are installed. It is therefore recommended that these acoustic treatments are included as part of the development consent.

 

The more recent acoustic report also outlined that noise emanating from the outdoor dining area may exceed relevant noise criteria for the apartments within the same building immediately above the café on the eastern facade.  The acoustic consultant has recommended changes to the residential window glazing to some apartments on the eastern side of the building.  As stated above, conditions are recommended for the acoustic report to form part of the approved plans and documents to ensure that all necessary measures are implemented to protect amenity.

 

It is also recommended that an acoustic validation is undertaken within 1 month of operation of the development to assess mechanical plant noise and patron noise from the operation of the café.

 

Odour concerns

A number of submissions raised concern regarding mechanical air extraction from the carpark discharging near neighbouring residential windows at 138 Beach Street.

 

Whilst a letter from ARIM Services Consultant PTY LTD advises that the jet fan will aid dilution of carbon monoxide contaminants, the Environmental Health team recommend including a condition of consent requesting an odour impact assessment from the mechanical plant on site within 1 month of operations of the development to demonstrate compliance with relevant health standards.

 

It is also recommended that a mechanical report is provided to council to confirm that the design and installation of all mechanical equipment onsite (including the jet fan) complies with BCA requirements and AS 1668 parts 1 & 2 mechanical ventilation in buildings. This should be submitted and approved by council prior to the issue of any Occupation Certificate for those parts of the development serviced by mechanical plant and equipment. 

Referral response No. 2 (19 January 2018)

 

Proposed Development:

 

The proposed section 96 application is for amendments to the current development consent that includes (but not limited to) the installation of a jet fan within the car park.

 

Air quality

 

The Environmental Health team have reviewed the air quality assessment provided by SLR (report date 16 January 2018) for the amendments to the car park ventilation at 58-60 Carr Street, Coogee.

 

In relation to the air quality within the car park and emissions discharging to the nearest affected residents, including consideration of emissions to any outdoor openings of residential premises of surrounding properties, the report outlines the following;

 

·      The jet fan will be delivering fresh air to the car park at a rate of  0.93ms/s. Based on the anticipated activity levels inside the car park at any one time given and considering  the number of car park spaces, concentration of combustion gases would be expected to be well below the limits specified in the NSW Indoor Air Quality containment limits for pollutants of interest, including products of combustion - Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter, Oxides of Nitrogen, Sulphur Dioxide and VOCs.

 

·      Computational fluid dynamics CFD modelling  indicates that worst case scenario 1- hour average Carbon Monoxide  concentration are predicted  to be less than 24ppm at the openings of the lower ground level car park and less than 45 ppm at the openings of the ground level car park. (limits required by the NCC indoor air quality guideline advise it to be 60ppm 1- hour average).

 

·      Intake air for the lower ground level car park will be provided through an opening for the acoustic attenuator which is proposed to be installed in the south eastern corner of the building, therefore the quality of the air at this opening is not predicted to be impacted by the emissions from the car park. (please note this was the area of concerns from the adjoining residents).

 

·      Addition dilution will occur between the discharge point and the nearest sensitive receptors (e.g. balconies, openable windows, pedestrian zones), with the level of dilution being affected by the meteorological conditions at the time of discharge and the intervening distance between the release point and the sensitive receptor. Given the very low frequency of calm conditions in the area, the potential impact of emissions from the car park on the nearest sensitive receptors is considered to be negligible. This is based on the very low risk of any exceedances of relevant guidelines for combustions gases and particular matter occurring as result of emissions from the car park. (please note negligible means ‘impact is predicted to cause no significant consequences’)

 

·      Concentrations of carbon monoxide within the car park will be monitored as an indicator of combustion gas levels to ensure that compliance with the relevant NCC Indoor Air Quality containment limits is maintained at all times. Therefore it can be considered that concentrations of air pollutants within the air discharged from openings on the ground floor and lower ground floor will be below NCC guidelines.

 

·      In order to further reduce the chance of exceedances of the ambient air quality criteria, it is recommended that ‘turn off engine’ signage be installed in the car park area to reduce the amount of pollutant emissions from vehicles idling. It is commended that car engines be turned off if the vehicle is going to be stopped for more than 60 seconds.

 

After a review of the air quality report with regards to the car park emissions, locations of jet fans and direction of air dispersal from the jet fan it is considered that the proposed car park is unlikely to generate emissions that would exceed the relevant guidelines and cause air quality impacts to the surrounding residential receivers. However considering this report is based on predicted measurements, it is recommended that the a validation air quality assessment is undertaken within 1 month of the occupational certificate being issued for the development to confirm that there are no air quality impacts arising from the use of the carpark to the most affected residential receivers.

 

Mechanical ventilation

 

In relation to the mechanical ventilation reports submitted to council, it is advised that the alternative solution design for both the ground floor car park and the lower ground car park  advise that the design complies with the requirements of AS1668.4 and the BCA A0.5 (b) (i) “Formulating an Alternative Solution” complies with the Performance Requirements.

 

However as discussed, as the neighbouring property at 138 Beach Street have provided  a compliance report for BCA requirements, in which the report raises issues regarding fire safety concerns, therefore it may be best to refer both reports to Building compliance for a review of fire safety concerns.

 

Noise concerns

 

The proposed section 96 application is for amendments to the current development consent that includes (but not limited to) the installation of a jet fan on lower ground level. The jet fan is required to maintain effectiveness of mechanical ventilation for areas within the carpark and is limited to one spot due to a requirement for natural air intake. This location is on the boundary of 138 Beach Street, Coogee.

 

An acoustic memorandum has been prepared by Renzo Tonin and associates which states that the jet fan and acoustic attenuator will assist with overall noise from the carpark and that further insertion losses of the attenuator will be further investigated and confirmed during the Construction Certificate ('CC') stage of the approved development when the noise emission from the jet fan is assessed cumulatively with other new plant and equipment.

 

It is also advised that the proposal is considered beneficial as it will also improve the noise impact at 138 Beach Street as noise from the carpark is currently unmitigated with the existing void.

 

The environmental Health team raised concerns regarding the jet fan and requested a full acoustic report prior to the determination of this application.

 

An acoustic report was received by council (prepared by Renzo Tonin & associates report no TF645-02F05 dated 16 October 2017) advised that noise from the mechanical equipment including the jet fan will comply with the relevant noise criteria provided an acoustic attenuation measures are installed. It is therefore recommended that these acoustic treatments are included as part of the development consent.

 

The report also outlined that noise emanating from the outdoor dining area may exceed relevant noise criteria and to address this, the acoustic consultant has recommended changes to the residential window glazing on the eastern side of the building.

 

The environmental health team are concerned regarding this recommendation as it would mean at certain times the residents will need to keep their window closed so they are not impacted by the outdoor dining of the below café.

It is recommended that the planner contacts the strata for the building to ensure that the residents are aware of this recommendation prior to the determination of the application.

 

Note: Discussed issue with Coordinator of Development Assessment.

 

It is also recommended that an acoustic validation is undertaken within 1 month of operation of the development to assess mechanical plant noise and patron noise from the operation of the café.

 

It is noted that an additional jet fan is proposed for the ground floor level (submitted to council via plans on 16/1/2018) to be located in the car park facing Kurrawa Avenue. The environmental health team raised concerns regarding noise from the second jet fan and recommends that an additional acoustic report be submitted to council to assess the noise from the second jet fan on ground level. This acoustic report is to be submitted and approved by council prior to the issuing of the construction certificate.

 

3.2      Development Engineers

Council’s Engineers raised an objection to changes proposed to the vehicular entry fronting Carr Street which included a new pedestrian entry gate and moved the vehicular entry point such that it potentially conflicted with a power pole and the safety of café users next door at Barzura.  The applicant has amended the S96 plans to remove the new pedestrian gate and reinstate the vehicular access as per the Court approved plans.

 

Council’s Develoment Engineers have advised that the proposed garages at the south-east corner of the site will comply with the minimum requirements of AS2890.1 in regard to minimum width, length and height dimensions. The northern most garage adjacent to the property boundary is also significantly wider at 3.6m which will allow for adequate turning manoeuvres. These matters are satisfactory to Council’s Develoment Engineers.

 

There are no Engineering conditions in DA/116/2014 that are required to be amended, added or deleted.

 

4.         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:-

 

4.1      Substantially the Same Development:

As detailed in the above report the development is substantially the same development as that approved by the Land and Environment Court. The proposal adds no further height or FSR to the approved development. There is no increase in the intensity of the use or the impact upon neighbouring properties.

 

As outlined previously the view corridor between No.58-60 Carr Street and 62 Carr Street for the properties to the rear is maintained and in some cases marginally improved compared to the Court approved plans. The changes to the balconies maintains approved boundary setbacks and adds not more than 200mm of width to the balcony which will not contribute to increase use or activity beyond what is already approved. The proposal is considered acceptable and approval is recommended, subject to the inclusion of some new acoustic conditions and amendments to existing conditions contained within the Court Order as described in the ‘Recommendation’ section of this report.  

 

5.         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.

 

5.1      Environmental Planning Instruments

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

The proposal is not inconsistent with the general aims and objectives of the RLEP 2012. The proposed amendments raise no new issues beyond those already considered and approved by the Court and addressed by recommended conditions of consent. 

 

5.2    Development Control Plans

The proposed amendments raise no new issues in relation to DCP controls as the proposal is largely consistent with the existing consent for the site as discussed in the preceding report.

 

5.3    Site Suitability

The site is suitable for the use proposed which was accepted by the LEC in the determination of the original development application. The Commissioner concluded as follows:

 

“70. I therefore consider that the residents’ concerns are either unfounded or have been reasonably addressed in the amended development which essentially complies with the DCP and which the Council has only sought to restrict by conditions of consent, in terms of the height of the WC and awning and the operation of the café. I agree with the parties that all other aspects of the development are acceptable.”

 

There have been no policy changes or changes to the proposed development that would render the site unsuitable for the construction of the approved development, as amended.

 

Relationship to City Plan

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

As discussed above the changes included in the Section 96AA application do not seek to vary the scale, height, nature or intensity of development beyond that approved by the Court. The proposed changes have largely come about to address conditions of consent or BCA requirements and in relation to the neighbouring properties do not contribute to a further loss of amenity or views beyond what was accepted by the Court, and there will be a marginal improvement to the view corridor.  The proposed changes are generally in keeping with the court approval and raise no new issues with respect to the LEP and DCP controls. 

 

 

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. 116/2014/A for permission to alter the location of the garage and bin storage area at ground floor level, installation of mechanical ventilation system and associated acoustic attenuation box adjacent to the southern boundary, amendment to the consent to allow residential works to be completed and occupied separately from the completion of cafe works, to modify the consent by adding new service/storage area at lower ground floor level, modify entry including new lift and internal reconfiguration to cafe and enclosure of car spaces at ground floor level, increase size of balconies and new roof to upper level balconies and changes to openings on elevations at No. 58-60 Carr Street, Coogee in the following manner:-

 

A.         Amend Condition 1 to read:

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

1.       The development must be implemented in accordance with the plans and supporting documentation listed below except where in red and/or by other conditions of this consent:

 

Plan – L&EC Revision

Drawn by

Version

Dated

Refurbishment Proposal – 001-

McGregor Westlake Architecture

D

16/02/2015

Lower Ground Floor - 100

McGregor Westlake Architecture

K

26/02/2015

Ground Floor Plan - 101

McGregor Westlake Architecture

M

16/03/2015

First Floor Plan - 102

McGregor Westlake Architecture

M

23/032015

Typical Floor Plan - 103

McGregor Westlake Architecture

G

26/02/2015

Elevations – 202

McGregor Westlake Architecture

I

26/02/2015

Carport, garbage room, side boundary - 205

McGregor Westlake Architecture

D

26/02/2015

DCP Envelope Comparision - 206

McGregor Westlake Architecture

C

26/02/2015

Setout - 250

McGregor Westlake Architecture

B

26/02/2015

Perspective - 910

McGregor Westlake Architecture

C

26/02/2015

DA Perspective & Amended Perspective

McGregor Westlake Architecture

A

16/02/2015

Materials & Finishes – 301 (subject to metal framed clear glass balustrades being provided to balconies

McGregor Westlake Architecture

B

16/02/2015

 

The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the Court Order No. 10828 of 2014 dated 16 September 2015, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the Section 96 plans received by Council on 24 August 2017 and 21 December 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:

 

Plan

Drawn By

Version

Dated

Lower Ground Floor Plan – 100

McGregor Westlake Architecture

T

17 August 2017

Ground Floor Plan - 101

McGregor Westlake Architecture

AA

17 August 2017

First Floor Plan - 102

McGregor Westlake Architecture

V

17 August 2017

Typical Floor Plan - 103

McGregor Westlake Architecture

O

17 August 2017

Roof Plan - 104

McGregor Westlake Architecture

M

17 August 2017

Elevations North + West – 201

McGregor Westlake Architecture

R

17 August 2017

Elevations - South + East - 202

McGregor Westlake Architecture

R

21 December 2017

Section – 203

McGregor Westlake Architecture

N

17 August 2017

Garage, garbage room, side boundary - 205

McGregor Westlake Architecture

P

12 December 2017

Materials and Finishes – 301

McGregor Westlake Architecture

I

17 August 2017

 

B.        Add Conditions 2d to 2f to read as follows:

 

Height of Lift overrun

2.d       The height of the lift overrun shall not exceed 38.519 as shown on the original elevations 202 revision I (dated 20 March 2017) approved by the Land and Environment Court consent.  Amended plans with the correct lift overrun height and detail shall form part of the approved Construction Certificate drawings.

 

Plant Equipment

2.e     This development consent does not approve the “potential space for future external a/c and refrigeration plant” located at ground floor level immediately south of the void area.

         

          Turning Bay

2.f      The turning bay area located to the south of the void area at ground floor level shall remain clear at all times and must not be used for any loading/unloading purposes. 

 

C.         Amend Condition 30 to read:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

f.     A Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) may issue separate construction and occupation certificates in relation to the alterations to the Residential Flat Building and the Café within the site, subject to compliance with all relevant conditions contained within the development consent.

 

D.        Add Condition 35a to read:

 

35.a    All acoustic recommendations outlined in the acoustic report prepared by Renzo Tonin & Associates report no TG645-02F05 dated 16 October 2017 are to be implemented in order to minimise the potential noise impacts from the development.  Details are to be provided with each Construction Certificate verifying compliance with this condition.

 

All recommendations outlined in the reports prepared by ARIM Services Consulting Pty Ltd dated 27 December 2017, are to be implemented and the details are to be provided with each Construction Certificate verifying compliance with this condition.

 

The jet fan located on the southeastern corner of the lower ground floor level car park is for air intake only. Details are to be provided with each Construction Certificate verifying compliance with this condition.

 

A ‘Turn Off Engine’ sign is to be installed in the car park area.

 

A Building Code of Australia Compliance Report detailing any alternative solutions is to be prepared by a suitably qualified person and the details are to be provided with each Construction Certificate verifying compliance with this condition.

 

E.         Amend Condition 66 to read:

 

Patron Numbers

66.     The patron numbers in the internal area shall be limited to a maximum of 48, the outdoor terrace area shall be limited to a maximum of 20 and a maximum of 35 for the footway dining area.

 

F.         Add Conditions 71 - 74 read as follows:

 

71.     An odour and air quality impact assessment (odour emission testing) is to be undertaken by a suitably qualified person in mechanical ventilation systems at the nearest affected residence to verify that the use of the mechanical ventilation system for the car park does not cause a nuisance to surrounding residents. A copy of this report is to be provided and approved by Council within 1 month of the occupation certificate being issued for that part of the development requiring the installation and operation of mechanical plant and equipment for the car park. The report must consider the most affected neighbouring residential properties and the impact of wind direction influences on emissions from the mechanical ventilation system. The report should also outline any recommendations to address potential odour and/or air quality impacts identified with the study.

 

72.      An acoustic report/validation assessment, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, must be provided to the Council within 1 month of the issuing of an occupation certificate for that part of the development requiring installation and operation of mechanical plant and equipment for the car park.  The report must demonstrate and confirm that the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the noise criteria and requirements contained in this consent have been satisfied (including any relevant approved acoustic report and recommendations).  The assessment and report must include all relevant fixed and operational noise sources and must include an assessment of the jet fan operating during the night time period (10pm- 7:00am).

 

73.      The report must also confirm that all recommendations outlined in the acoustic report (prepared by Renzo Tonin & Associates report no TG645-02F05 dated 16 October 2017) have been implemented and are sufficient to achieve the relevant noise criteria.

 

74.     The operations of the premises must comply with the requirements of the acoustic recommendations outlined in the acoustic report prepared by Renzo Tonin & Associates report no TG645-02F05 dated 16 October 2017) in order to minimise the potential noise impacts from the development.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                          13 February 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D10/18

 

Subject:             211-215 Maroubra Rd, Maroubra (DA/233/2017/A)

Folder No:                   DA/233/2017/A

Author:                   William Jones, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 modification of approved development by increase in number of child care spaces from 110 to 118 children and alteration to basement carpark to provide a total of 19 car park spaces.

                                      Original consent: Alterations and additions to the existing building and change of use to childcare centre accommodating 110 children with 24 staff, basement parking for 19 vehicles and hours of operation being 7.00am to 7.00pm Monday to Friday.

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                Jarrod Lamshed

Owner:                        C & B Investments Co Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=d43e721b-3188-489c-a836-0b30fad8b4c6&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 Council.

 

The original proposal was reported to Council as the estimated cost of the development exceeded $2 Million.

 

Details of Current Approval

 

DA/233/2017: Alterations and additions to the existing building and change of use to childcare centre accommodating 118 children with 25 staff, basement parking for 19 vehicles and hours of operation being 6.30am to 7.30pm Monday to Friday.

 

·      Approved Ordinary Council meeting on 25 July 2017

 

A condition was provided to delete a parking space as Council’s Development Engineer had concerns that the parking space could not comply with Australian Standards. As a result there was a reduction in the approved maximum permitted number of children to 110.

Proposal

 

Section 96 (2) modification of approved development by increase in number of child care spaces from 110 to 118 children and alteration to basement carpark to provide a total of 19 car park spaces. Specific changes include:

 

·       Provide an additional parking space; and

·       Increase the number of children from 110 to 118.

According to the Applicant the approved number of staff is not proposed to change, which will remain at 24.

 

Site

 

The site is located at the southern side of Maroubra Road approximately 50m east of the Maroubra Road and Anzac Parade intersection. It has a frontage of 16.46m and a depth of 42.695m with a site area of 829m2. The site is occupied by a 3-storey commercial building previously used as a Bank. The adjoining property to the west is a single storey commercial premises and the adjoining property to the east is a 2-storey commercial premises with dwelling above.

 

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:

 

Section 96 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 the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and

The proposal is considered to be substantially the same development as was originally approved.

(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

No consultation required.

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

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

(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 development in accordance with the RDCP – Public Notification.

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

No submissions were received.

 

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 the notification process no submissions were received.

 

Key Issues

 

Assessment of Proposed Changes

 

The proposed modifications to include an additional parking space and to increase the number of children approved to attend the child care centre from 110 to 118 is supported for the following reasons:

 

·    The additional parking space can be accommodated in accordance with Australian Standards and is supported by Council’s Development Engineer;

 

·    The number of children can be increased to 118 given the additional parking space has been provided, which satisfies the parking requirements of the RDCP;

 

·    The increased number of children will not result in additional acoustic impacts and is supported by Councils Environmental Health Officer; and

 

·    The development is capable of complying with the Education and Care Services National Regulations with respect to the minimum area of unencumbered indoor and outdoor space required per child (refer to assessment against the State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017 further below).

 

In support of the proposed modifications, conditions are recommended to be modified and added as follows:

 

·      Delete Condition 7 a) requiring the deletion of Car space no. 11;

 

·      Amend Condition 3 to reflect the increased child places from 110 to 118; and

 

·      Add a new general condition so that approval is obtained from the Department of Community Services and Regulatory Authority for the use of indoor space to be included in calculating the required area of outdoor space in accordance with the Education and Care Services National Regulations.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017 (SEPP)

 

Pursuant to Schedule 5 Savings and transitional provisions, the SEPP does not apply to a development application made under Part 4 of the Act but not finally determined before the commencement of the SEPP.

 

The SEPP came into effect 1st September 2017 and the subject Section 96 was lodged 24 October 2017, therefore an assessment is required against Part 3 Early education and care facilities—specific development controls.

 

Clause 22 requires the consent authority to not grant development consent except with the concurrence of the Regulatory Authority (Regulatory Authority for New South Wales).

 

Clause 22 (1) states:

 

(1)  This clause applies to development for the purpose of a centre-based child care facility if:

 

(a)  the floor area of the building or place does not comply with regulation 107 (indoor unencumbered space requirements) of the Education and Care Services National Regulations, or

 

(b)  the outdoor space requirements for the building or place do not comply with regulation 108 (outdoor unencumbered space requirements) of those Regulations.

 

Planner comment: Regulation 107 requires 3.25m2 indoor space per child. 118 children are proposed, therefore 383.5m2 indoor space is required. 394m2 indoor space is provided and therefore complies.

 

Regulation 108 requires 7m2 outdoor space per child, therefore 826m2 outdoor space is required.

 

Clause (5) of Regulation 108 states:

 

(5)  An area of unencumbered indoor space may be included in calculating the outdoor space of a service that provides education and care to children over preschool age if—

 

(a)  the Regulatory Authority has given written approval; and

 

(b)  that indoor space has not been included in calculating the indoor space under regulation 107.

 

A total of 832m2 outdoor space is shown on the submitted drawings, which is provided separate to indoor space. However as the majority of the outdoor space is provided indoors, written approval from the Regulatory Authority is required.

 

A new general condition is recommended to ensure that written approval is obtained from the Regulatory Authority for New South Wales for the use of unencumbered indoor space to be included in calculating the outdoor space. As per the original DA assessment, it is considered that the indoor play areas can provide for an environment that replicates that of an outdoor play space area.

 

Subject to the condition requiring written approval from the Regulatory Authority, the subject Section 96 complies with Regulation 107 and 108, and therefore Clause 22 of the SEPP does not apply.

 

Clause 23 of the SEPP requires the consent authority to take into consideration any applicable provisions of the Child Care Planning Guideline (Guideline). The Guideline has been considered in relation to the proposed increase in number of children from 110 to 118. It is considered that appropriately designed, simulated outdoor environments can be provided in accordance with the Guideline.

 

Therefore the proposed modifications are in accordance with the SEPP.

 

Referrals

 

Development Engineer

 

Car space no. 11 was not originally supported by Development Engineering as it was considered the space may restrict access into car space no. 20. Development Engineering recommended a condition that car space no. 11 be deleted resulting in an increased parking shortfall. To compensate, it was also conditioned that child numbers be reduced to 110 (118 originally sought) and staff reduced to 24. 

 

This subject Section 96 application is proposing to reinstate car space no. 11 and subsequently increase child numbers back up to 118, as was originally proposed with staffing numbers to remain at 24.

 

The Section 96 application is supported by a detailed traffic and parking report by TEF Consulting, which justifies the variation for the following reasons;

 

·      Car space no. 20 will be for staff only and as such the need for entering and leaving this pace will be minimal;

 

·      When staff do use car space no. 20 it will likely occur outside of the peak pick-up and drop-of times when car space no. 11 will be vacant, increasing available room for manoeuvring;

 

·      In the unlikely event that car space no. 11 is occupied when staff are leaving car space no. 20, the submitted car sweeping paths based on the B-85 design vehicle demonstrate a vehicle will be able to exit car space no. 20 and exit the site in a forward direction; and

 

·      Car spaces 8-10 have also been lengthened to improve manoeuvring into these spaces.

 

Development Engineering has considered the above aspects and accepts the reasons for the variation presented in the traffic and parking report by TEF consulting. The proposed variation is unlikely to have any impact on the operation of the car spaces and therefore the proposed design under the Section 96 is supportable by Development Engineering.

 

The small increase in trip generation created by the additional 8 child places will not have any unacceptable impacts on traffic flow in the surrounding streets. An increase in 6 trips (in and out) in the AM and PM peak hour will be negligible.

 

Should the section 96 application be approved the following engineering conditions shall be amended added or deleted:

 

·      Delete Condition 7 a) requiring deletion of Car space no. 11; and

 

·      Amend condition 3 to reflect the increased child places from 110 to 118.

 

Environmental Health

 

An acoustic assessment was submitted with the original Development Application prepared by Noel Childs and Associates dated 5 June 2017. This report was developed and assessment undertaken to cater for 118 children.

 

The acoustic assessment found that the proposed Child Care Centre will comply with the requirements of all relevant acoustic guidelines and regulations, subject to window and door treatments, installation of external fences / walls to the rear and sides of the outdoor play areas and provision of a Noise Management Plan.

 

Council’s Environmental Health Officer raises no objection to the proposed increase to the number of children as part of the S96 application with the conditions from the original development consent remaining adequate.

 

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (Educational Establishments and Child Care Facilities) 2017

 

The proposed modifications will be in accordance with the requirements of the SEPP. Refer to assessment in the Key Issues section above.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

The proposed modifications are ancillary to the approved development, which will remain substantially the same. The development remains consistent with the general aims and objectives of the RLEP 2012.

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

None applicable.

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

The development remains compliant with the objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013.

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

None 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 modifications have responded appropriately to the relevant planning controls and will not result in environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality.

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

The site has been assessed as being suitable for the development in the original development consent. The proposed modifications will not adversely affect the character or amenity of the locality and are considered to be suitable.

 

The proposed modifications are consistent with the original application and will substantially remain the same as approved in the original consent. The proposal is considered to meet the relevant objectives and performance requirements and therefore the site remains suitable for the development.

 

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

No submissions were received.

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

The proposal promotes the objectives of the zone and will not result in any significant 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 proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria and will not result in any adverse impacts. Therefore, it is recommended that the application to modify the consent in the manner described be approved as per the modified conditions.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/233/2017/A for an increase in number of child care spaces from 110 to 118 children and alteration to basement carpark to provide a total of 19 car park spaces at 211-215 Maroubra Road, MAROUBRA  NSW  2035 in the following manner:

 

·    Amend Condition 1 to read:

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

A.01 Rev F

Armada

19/05/2017

19 May 2017

A.02 Rev F

19/05/2017

19 May 2017

A.03 Rev F

19/05/2017

19 May 2017

A.04 Rev F

19/05/2017

19 May 2017

A.05 Rev F

19/05/2017

19 May 2017

A.06 Rev F

19/05/2017

19 May 2017

A.07 Rev F

19/05/2017

19 May 2017

A.08 Rev F

19/05/2017

19 May 2017

A.09 Rev F

19/05/2017

19 May 2017

Landscape Ground floor Issue B

Arcadia Landscape Architecture

March 2017

12 July 2017

Landscape first floor Issue B

March 2017

12 July 2017

Landscape second floor Issue B

March 2017

12 July 2017

 

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

A.03 Rev G

Armada

18/10/2017

 

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

 

·              Amend Condition 3 to read:

 

Child Numbers

3.     The size of the proposed childcare centre shall be restricted to a maximum of 118 places.

 

·              Add Condition 3a to read:

Regulatory Authority Approval

3a.   Written approval must obtained from the Department of Community Services and Regulatory Authority for the use of indoor space to be included in calculating the required area of outdoor space in accordance with the Education and Care Services National Regulations.

 

·              Amend Condition 7 to read:

 

Carpark Amendments

Plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with the following amendments to the carpark to improve ingress and egress;

 

a)  The length of carspaces 8-11 must be in accordance with the requirements of Figure 2.5 in AS 2890.1

 

b)  Carspaces adjacent to pedestrian thoroughfare shall install wheel stops or other alternative devices to prevent encroachment of vehicles into the pedestrian zones and improve pedestrian safety.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                          13 February 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D11/18

 

Subject:             446 to 448 Bunnerong Road, Matraville (DA/685/2014/D)

Folder No:                   DA/685/2014/D

Author:                   William Jones, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 modification of the approved development by increase in maximum height for front and rear building forms, alteration to street awning, alteration to lobby door location and retail 1 and 2 units front doors and windows, change office 1 and 2 to retail use with internal changes, increase in lift over run, alteration to windows in building 2.

                                      Original consent: Demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a part 5 and 6 storey building comprising of 5 shops, 23 units and basement car parking for 40 vehicles

Ward:                     South Ward

Applicant:                Duarte Cristovao

Owner:                        Mr J Engelman & Mrs Y Engelman

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is being reported to the Planning Committee meeting as the original application was determined at the Planning Committee Meeting on 14 April 2015.

 

The original proposal was reported to Council as the estimated cost of the development exceeded $2 Million.

 

Details of Current Approval

 

Development Application

Determination

DA/685/2014: Demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a part 5 and 6 storey building comprising of 5 shops, 23 units and basement car parking for 40 vehicles.

Approved Council Committee on 14 April 2015.

 

DA/685/2014/A: Section 96 modification of the approved development by altering the parking layout in basement and additional basement level for 11 parking spaces, relocation of fire stairs, new lift for rear building, steps added to shop 1, internal reconfiguration of Units 13, 15 and 17, deletion of Condition 26(c) and (e).

Approved Council Committee on 6 December 2016.

 

DA/685/2014/B: Section 96 application to delete condition 78 and reinstate condition 70.

Approved delegated authority on 30 June 2017.

 

DA/685/2014/C

Application cancelled (duplicated in error).

DA/685/2014/E: Section 96 application to modify the requirements of conditions 68, 69, 71, 72, 74, 75, 79 & 80 to be submitted before the issue of final occupation certificate.

Approved delegated authority on 6 December 2017.

 

Proposal

 

Section 96 (2) modification of the approved development by increase in maximum height for front and rear building forms, alteration to street awning, alteration to lobby door location and retail 1 and 2 units front doors and windows, change office 1 and 2 to retail use with internal changes, increase in lift over run, alteration to windows in building 2.

 

Specific modifications include:

 

Block A (fronting Bunnerong Road to the east)

 

·      Increased in height of the lift overrun to RL 44.1 (0.4m increase) due to the requirements of the Building Code of Australia;

 

·      Change the street awing from pressed metal to concrete for the ground floor level;

 

·      Minor relocation of the front lobby door on the ground floor and minor relocation and modification of the design to the front doors and windows to retail shops 1, 2 and 3 on the ground floor;

 

·      Minor decrease in the gross floor area (GFA) of the ground floor shops 1, 2 and 3 and units 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 18 and 19; and

 

·      Minor decrease in the GFA of the level 1 units 1, 2, 3.

Block B (fronting Baird Lane to the west)

 

·      Increase in height of Block B to RL 35.21 (0.46m increase) due to ceiling height requirements specified by the Building Code of Australia;

 

·      Modification to some of the windows on the western façade to be blast-proof due to proximity to the substation; and

 

·      Minor decrease in the GFA of the level 1 units 20 and 21.

 

Podium (between Block A and Block B) and Basement

 

·      Changes to the podium on the ground floor to include a mechanical plant room and removal of a BBQ and deck area;

 

·      Change to the floor level of the podium from RL 25.95 to RL 25.80;

 

·      Change to the gradient of the basement car park access ramps; and

 

·      Change of use for Office 1 and 2 on the basement level 1 / ground level B to Retail 4 and 5, including new internal layout resulting in a minor increase to GFA (4.6m2 total).

Site

 

The subject site comprises three allotments, being Lot 2 on DP209787 and Lot A and B on DP412252, located at 446, 446A and 448 Bunnerong Road, Matraville. The subject site has a primary frontage of 26.45 metres to Bunnerong Road to the east and a secondary frontage of 26.68 metres to Baird Lane to the west, whereby vehicle access to the site is obtained. 

 

The surrounding locality comprises a mix of traditional single storey shops interspersed with recent shop top housing developments of 4-7 storeys.

 

The subject development is largely completed with works subject to this S96 having already been carried out, therefore retrospective approval is sought.

 

Subject development as viewed from Bunnerong Road

 

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:

 

Section 96 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 the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and

The proposal is considered to be substantially the same development as was originally approved.

(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

Sydney Airport was consulted as a public authority in relation to the proposed height increase. Sydney Airport did not raise any concerns with the proposed modifications. Notwithstanding that the proposed works have already been carried out, the existing condition requiring approval from Sydney Airport prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate remains relevant to the subject S96 application.

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

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

(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 development in accordance with the RDCP – Public Notification.

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

No submissions were received.

 

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, no submissions were received.

 

Key Issues

 

Assessment of Proposed Changes

 

·      Increased in height of the lift overrun for Block A (fronting Bunnerong Road) to RL 44.1 (0.4m increase) due to the requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

 

Planner Comment: This will result in Block A being 19.15m above natural ground level, which will exceed the building height control by 0.15m (0.78%). The minor height increase associated with the lift overrun will not be visible at street level and will not result in additional overshadowing or visual amenity impacts. Refer to the Height of Buildings assessment further below as part of the Key Issues section.

 

·      Increase in height of Block B (fronting Baird Lane) to RL 35.21 (0.46m increase) due to minimum ceiling height requirements for living rooms.

 

Planner Comment: This will result in Block B being 12.4m above natural ground level, which remains compliant with the building height control (19m).

 

Shadow diagrams were not submitted as part of the subject S96, however the detailed planning assessment for DA/685/2014 noted that only the adjacent single storey building to the south would not receive compliant solar access in accordance with the RDCP. The variation was supported given the proposed building envelope was in accordance with the RDCP and it was considered that the affected property would likely be redeveloped in accordance with the expectations of the RDCP.

 

The proposed minor height increase will not add to the extent of non-compliance with the solar access controls given the affected property to the south was already overshadowed. The minor height increase will also not significantly contribute to visual bulk and scale and is less than the maximum permitted building height.

 

·      Change the street awing from pressed metal to concrete for the ground floor level of Block A fronting Bunnerong Road.

 

Planner Comment: The site is not located within a Heritage Conservation Area and is not within proximity to any Local or State Heritage items. The proposed concrete awning will be generally consistent with the design of other awnings along Bunnerong Road and will not impact the streetscape character.

 

·      Minor relocation of the front lobby door on the ground floor and minor relocation and modification of the design to the front doors and windows to retail shops 1, 2 and 3 on the ground floor fronting Bunnerong Road.

 

Planner Comment: The minor modification will not reduce the articulation of the building or result in decreased passive street surveillance.

 

·      Modification to some of the windows on the western façade of Building B fronting Baird Lane to be blast-proof due to proximity to the substation.

 

Planner Comment: The proposed modifications to the windows on the western façade will not result in additional privacy impacts given there is adequate physical separation between the development and properties to the west provided by Baird Lane. The building façade remains well articulated when viewed from the street.

 

·      Changes to the podium on the ground floor to include a mechanical plant room and removal of a BBQ and deck area.

 

Planner Comment: The provision of a BBQ and deck area was not required by the Design Excellence Panel as per the original DA assessment and is not essential considering all units are provided with their own private open space. 

 

·      Change to the floor level of the podium from RL 25.95 to RL 25.80.

 

Planner Comment: According to the Applicant, this was to ensure level access is provided between elevator A and B and is therefore supported.

 

·      Change to the gradient of the basement car park access ramps.

 

Planner Comment: Council’s Development Engineer advises the ramps will remain compliant with relevant standards.

 

·      Minor decrease in the gross floor areas (GFA) of the ground floor shops 1, 2 and 3.

·      Minor decrease in GFA to some units.

 

Planner Comment: Parking rates for the retail shops are based on GFA, therefore a GFA reduction will not require additional parking. Parking rates for the residential units are based on the number of bedrooms and therefore remains compliant.

 

The residential units will remain generally compliant with the minimum apartment size specified by the Apartment Design Guide with the exception of unit 14 on level 4, which is proposed at 69.21m2 (70m2 required for 2 bedroom units).

 

The minor non-compliance is supported given the apartment is provided with a well-designed living area and a generously sized balcony that will afford occupants with a high level of residential amenity.

 

·      Change of use for Office 1 and 2 on the basement level 1 / ground level B to Retail 4 and 5, including new internal layout resulting in a minor increase to GFA (4.6m2 total).

Planner Comment: Council’s Development Engineer advises the same parking rates apply for both an Office Premises and a Retail Premises and additional parking will not be required.

 

Height of Buildings

The building height for Block A (fronting Bunnerong Road) is proposed to increase from 18.75m to 19.15m, which does not comply with the building height control (19m). The non-compliance is a 0.78% variation to the control.

 

According to the Applicant the proposed height is the result of an oversight relating to the requirements of the Building Code of Australia, which requires the lift overrun to be increased by 0.4m.

 

A Clause 4.6 variation only applies when a development application is made and not when a S96 modification is made. This is established in the Land and Environment Court case: North Sydney Council v Michael Standley & Associates Pty Ltd [1998]. Section 96(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 still requires the consent authority to take into consideration the matters referred to in Section 79C, which in turn include the provision of any environmental planning instrument. Therefore a merits assessment is made below against Clause 4.3A of the RLEP 2012 in relation to the building height control.

 

The objectives of Clause 4.3A Exceptions to heights of buildings in Matraville and Kensington are addressed as follows:

 

(a) to provide for building heights that establish the appropriate height for street frontages, buildings or groups of buildings,

 

Planner Comment: The section of building that does not comply with the building height control relates to the lift overrun, which occupies a small 5.3m2 footprint and will be setback approximately 12m from the Bunnerong Road frontage at the roof level. The lift overrun will not visually dominate the building or result in an unreasonable increase to bulk and scale. The lift overrun will not be visible at street level and therefore will not affect the streetscape character.

 

(b) to achieve well-proportioned buildings with articulated design and massing,

 

Planner Comment: The proposed height increase to the lift overrun will not have an adverse effect on the massing or proportions of the building, which will remain well articulated. 

 

(c) to achieve a transition between higher buildings in town centres and the height of buildings behind the centres on local streets,

 

Planner Comment: The site is located within the Matraville Commercial Centre. The proposed height increase of the lift overrun will not affect the massing of the building.

 

(d) to ensure that development can occur on a variety of lot sizes,

 

Planner Comment: The size of the site and suitability of the development is not relevant given this has already been assessed and approved as per the original DA.

 

(e) to achieve design excellence.

 

Planner Comment: The proposed height increase to the lift overrun will not result in an unreasonable increase to bulk and scale, will not impact the streetscape character or create additional overshadowing, therefore the building remains compliant with key development controls relating to design excellence.

 

Despite the increased building height, the proposal remains consistent with the general aims of the RLEP 2012 in that the development will achieve a high standard of design and will provide the business and housing needs of the community while protecting environmental qualities.

 

The proposal also remains consistent with the objectives of the B2 Local Centre zone in that it will provide the business needs of the community whilst enabling well integrated residential development and maintaining a high standard of urban design that will contribute to a sense of place.

 

The proposed building height is considered to be within the public interest given the development will remain consistent with relevant objectives.

Referrals

 

Development Engineers

 

The proposed changes have been assessed by Development Engineering and will not impact on Development Engineering’s conditions as provided for the original DA and subsequent Section 96 applications. 

 

The proposed change of use from offices to retail will not affect the parking requirement as they are both assessed under the same commercial rate of 1 space per 40m2 specified in Part B7 of Council’s DCP. The commercial parking requirement amounted to around 7-8 spaces of the total 40 spaces provided.

 

The proposed changes to the basement access ramps are consistent with Australian Standard 2890.1 and will not create any non-compliances.

 

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

State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development

 

The development will remain compliant with the SEPP and associated Apartment Design Guide.

 

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

 

Standard conditions of consent requiring the continued compliance of the development with the SEPP: BASIX were included in the original determination.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

The proposed modifications are ancillary to the approved development, which will remain substantially the same. The development remains consistent with the general aims and objectives of the RLEP 2012.

 

Despite some minor modifications to the gross floor area, the building envelope will remain largely the same noting there is no maximum floor space ratio applicable to the site.

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

None applicable.

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

The development remains compliant with the objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013.

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

None 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 modifications have responded appropriately to the relevant planning controls and will not result in environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality.

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

The site has been assessed as being suitable for the development in the original development consent. The proposed modifications will not adversely affect the character or amenity of the locality and are considered to be suitable.

 

The proposed modifications are consistent with the original application and will substantially remain the same as approved in the original consent. The proposal is considered to meet the relevant objectives and performance requirements in SEPP 65, the RDCP 2013 and RLEP 2012 and therefore the site remains suitable for the development.

 

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

No submissions were received.

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

The proposal promotes the objectives of the zone and will not result in any significant 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 will not result in the need for additional parking and will not result in significant changes to the streetscape or to the bulk and scale of the development that might affect the amenity of occupants or neighbouring properties.

 

The proposed modifications to the approved development have 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 as previously approved. 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 development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 685/2014/D for an increase in maximum height for front and rear building forms, alteration to street awning, alteration to lobby door location and retail 1 and 2 units front doors and windows, change office 1 and 2 to retail use with internal changes, increase in lift over run, alteration to windows in building 2 at 446-448 Bunnerong Road, MATRAVILLE  NSW  2036 in the following manner:

 

·      Amend Condition 1 to read:

 

The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans and supporting documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s approved stamp:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

DA001 Rev B

Sgamotta Architects

27/02/2015

DA101 Rev B

Sgamotta Architects

27/02/2015

DA102 Rev B

Sgamotta Architects

27/02/2015

DA103 Rev B

Sgamotta Architects

27/02/2015

DA200 Rev B

Sgamotta Architects

27/02/2015

DA201 Rev B

Sgamotta Architects

27/02/2015

DA300 Rev B

Sgamotta Architects

27/02/2015

DA310 Rev B

Sgamotta Architects

27/02/2015

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

 

577540M

2 October, 2014

 

Except as amended by the Section 96 ‘A’ plans listed below and endorsed with Council’s approved stamp:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

02 Issue B

JS Architects Pty Ltd

16/06/16

3A Issue B

JS Architects Pty Ltd

16/06/16

3B Issue B

JS Architects Pty Ltd

16/06/16

4A Issue B

JS Architects Pty Ltd

16/06/16

4B Issue B

JS Architects Pty Ltd

16/06/16

05 Issue B

JS Architects Pty Ltd

16/06/16

06 Issue B

JS Architects Pty Ltd

16/06/16

07 Issue B

JS Architects Pty Ltd

16/06/16

08 Issue B

JS Architects Pty Ltd

16/06/16

09 Issue B

JS Architects Pty Ltd

16/06/16

10 Issue B

JS Architects Pty Ltd

16/06/16

11 Issue B

JS Architects Pty Ltd

16/06/16

 

Except as amended by the Section 96 ‘D’ plans listed below and endorsed with Council’s approved stamp:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

A301/A902 Issue V

JS Architects Pty Ltd

01/12/2017

A302/A902 Issue V

JS Architects Pty Ltd

01/12/2017

A303/A902 Issue V

JS Architects Pty Ltd

01/12/2017

A305/A902 Issue V

JS Architects Pty Ltd

01/12/2017

A306/A902 Issue V

JS Architects Pty Ltd

01/12/2017

A307/A902 Issue V

JS Architects Pty Ltd

01/12/2017

A308/A902 Issue V

JS Architects Pty Ltd

01/12/2017

A400/A902 Issue V

JS Architects Pty Ltd

01/12/2017

A401/A902 Issue V

JS Architects Pty Ltd

01/12/2017

A402/A902 Issue V

JS Architects Pty Ltd

01/12/2017

A403/A902 Issue V

JS Architects Pty Ltd

01/12/2017

 

Only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 applications, except where amended by Council in red and/or by other conditions of this consent:

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                          13 February 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Development Application Report No. D12/18

 

Subject:             7 Torrington Road, Maroubra (DA/531/2016/B)

Folder No:                   DA/531/2016/B

Author:                   Willana Associates, Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 modification of approved development by increase in floor are of first floor bedroom and bathroom with addition of window facing street. Original consent: Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house.

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                Mr S A & Mrs D L Reynolds

Owner:                        Mr S A & Mrs D L Reynolds

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=5d9a1b70-40de-46b8-afe3-0bfb6796551f&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

This application has been referred to Planning Committe as the Applicant has a close personal relationship with a Randwick City Councillor.

 

Proposal

 

The Section 96 (1A) application was submitted to Council on 16 November 2017  and proposes alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including increasing the floor area in the master bedroom and ensuite on the first floor with the addition of two windows. 

 

In summary, the following works are proposed:

§  An increase in the size of the existing bedroom, with two new windows located along the north-eastern façade of the dwelling house.

§  An increase in floor space of 5.4m² as a result of squaring off the wall of the bedroom and bathroom on Level 2, located in the north-east section of the dwelling house.

 

Relevant Site Application History

 

DA/743/2016 was lodged on 28 October 2015 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including the conversion of the utility room to lounge room at the basement level, extension of bedrooms at first floor towards the rear, construction of trafficable roof deck and access (variation to height control).  This application was withdrawn on 10 March 2016.

 

DA/531/2016 was lodged on 2 August 2016 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including an increase to the floor to ceiling height of the basement level to the lounge area, increase the size of the second floor bedrooms and a roof top terrace.  This application was approved on 30 September 2016. The current application relates to these works and the proposed change and extension is considered to be “substantially” the same as the works proposed as part of this application.

 

DA/531/2016/A was lodged on 10 March 2017 to modify the original development consent by deleting condition 2(a) to allow for the construction of a roof terrace.  This Section 96 application was approved by the Land and Environment Court on 9 October 2017 by way of reaching a Section 34 Agreement.

 

The Site and Surrounds

 

The Site is legally described as Lot C DP317745.  The Site is located on the corner of Torrington Road and The Causeway at Maroubra.  The Site is a regular shaped allotment with a frontage of 10.365m to Torrington Road, depth of 36.575m to The Causeway and has a site area of 379.03m². 

 

The Site has a slight cross fall of some 500mm from the western to the eastern side but has a greater slope of some 2m from the southern (rear) to the northern side (front) of the Site.  Currently on Site, exists a two storey rendered dwelling house with semi-basement car parking.  Vehicular access is off The Causeway and includes a swimming pool at the rear. Figure 1 below is an aerial view of the Site.

 

The Site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential and is located within walking distance to shops, open space and public transport services.  The surrounding development is residential, consisting of mostly single and two storey attached and detached dwelling houses. 

 

The adjoining site to the west at No. 5 Torrington Road contains a two storey, detached dwelling house with vehicular access to basement parking via Torrington Road and a roof top terrace.  The adjoining property to the rear of the Site is No. 2 The Causeway and contains a two storey brick, dwelling house with a pitched, tiled roof and vehicular access from The Causeway to a double garage that is located forward of the building line.  On the northern side of Torrington Road are single and two storey detached dwelling houses that are a mixture of contemporary and traditional styles.

Figure 1 | Aerial View of 7 Torrington Road, Maroubra

Source: Six Maps, 2017

              

                  The Site: 7 Torrington Road, Maroubra

       

 

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 part of this process.

 

Section 96 Assessment

 

The modification to the existing dwelling house does not alter, in nature or essence, the approved development as it remains as a residential dwelling house and is generally consistent with the scope of works originally approved for alterations and additions to the property.  The proposal will not generate any significant amenity impacts beyond that approved which confirms that the proposed modifications can be considered under the provisions of Section 96 within the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) (EP&A Act).

 

The Section 96(1A) of EP&A Act provides that a consent authority may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the consent authority and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, modify the consent if:

(a)    It is satisfied that the proposed modification is of minimal environmental impact.

(b)    It is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all).

(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 plans that required the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent.

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

The proposed change is considered minor and falls within the category of a Section 96(1A) application.

 

The proposal to increase the upper floor bedroom and ensuite by 5.4m² is considered to have minimal environmental impact.  This modification is sufficiently minor and is considered to be ‘substantially the same’ the what has previously been approved on the Site as the original application approved alterations and additions to the dwelling which comprised of “alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including an increase to the floor area to ceiling height of the basement and increase the size of the first floor bedroom and bathroom and new roof top terrace”. The proposed change is considered to be minor and generally consistent with the original scope of works.

 

This is a minor change simply requires the amendment of condition No. 1 to include the Section 96 plans, which refer to the alterations and additions to the upper floor bedroom and ensuite. 

 

The proposed modification is compliant with the provisions and criteria within Section 96(1A):

 

§  The proposal will be of minimal environmental impact, as demonstrated in the accompanying Statement of Environmental Effects, prepared by Pinnacle Plus, which demonstrates that the alterations and additions will not adversely affect the amenity of these neighbouring properties in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views. 

 

§  The additional floor space is located in an area that faces Torrington Road and The Causeway and is an extension to what is existing.  The proposed squaring off of this room will make it a more functional area and improve its internal amenity.  The design change will also create a more balanced and coherent external design as the building will be more consistent in its shape and form.

 

§  The minimal environmental impact is further justified by Council not receiving any submissions to date.

 

§  The proposal will remain ‘substantially the same’ as approved, with no change in the nature, scale or impact of the proposed use.

 

§  In accordance with the provisions of Section 96(1A), the application has been notified and no submissions were received.

 

Key Issues

 

Floor Space Ratio

 

The Floor Space Ratio (FSR) objectives contained within Clause 4.4 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012) include:

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

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

·           To ensure that development is compatible with the scale and character of contributory buildings in a conservation area or near environmental heritage.

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

 

The floor space for development on the Site has increased from 235.85m², with an FSR of 0.62:1 to 241.25m², which is an FSR of 0.63:1.  This remains compliant with the RLEP 2012 FSR development standard.  The addition to the overall floor space is within the first floor level and relates to an increase in the size of the master bedroom and ensuite. The size and general scale of the development remains compatible with the desired future character of the locality. There is no change proposed to the building footprint or site coverage of the building. There is also no change proposed to the overall height of the dwelling.

 

The proposal is well articulated and responds to environmental and energy needs due to the variety of window openings of varying width and height to break up the respective façades.  Therefore, with the incorporation of the two windows as part of the extension and the north-east location of them, this will improve the solar access and cross-ventilation to the bedroom at the first floor level.  Furthermore, the incorporation of varied roof lines breaks up the bulk and unrelieved scale of walls both vertically and horizontally. 

 

The addition of the floor space does not adversely impact on the amenity of the adjoining neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views.  The additional floor space is located in an area that faces Torrington Road and The Causeway and is an extension to what is existing. The proposed squaring off of this room with make it a more functional area and improve its internal amenity. The design change will also create a more balanced and coherent external design as the building will be more consistent in its shape and form. 

 

Figure 2 shows the location of the existing splayed wall that will be squared off as part of this application.

 

 

Figure 2 | Existing dwelling house looking south west

 

Source: Willana Associates, 2017

 

Site Coverage

 

The site coverage objectives contained within Section 2.3 in Part C1 of the RDCP 2013 include:

·           To ensure new development and alterations and additions to existing dwellings reserve adequate unbuilt upon areas for the purpose of private open space, deep soil planting, permeable services and ancillary development.

 

The site coverage control for development on a site that has a site area between 301m² and 450m² is 55%.  The proposed site coverage on the Site maintains 54% of the site area.  The alterations and additions proposed within this application do not contribute to the overall site coverage and is therefore, compliant with the RDCP 2013 controls and objectives.

 

Setbacks

 

The setback objectives contained within Section 3.3 in Part C1 of the RDCP 2013 include:

·           To maintain or establish a consistent rhythm of street setbacks and front gardens that contribute 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.

 

The proposed change to the built form is a minor addition which will not affect or alter the existing and established front or rear setback. The main change will be to the south-eastern side of the property.

 

Side Setbacks

 

For dwelling houses with a site frontage between 9m and 12m, within the R2 Low Density Residential zoning, the side setback controls are contained within sub-section 3.3.2 of the RDCP 2013.  The RDCP 2013 has setback controls of 900mm for the ground and first floor and then increases to 1.5m for the second level.

 

The subject application has a dwelling house that consists of three levels as the ‘basement level’ protrudes more than 1.2m above the natural ground level and is therefore, considered a ‘storey’, in accordance with the RDCP 2013 definition.  This dwelling house is therefore considered to be three storeys in height and the 1500mm side setback control for the second floor applies. 

 

Currently, the master bedroom at the second floor level has a splayed wall on the north-eastern corner of the dwelling house.  Once the dwelling house is squared off and the alterations and additions to the second floor bedroom and ensuite are implemented on the north-eastern section of the building, the setback, which fronts The Causeway, is proposed to be 1.476m, which is not compliant with the RDCP 2013 Level 2 setback control for side setbacks. 

 

Notwithstanding the 24mm non-compliance to the RDCP 2013 side setback control, the proposal satisfies the objectives of the zone.  The minor non-compliance is considered to be negligible in terms of the impact it creates as the dwelling house is located on a corner site, where there are no neighbouring dwelling houses that will be immediately affected. The dwelling on the other side of The Causeway (No.9 Torrington Road) is setback over 12m so the physical separation between these properties is very generous. In addition, the amended façade will not cause additional overshadowing, will not result in visual or acoustic amenity impacts to neighbours and is consistent with the setback of the first floor level below.

 

Building Design

 

The proposal will square off the splayed eastern wall and the wall length of the dwelling house fronting The Causeway will be approximately 16.5m.  This is not consistent with the RDCP 2013 control of 12m for a maximum wall length.  However, the façade has been well articulated so that visually it appears to be two separate sections with lengths of 9m for the rear section of the dwelling house and 5.5m of the front section broken up by the main, central entry to the dwelling.  Therefore, the proposed amendments to the façade comply with the RDCP 2013 objectives for building design, which are:

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

·           To ensure building facades are articulated to complement or enhance the existing streetscape and neighbourhood character.

·           To encourage contemporary and innovative designs to establish a preferred neighbourhood character in new and transitional residential areas.

The proposal satisfies the objectives of the control due to the variety of window openings of varying width and height to break up the respective side elevations and further the incorporation of varied roof lines to break up the bulk and unrelieved scale of walls both vertically and horizontally. 

 

The inclusion of a concave wall between the front and rear sections of the dwelling house and the addition of windows where the wall is being squared off articulates the dwelling house.  Therefore, the proposal reasonably adapts to the characteristics of the Site, in terms of topography, configuration, orientation and will be in keeping with the surrounding built forms. 

 

The contemporary design of the proposed dwelling house is consistent with that of more contemporary built forms within the locality.

 

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

 

The proposed modifications will not result in any significant adverse social, economic or environmental impacts.  In particular, the proposed changes do not alter the approved built form and retain the envelope and footprint.  There will be no adverse amenity impacts subject to some additional conditions which will ensure privacy for adjoining residences is maintained.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria and will not result in any adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

A.       That Council, as the consent authority, grants consent under Sections 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 531/2016/B for modification of the approved development for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house at 7 Torrington Road, Maroubra, including an increase to the floor area within the master bedroom and ensuite and the addition of two windows facing the secondary road frontage in the following manner:

 

·              Amend Condition No.1 to read:

 

Approved plans and supporting information

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

DA 02_01 Issue A

Pinnacle Plus

22 July 2016

DA 02_03 to DA 02_04 Issue A

Pinnacle Plus

22 July 2016

DA 03_01 to DA 03_05 Issue A

Pinnacle Plus

22 July 2016

DA 04_01 to DA 04_03 Issue A

Pinnacle Plus

22 July 2016

DA 05_01 Issue A

Pinnacle Plus

22 July 2016

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

A256533

1 August 2016

 

As amended by the Section 96 (B) plans and supporting documentation listed below:

 

Issue A Plans

Drawn by

Dated

DA 02_03 Issue A

Pinnacle Plus

15 November 2017

DA 03_03 Issue A

Pinnacle Plus

15 November 2017

DA 03_04 Issue A

Pinnacle Plus

15 November 2017

DA 04_01 Issue A

Pinnacle Plus

15 November 2017

DA 04_03 Issue A

Pinnacle Plus

15 November 2017

 

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

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                          13 February 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D13/18

 

Subject:             2A-2B Smithfield Avenue, Coogee (DA/3/2016/A)

Folder No:                   DA/3/2016/A

Author:                   Jayden Perry, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 modification of the approved development by deletion of the timber deck adjacent to Tree T2, relocation of pool equipment, deletion of trafficable roof terraces and changes to window openings on elevations and provision of OSD tank. Original consent: Alterations and additions to the existing dual occupancy including new first floor balcony and hardstand car spaces.

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                Walter Baroa Design Pty Ltd

Owner:                        Mrs R J Waugh & Mr W W Waugh

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

This application is referred to Council for determination as the original application was determined at a Planning Committee Meeting.

 

Proposal

 

The application seeks to modify the original consent which was approved on the 13th September 2016. The existing approval consisted of the alterations and additions to the existing dual occupancy including new first floor balcony and hardstand car spaces, re-subdivision of existing two allotments to provide for two new lots and construction of a new part two part three storey dwelling house on the new lot including basement storage, in ground swimming pool associated site and landscape works.

 

The details of the proposed modifications are as follows:

 

-    Retain Tree 1 located on the north-western side of the site.

-    Deletion of timber deck adjacent to Tree 2.

-    Previously approved masonry walls/veneer changed to timber horizontal cladding.

-    Relocation of pool equipment from garage to storage room.

-    Deletion of trafficable roof garden terrace on the eastern portion of the dwelling.

-    Deletion of roof pergola and roof planter over kids terrace on the western portion of the dwelling.

-    Increase the size of the ‘kids’ terrace on the western portion of the dwelling from 16m2 to 27m2.

-    Changes to window openings on eastern and western elevations including deletion of W2.22 and W2.24 and reduction in W3.01.

-    Provision of underground OSD tank below the driveway.

 

It should be noted that the original section 96 application included changes to the configuration of the pool, which has been deleted and approved under a separate Section 96 application (DA/3/2016/B).

 

Site

 

The subject site is located at the cul-de-sac of Smithfield Avenue. The reasonably large site widens from its frontage to its rear boundary. The site contains a two-storey dual occupancy building within its western half, while its east contains large expanses of landscaping and medium to large trees, and a garage/shed building. The site is generally flat.

 

The surrounding context contains a variety of site sizes and residential dwelling styles, including single dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, and multi-unit housing. Part of the east of the site adjoins Bardon 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. The following submissions were received as a result of the notification process:

 

 

 

 

36 Leeton Avenue, Coogee

 

Issue

Comment

The upper floor external living deck to the rear of the duplex overlooks into adjoining properties. A condition should be placed on the consent requiring privacy screens be constructed along the edge of the deck.

The size of the kids terrace has been increased from 16m2 to 27m2 and as such it has been deemed necessary that condition 2 (a) of the original consent be amended to include privacy screen to address the privacy concerns.

A recently built structure is present on site that does not appear to be consistent with the original approval.

A site visit was conducted by the assessment officer and the structure in question was revealed to be a construction shed, which was also shown in construction certificate documentation to be in the same location (see figure 1).

 

Figure 1. Construction shed at No. 2A-2B Smithfield Avenue, Coogee.

 

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 (LEP) 2012

The proposal is not inconsistent with the general aims and objectives of the RLEP 2012. No changes have been made to the height or Floor Space Ratio of the approved development.

 

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (RDCP) 2013

Part C1 – Low Density Residential

Clause 5.3 - Visual Privacy

Part of the proposal includes the deletion of the trafficable garden roof terrace and amendments to the layout of the ‘kids’ terrace on the roof level including increasing the size from 16m2 to 27m2. Condition 2 (a) of the original consent stated the following:

 

a.     A privacy screen having a height of 1.6 m above floor level must be provided to the eastern and northern external sides of the first floor level “kids terrace”.  The privacy screen must be constructed of metal or timber and the total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceed 30% of the area of the screen.  Alternatively, the privacy screen may be constructed with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame.

 

This condition incorrectly reference the need for a privacy screen on the eastern side of the terrace instead of the western side where there is a potential to overlook into the rear yard of the neighbouring properties. As a result, this condition is to be amended to ensure the privacy screen is provided on the western side of the ‘kids’ terrace instead and this will also address any potential additional privacy impact from the enlarged terrace area.

 

Referrals

Development Engineer

 

A Section 96(2) application  has been received which seeks to modify the approved development by changing the configuration of the pool, deletion of the timber deck adjacent to Tree T2, relocation of pool equipment, deletion of trafficable roof terraces and changes to window openings on elevations and provision of OSD tank.

 

Original consent: Alterations and additions to the existing dual occupancy including new first floor balcony and hardstand car spaces.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Architectural Plans by Walter Barda Design, dwg’s A111, issue H; A112, issue G; A130, issue F; A135, issue G, all dated 18/1/18;

·      Statement of Environmental Effects by Walter Barda Design dated 25th September 2017;

·      Arborist Letter by Arboreport, dated 10 April 2017.

 

Subdivision Comments

The assessing officer is advised that the submitted subdivision plan (sheet A105 issue C) should not be approved as part of any Section 96 consent as it does not demonstrate compliance with condition 67 since it has not provided Lot 2 with a minimum 1.5m  wide frontage to Smithfield Avenue. Development Engineering would not support the removal of condition 67.

 

Drainage Comments

The submitted drainage plans are consistent with the conditions of consent in regards to the provision of an on-site detention system and no amendments to drainage conditions are required.

It should be noted that the submitted drainage plans should not be approved as part of this Section 96 application. The engineering calculations and plans with levels are to be submitted to and approved by the certifying authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.  A copy of the engineering calculations and plans are to be forwarded to Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority

Tree Management Comments

Council takes this opportunity to reinforce the need for compliance with condition 10.c.i of the issued consent, which requires that a minimum setback of 2 metres be provided from this palm to any physical part of the dwelling, as while the Ground Floor complies with this requirement, the First Floor Level (dwg A111) is still shown as encroaching within this exclusion zone, at an offset of only 1160mm from its trunk (as is confirmed in point 2 of the submitted Arborists letter).

This condition was specifically imposed so as to avoid this palm becoming exempt from Council’s DCP as a result of being located within 2 metres of any part of the building, as this would then make it eligible for removal, at anytime, and without needing any type of consent; which would be an unacceptable outcome given that all other vegetation throughout the rest of Lot 2 will all be removed so as to accommodate the works.

 

This issue needs to be addressed immediately, and as this is non-negotiable, any request to amend this condition cannot be supported.

 

Condition 10, Protection of Palm, lists a variety of measures to ensure the retention of a large and significant Phoenix canariensis (Canary Island Date Palm, T2) in the rear yard, towards the northern site boundary, which is the only remaining vegetation within Lot 2, with the amendments sought by this application discussed below in the same order as listed in the submitted SEE:

 

A.     Condition 10.c, relates to both the setback and orientation of the pool, but as these issues have been addressed by the approval of a separate S96 Application, DA/3/2016/B, it is deemed sufficient for this item to simply be addressed by referencing the approved S96.

 

B.     Condition 46.e, Tree Management, gave consent to remove T1, being a large Ficus rubiginosa (Port Jackson Fig) to the west of the site, wholly within Lot 1, as while not directly affected by these works in Lot 2, is in very poor condition and deemed unsafe due to a combination of its size, the extent of the defects, and its proximity to existing/future dwellings.

 

While the applicant has requested that this tree now be formally retained for sentimental reasons, and the conditions be altered to reflect this, this cannot be supported for the reasons that have already stated on previous occasions.

 

This condition grants approval for its removal; however, if the applicant elects not to proceed on this basis, that is at their discretion, and their choice; but as Council does not support the requested amendment to condition 46.e, it shall remain unchanged.

 

C.     Conditions 10 i-j specified measures to prevent root damage during excavations for footings for the deck/pool surrounds that was shown in the ‘Jungle Bar’ area, between its trunk and the western edge of the pool, with this application confirming that decking will now be completely deleted from this area, with the existing grass surface to remain.

 

 

 

 

Section 79C Environmental Assessment

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation).

The site is zoned Residential R2 Low Density under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will enhance and compliment the aesthetic character and social amenity of the locality.

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

Nil.

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

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

 

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

The environmental impacts of the proposed development on the natural and built environment have been addressed in this report.

 

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

 

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

The site is located in close proximity to local services and public transport. The site has sufficient area to accommodate the proposed land use and associated structures. Therefore, the site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

 

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

 

The issues raised in the submissions have been addressed in this report.

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 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 the application 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

 

A.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Application No. DA/3/2016/A for Section 96 modification of the approved development by deletion of the timber deck adjacent to Tree T2, relocation of pool equipment, deletion of trafficable roof terraces and changes to window openings on elevations and provision of OSD tank, at No. 2A-2B Smithfield Avenue, COOGEE  NSW  2034, in the following manner:

 

(A)      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

Drawn by

Dated

A105B

Walter Barda Design

17 May 2016

A110D

Walter Barda Design

17 May 2016

A111D

Walter Barda Design

17 May 2016

A112D

Walter Barda Design

17 May 2016

A130D

Walter Barda Design

17 May 2016

A135D

Walter Barda Design

17 May 2016

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

685751S

16 December 2015

 

Except as amended by the Section 96’A’ 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

A111H

Walter Barda Design

18/01/2018

A112G

Walter Barda Design

18/01/2018

A130F

Walter Barda Design

18/01/2018

A135G

Walter Barda Design

18/01/2018

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

685751S_03

25 July 2017

 

(B)      Amend condition 2 (a) to read as follows:

 

2.a.    A privacy screen having a height of 1.6 m above floor level must be provided to the western and northern external sides of the “kids terrace” on the roof level.  The privacy screens must be constructed of metal or timber and the total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceed 30% of the area of the screen.  Alternatively, the privacy screen may be constructed with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame.

 

(C)      Amend condition 9 to read as follows:

 

Landscape Plan

9.       The Certifying Authority/PCA must ensure that the Landscape Plan submitted as part of the approved Construction Certificate is substantially consistent with the revised Landscape Plan by Walter Barda Design, dwg A150, issue B, dated 25.09.16.

 

(D)      Amend condition 10 to read as follows:

 

Protection of Palm

10.     In order to ensure retention of the large and significant Phoenix canariensis (Canary Island Date Palm, T2) located in the rear yard, towards the northern site boundary in good health, the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

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

 

b.     Any excavations associated with the installation of new services, pipes, stormwater systems or similar can only be located hard up against the approved footprints of the building and pool so as to minimise root damage. The Certifying Authority/PCA must ensure that all services plans demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

c.     The Construction Certificate plans must show that:

 

i)        All physical parts of the new building; being wall alignment, eave, gutter, fascia, post, awning or similar, will be offset an absolute minimum radius of 2 metres, measured horizontally off the outside edge of its trunk, at a height of 1 metre above ground level, with the gym room at Ground Level and the rumpus room on the First Floor both needing to be re-design to comply with this requirement;

 

The First Floor Level, dwg A111, issue H, dated 18.01.18 does not comply with this requirement, so must be amended as necessary, prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate.

 

ii)       Both the setback and orientation of the pool in relation the Palm must be strictly in accordance with the amended condition that is contained in the S96B application, DA/3/2016/B, approved by Council 28 November 2017;

 

iii)       The existing grass surface and ground levels must be maintained as the pool surrounds for the ‘Jungle Bar patio’, in the area bounded by the western and northern Lot boundaries, the western edge of the new swimming pool to its east and the northern wall of the new building to its south, as is shown on the Ground Level Floor Plan, dwg A111, issue F, dated 25.09.17.

 

d.     In order to prevent the introduction or transfer of the harmful plant pathogen, Fusarium sp, to which this species is particularly susceptible, any tools or machinery to be used directly or indirectly with this palm must be firstly disinfected and sterilised, prior to commencement, as well as regularly during the course of the works by soaking for 5 minutes in the following mixture:

 

i.    50% household bleach or 5% quaternary ammonium (eg, Phytoclean, Avis Chemicals); then;

 

ii.   Rinsing with clean water and/or 70% alcohol to remove disinfectant.

 

e.     All initial excavations for footings for any of the works described in point ‘c’ above, within a radius of 3500mm, measured off the outside edge of its trunk at ground level, must be performed by hand, to a minimum depth of 600mm, without damaging any roots in the process.

 

f.     Council’s Landscape Development Officer (9399-0613) must then be contacted for an inspection of these trenches, prior to proceeding further with any works, forming or pouring footings or similar, giving at least 2 working days notice, with the applicant to comply with any instructions issued.

 

g.     Where a large amount of root material is encountered, which Council’s officer determines must be retained; a cantilevered, pier and beam style footing that will ‘bridge’ over these roots and leave them undisturbed in the ground will need to be used for the northern wall of the new building.

 

h.     The Construction Certificate plans must acknowledge that a flexible footing system may be needed (depending on the findings of the site inspection) with a suitably qualified engineer to have a site specific design approved by the PCA, prior to commencement.

 

i.      Where roots are encountered which are in direct conflict with the approved works, and Council’s officer gives approval for their pruning, they may be cut cleanly by hand (using only sterilized, hand held tools, not machinery), with the affected area/s to be backfilled with clean site soil as soon as practically possible.

 

j.      In order to prevent the introduction of pathogens such as Fusarium sp, to which this species of palm is particularly vulnerable, any imported soils and mulch must comply with AS4419 – 2003: Soils for landscaping & garden use, and AS4454 – 2003 Composts, Soil Conditioners & Mulches respectively, with a certificate of compliance confirming such to be provided to Council’s satisfaction, prior to use on site.

 

k.     Ground protection comprising either a 50mm layer of woodchip mulch; or; strapped together rumble boards, plywood or similar; shall be provided in the area bounded by the western and northern site boundaries, the northern wall of the new building to its south and the western edge of the new pool to its east, and must remain in place for the duration of works, until such time as the approved landscaping is being installed.

 

l.      This palm must also be physically protected by the installation of 1.8 metre high steel mesh/chainwire fencing, which shall be located a minimum distance of 3 metres to its north and east, 1 metre to its south (measured off the outside edge of its trunk at ground level), matching up with the western site boundary in order to completely enclose the palm for the duration of works.

 

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

 

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

 

o.     In order to prevent soil/sediment being washed over its root system, erosion control measures must be provided at ground level around the perimeter of the TPZ.

 

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

 

q.     Ground levels within the TPZ described in point ‘n’ above must not be altered by more than 200mm, and other than the approved footprints for the building and pool, there must be no other structures such as continuous strip footings, planter boxes or similar to be located in this area, which must remain as undisturbed, deep soil.

 

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

 

(E)      Delete condition 26.

 

(F)       Amend condition 61 to read as follows:

 

            Landscaping

61.     The PCA must ensure that landscaping at this site has been installed in accordance with the revised Landscape Plan by Walter Barda Design, dwg A150, issue B, dated 25.09.16, and any relevant conditions of consent, prior to issuing any Occupation Certificate.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                          13 February 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D14/18

 

Subject:             4 Conway Avenue, RANDWICK  NSW  2031(DA/629/2016/A)

Folder No:                   DA/629/2016/A

Author:                   Plandev Pty Ltd, Thomas Mithen      

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 modification of window openings and dimensions, relocation of air conditioning unit to ground level at northern side. Original consent:  Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including new first floor addition, relocation of front entry, new front fence and carport.

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Georgina Wilson Architect

Owner:                        Mr N A Sinclair & Ms T R Epstein

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=6b0946d4-5d73-44b1-89a2-c5ee86647fbe&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application was referred to Council Planning Committee for determination as the original application was approved by Council and the objector is related to a Council employee.

 

1.         Proposal

 

The application seeks retrospective approval under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to regularise the following unauthorised works:

 

·      relocation of the air conditioner unit from the sub-floor area under the terrace on the southern side of the building to the northern elevation at ground level;

·      replacement of the existing window (WG.10) on the southern elevation at ground level, resulting in an increase in window height of approximately 200 mm;

·      enlargement of the approved first floor window (W1.10) on the southern elevation adjacent to the internal stairwell achieved by lowering the sill height approximately 800mm;

·      insertion of two new gable end windows at the first floor to bedroom 1 (W1.12) and the ensuite (W1.17) at the rear elevation and the removal of the decorative timber screen;

·      insertion of a new gable end window at the first floor to the study at the front elevation and removal of the decorative timber screen;

·      removal of external timber louvres to the first floor windows to bedroom 2 on the northern elevation and to bedroom 3 on the southern elevation; and

·      relocation of the kitchen window at the ground floor on the southern elevation approximately 130mm to the west and a corresponding extension to the brick cladding to provide a structural return.

 

It should be noted that a Notice of Intention to Given an Order No. 15 was issued to the owners of the subject property on 28 November 2017 for the changes to window openings on elevations.

 

2.         Site

 

The site is located on the eastern side of Conway Avenue, one property south of its intersection with Carey and Douglas Lanes.

 

The site contains a single storey detached dwelling from the Inter-War period. The dwelling is elevated above the street with the site sloping up to the rear boundary, representing a change in level of approximately 2-2.5 m.

 

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

 

·      No. 6 Conway Avenue, Randwick (adjoining property to the south)

 

Issue

Comment

The proposed change to the kitchen window at ground level described in the SEE is inaccurate and not consistent with the DA plans.

A review of the approved plans and the proposed changes to the kitchen window indicate the proposal is adequately described and represented on the plans submitted with the Section 96 application.

 

Potential privacy impacts as a result of the relocation of the kitchen window and a screening device or opaque glazing should be imposed to mitigate the privacy impacts to the rear yard

The relocation of the kitchen window would not result in any unreasonable privacy impacts to the adjoining property. Refer to Section 4 below.

Clarification is requested as to whether the entire window to the stairwell on the southern elevation is to be opaque and if not the louver screen should remain

 

The entire stairwell window (as modified) will be opaque to mitigate potential privacy impacts.

In relation to the new front fence clarification is sought as to whether the existing pillar at the southern end of the front fence and the common picket fence along the southern boundary will be retained

No modifications are proposed to the front fence or the common boundary fence with No. 6 Conway Avenue. Any modification to the common boundary fence is a matter between the property owners and not a relevant consideration under this application.

 

4.         Key Issues

 

4.1    Visual Privacy

 

Part C1 Section 5.3 of Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 seeks to minimise overlooking and cross viewing to neighbouring dwellings to maintain reasonable levels of privacy.

 

The potential privacy impacts associated with the changes to the approved window openings are addressed as follows:

 

existing window (WG.10) southern elevation

·      The proposed modification includes an increased window height by approximately 200 mm. The proposal would not result in any additional privacy impact to No. 6 Conway Avenue compared to the approved window opening.

 

approved window (W1.10) southern elevation

·      The proposed modification includes an enlargement of the stairwell window achieved by lowering the bottom sill approximately 800 mm. The entire window will be opaque to mitigate any potential privacy impacts to No. 6 Conway Avenue.

 

approved windows (W1.12 & w1.17) eastern elevation

·      The proposed modification includes the insertion of new gable end windows to the bedroom and ensuite. The new windows openings are high level windows approximately 2.4 metres above the floor level and therefore would not result in any additional privacy impact to the adjoining property. The proposed modification also includes removal of the timber screen. The proposal would not result in any additional privacy impacts as these screens were approved as a decorative feature and not a privacy measure.

 

approved window (W1.13) western elevation

·      The proposed modification includes the insertion of a new gable end windows to the study at the first floor. The proposal would not result in any additional privacy impact as it is a high level window orientated to the street.

 

approved windows (W1.01) & (W1.02) northern elevation

·      The proposed modification includes the removal of the timber louvres to the window openings. The proposal would not result in any unreasonable privacy impacts to the adjoining properties as the windows are to a low activity bedroom space.

 

approved windows (W1.09) & (W1.08) southern elevation

·      The proposed modification includes the removal of the timber louvres to the window openings. The proposal would not result in any unreasonable privacy impacts as the windows are to a low activity bedroom space.

 

approved window (G.06) southern elevation

·      The proposed modification includes the relocation of the kitchen window at ground floor approximately 130 mm to the west. The proposal would not result in any unreasonable privacy impacts as potential views would be obscured by the boundary fence.

 

4.2    Air Conditioners

 

Part C1 Section 7.6 of Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 seeks to ensure air conditioner units are located appropriately to minimise amenity impacts to the bedroom areas of the adjoining properties.

 

At the detailed design stage it was revealed the sub-floor space under the existing terrace originally intended for the approved air conditioner unit consists of compacted fill. The proposal therefore seeks to relocate the air-conditioner unit external to the dwelling at the northern elevation to avoid the need for excavation. Condition 46 of the development consent restricts the use of air conditioners if they are audible from a habitable room in any other residential premises. The existing development consent includes an appropriate noise condition to safeguard the amenity of the adjoining properties associated with the future use of the air conditioner.

 

5.         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:-

 

Section 96(2) matters for consideration

Comment

The development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same as the development originally approved.

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

Whether it has consulted with the relevant Minister, public authority or approval body

 

 

Not Applicable

Whether notification has occurred and any submissions have been considered

The modification application has been notified in accordance with Council’s notification policy. One submission was received from the adjoining neighbour.  Details of the notification are provided in Section 3 of this report. 

Consideration of relevant matters referred to in Section 79C(1) of the EP&A Act

The relevant consideration under Section 79C is the amenity impact on the adjoining properties in terms of acoustic and visual privacy. The proposed modification would not have any adverse environmental impacts as outlined in Section 4

 

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.

 

6.         Conclusion

 

The proposed modification to the window openings and removal of the decorative screens would not result in any unreasonable visual privacy impacts to the adjoining properties. The proposed changes to the window openings would improve internal amenity for the future occupants by allowing more daylight penetration into the dwelling. Furthermore, the existing development consent includes an appropriate noise condition to safeguard the amenity of the adjoining properties associated with the future use of the air conditioner at its new location. The proposal modifications to the approved development (under construction) are appropriate for the site

 

Recommendation

 

A.       That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 629/2016/A for modification of window openings and dimensions, relocation of air conditioning unit to ground level at northern side at No. 4 Conway Avenue, Randwick in the following manner:

·           Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

Ground Floor Plan A100 Rev D

Georgina Wilson Architect

8 December 2016

8 December 2016

Level 1 Plan A101 Rev D

Georgina Wilson Architect

8 December 2016

8 December 2016

Elevations A200 Rev D

Georgina Wilson Architect

8 December 2016

8 December 2016

Elevations A201 Rev D

Georgina Wilson Architect

8 December 2016

8 December 2016

Roof Plan A110 Rev A

Georgina Wilson Architect

30 August 2016

5 September 2016

Sections A300 Rev A

Georgina Wilson Architect

30 August 2016

5 September 2016

Finishes Schedule A900 Rev A

Georgina Wilson Architect

30 August 2016

5 September 2016

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

A256348

31 August 2016

5 September 2016

 

Except, as amended by the Section 96 plans and documentation listed below, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application, and as may be shown on the attached plans:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Ground Floor Plan - A100 (Revision E)

Georgina Wilson

30/10/2017

Level 1 Plan - A101 (Revision E)

Georgina Wilson

30/10/2017

Roof Plan - A110 (Revision C)

Georgina Wilson

30/10/2017

Elevations A200 (Revision D)

Georgina Wilson

30/10/2017

Elevations A201 (Revision D)

Georgina Wilson

30/10/2017

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                          13 February 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D15/18

 

Subject:             293-297 Alison Road, Coogee (DA/11/2015/D)

Folder No:                   DA/11/2015/D

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 modification of Land and Environment Court Approval by increase in height by 280mm, alterations to facade, alteration to internal layout and modification to basement. Original consent: Demolition of existing buildings, and construction of two residential flat buildings and basement car parking

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                Micaul Holdings Pty Ltd

Owner:                        Mr R B Profilio

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=f538529f-a524-44b4-83d1-f51c8f687b54&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The Section 96 (AA) application is referred to the planning committee meeting as the original application was determined by the Land and Environment Court.

 

Proposal

 

Section 96 modification of Land and Environment Court Approval by:

 

·      Increase in height by 280mm (100mm to ground and top floor level, and 40mm to first and second floor level);

·      Alterations to screen colour from charcoal to white, balcony upstands colour from white brick to solid rendered white AFS;

·      Alteration to internal layout enlarging bathroom and kitchen joinery; switch location of storage and kitchen in ground level units G01 and G04 and

·      Modification to basement level in relation to size of bicycle locker room, addition of main switch room, additional waste room,

 

Works not carried out in accordance with the DA consent

 

A site visit reveals the slabs have been constructed not in accordance with the approval. The application has been referred to the Regulatory Compliance section for investigation.

 

Application history

 

DA/11/2015/C: Section 96 (AA) approved (16 march 2017) modification of the approved development to condition No.11(n) relating to the setback and method of piling in proximity to an existing tree.

 

DA/11/2015/B: Section 96 (AA) approved (31 March 2017) under S34 by the Land and Environment Court to allow for reduction in the central communal courtyard area, increase in floor area to ground level apartments opposite the central courtyard.

 

DA/11/2015/A: Section 96 by the planning committee meeting on 11 October 2016 to alter unit mix, increase in floor area by alteration to building line, alteration to internal layout, and retention of condition 10(a) which required solid balustrades on some balconies.

 

DA/11/2015: Original deferred commencement consent made by the Land and Environment Court on 18th August 2015 for the demolition of existing buildings, and construction of two residential flat buildings and basement car parking. The terms of the deferred commencement were complied with on 8 June 2016.

 

Site

 

The site is located at the southern side of Alison Road in Coogee. The site has pedestrian access off Abbott Street to the south. The site has a total site area of 2398sqm. The pedestrian corridor measures around 175sqm leaving 2220sqm for the site which amalgamated No. 293, 295 & 297 Alison Road. The site is adjoined to the east by a block of land identified as No. 301 Alison Road which is the subject of approved development consent for a flat building currently under construction. The site to the west is a flat building that has two frontages to Alison Road and Abbott Street located on higher ground level. The sites adjoining to the rear southern boundary contains two pairs of semi-detached dwellings identified as No. 8, 10, 12 and 14 Abbott Street, their ground level generally aligns with the first floor level of the approved development.

 

Image 1: Subject site and adjoining flat building at 301 Alison Road currently under construction.

 

 

Image 2: Rear of subject site showing excavated ground level relative to the higher rear yard level which has a similar level to the ground level of southern neighbours properties.

 

Section 96 Assessment

 

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

 

a)  it is satisfied that the proposed modification is of minimal environmental impact, and

 

b)  it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and

 

c)  it has notified the application

 

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

 

Substantially the Same Development

 

In accordance with Section 96 of the Act, the proposed modifications are not considered to result in a development that will fundamentally alter the originally approved development for a four storey flat buildingl. The essence of the development will be substantially the same development as the originally approved development as the internal changes are relatively minor and the external changes do not significantly add to the approved building envelope. Therefore, for the purposes of legislative requirements the proposal is eligible for assessment under Section 96(2) of the Act.

 

As discussed in the relevant Key issues sections of this report, the proposed modifications will be substantially the same development and will not introduce any significant additional environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality and it is in the public interest to consider the assessment and recommendations made in this report.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

·      12 Abbott Street, Coogee

·      14  Abbott Street, Coogee

 

Issue

Comment

The development is already well above the maximum height and the SEE does not address this.

See key issues section of report relating to Height of buildings

The increase in height which cuts across the window line of the second floor of the block of units at No. 2-6 Abbott Street will affect their views from their third floor– from neighbour at No. 12 Abbott Street.

No submissions have been received from the owners of units within the RFB at No. 2-6 Abbott Street facing the subject site. Notwithstanding this is a relevant matter for consideration in the assessment of the proposal against the objectives of the height of buildings standard in the RLEP.

 

The surrounding properties to the east and south will have much less open view and less light.

There will be less light and an impact on the openness in views from the rear of properties facing Abbott Street namely No. 12 and 14, however it is noted that the rear building sits between 12.7m and 15.517m from the boundary shared with the objectors properties. This is greater than the 11m required under the RDCP and the 12m required under the Apartment Design Guide. Whilst shadow diagrams have not been provided a review of the suns angles during the winter solstice indicates that at least three hours of solar access will be retained to the rear yards of these neighbours and thus satisfy the relevant controls in the RDCP.

The application was lodged after work had already commenced for formwork for the first and second floor levels.

The matter has been referred to the building regulatory team for investigation. It is noted that retrospective works can still be assessed under a S96 application.

 

Key Issues

 

Height of buildings

 

·      Increase in height by 280mm (100mm to ground and level 04, and 40mm to each of the two levels in between);

 

The proposal seeks a 280mm increase in the height of both the front building facing Alison Road and the rear building adjoining the rear boundary of No. 8 to 14 Abbott Street containing semi-detached dwellings at No. 8, 10, 12 & 14 Abbott Street the two latter properties made a submission to Council.

 

The front and rear buildings have varying heights and built forms which is largely due to the sloping nature of the pre exiting land levels which rises from front to rear by around 4-5m. In particular, the front building fronting facing Alison Road has a three storey scale with stepped in habitable roof level from the front and sides and an approved height of between 10.52m and 12.32m. The rear building is four storeys with a height of between 7.27m to 9.77m above pre-existing land levels where the approved ground level sits between 2.73m and 4.73m below the pre-existing land levels along the rear of the development.

 

The proposed 280mm increase in height has a variance of between 2.2% and 3.8% across the development. It is important to note that as this is a section 96 application there is no requirement for a Clause 4.6 exception to the development standard in the RLEP 2012. Notwithstanding, a merit assessment is required against the relevant objectives of the height of buildings standard as they remain relevant both in terms of streetscape character and the amenity of neighbouring properties. An assessment is carried out as follows:

 

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

 

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

 

Front building

 

The proposed increase in height of the front building will still provide for a suitable size and scale and be compatible with the desired future character of the area as the 280mm height increase is limited to the habitable roof level that is substantially setback from the sides of the levels below which are increasing in height by only 180mm. The increase in height of the lower levels (i.e. from ground to second floor levels) is less pronounced and will still be well below the height of the adjoining flat buildings to the east at No. 2-6 Abbott Street taking into account the fall in land level from west to east across both properties. Therefore in terms of size and scale the proposed increase in height of the front building will be compatible with the existing and desired future character of the area.

 

Image 3: shows the slabs associated with the floors and envelope have been constructed. At right is the four storey flat building at 291 Alison Road.

 

Rear building

 

The rear building is sufficiently setback from the street level and its visual size and scale relative to neighbouring properties is reduced by the fact that it sits below pre-existing ground level that is between 2.73m and 4.73m below which means that it will have a height of between 7.27m and 9.77m which is generally consistent with 9.5m maximum height limit in the RLEP 2012. The size and scale of the development as viewed from the neighbouring properties is further minimised by the fact that has a greater than minimum rear boundary setback than that required by the RDCP and the provisions in the Apartment Design Guide.

 

Overall, the proposal will remain compatible with the size and scale of other residential flat buildings in the vicinity of the site and consistent with the desired future character of the area.

 

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

 

The proposed modifications will not detract from the scale and character of any contributory buildings in a conservation area or near a heritage item. Council’s Heritage planner has recommended that the colour selection for the screens be changed from the proposed white to a more recessive colour and a suitable condition is included.

 

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

 

The proposed modifications as conditioned will remain well articulated retaining mixture of materials and depth across all elevations ensuring no significant impact in terms of visual bulk.

 

Front building

 

In relation to the front building, as indicated in the section above, the 180mm height increase will generally be similar to the existing approved development and will not result in any appreciable increase in size or scale of the development within the streetscape or as viewed from the neighbouring properties. In relation to overshadowing, the north-south orientation of the development ensures that it is shared between neighbouring development and not to the detriment of any single neighbour. In terms of the overall levels of shadowing to neighbouring properties, the proposed increase in height will not result in non-compliance with the relevant RDCP controls which require three hours of solar access to neighbouring properties areas of private open space and north facing living room windows. In relation to visual and acoustic privacy, the height increase will not result in any significant impacts as the design of the development with screens is still being maintained. In relation to views an assessment is carried out further below.

 

Rear building

 

In relation to the rear building opposite the rear of properties fronting Abbott Street (from 8 to 14), the height increase will not result in any significant visual bulk as viewed from the neighbouring properties where its size and scale remains similar to the 9.5m maximum height of buildings standard that applies to residential flat buildings under the RLEP. The proposed increase in height by 280mm whilst projecting slightly above the maximum is limited to a small portion of the rear elevation at the south western corner with the majority of the rear elevation well below the maximum building height standard. It is also considered that in terms of visual bulk, the development maintains a rear setback that is greater than minimum rear setback control required under the RDCP and particularly greater rear setback from those Abbott Street properties that have made submissions to Council. Overall, having regard to visual bulk, it is considered that the size and separation of the rear building will have a negligible impact on the neighbouring properties.

 

In terms of overshadowing, the proposed increase in height is considered minor and unlikely to result in any significant or appreciable increase in shadowing on any single rear neighbour during the winter solstice (the day overshadowing will be at its worst). It is also important to note that the large southern rear setback resolves to a large extent the overshadowing caused by that portion of the building that rises to 9.77m and above the 9.5m maximum height of buildings standard in the RLEP 2012. Moreover, an analysis of overshadowing indicates that the proposed increase in height does not project above the approved rear fence between just after 10am and just before 2pm ensuring at least three hours of solar access.

 

Site visit: shows the excavation within the site and the higher land level at the rear of the site.

 

Plan excerpt showing the rear of the ground level along the south eastern side of the site being below ground level existing and the rear neighbours property.

 

In terms of privacy impacts, the increase in height does not result in any appreciable increase in privacy impacts on the neighbouring properties in that the floor levels are relatively similar to existing and surrounding flat building. Moreover, the approved privacy measures are being maintained as part of the original approved development.

 

In terms of views, the proposed increase in height is minor as the floor levels remain similar to the existing levels. Relative to the surrounding development most notably that of the apartment building to the west at No. 2-6 Abbot Street (285-291 Alison Road), the amended building heights will not dissect the middle of the second floor level of the building behind as indicated in two objections received by Council. As shown in the image below, both the front and rear buildings will align with the bottom sill and below the top of balustrade of third floor level of the apartments in No. 2-6 Abbott Street thereby not affecting any district basin views. View corridors are also maintained from kitchens and balconies between both buildings.

 

Eastern side of the propose development showing the western neighbouring flat building at No. 2-6 Abbott Street.

 

Overall, the proposed development will not result in any significant adverse impacts on the desired future character of the area having regard to size and scale of the development and will not result in any significant impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties.

 

·      Alterations to screen colour from charcoal to white, balcony upstands colour from white brick to solid rendered white AFS;

 

There proposed modification of screen colour from charcoal to white occurs at two main locations along the side elevation of the development as a whole and less prominently along the middle of the front and rear elevations of the two buildings. The proposed change in screen colour does not raise any significant matters of concern having regard to the amenity of neighbouring properties. In relation to the nearby heritage conservation initiatives, Councils Heritage planner recommends a condition be included requiring the screens to be a more recessive light colour such as beige.

 

Subject to the inclusion of a condition, the proposed changes from charcoal colour for the screens is supported.

 

·      Alteration to internal layout enlarging bathroom and kitchen joinery; switch location of storage and kitchen in ground level units G01 and G04

 

The increase in storage within Kitchens are beneficial providing greater storage within the apartments. The increase in size of bathrooms is achieved by reducing the size of study rooms which are not subject to minimum room dimensions and therefore do not affect compliance with the provisions under State Environmental Planning Policy 65 Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65). The proposal does not affect the size of bedrooms which continue to comply with the provisions under SEPP 65 for minimum dimensions and room sizes. Overall the proposed internal layout modifications are considered adequate and do not raise any concerns in relation to the neighbours amenity or streetscape character.

 

·      Modification to basement level in relation to size of bicycle locker room, addition of main switch room, additional waste room,

 

The proposed modifications to the basement levels are relatively minor and Council’s Development Engineer raises no objections. The proposed basement levels will continue to service the same number of parking spaces and provide suitable areas for bicycle parking, waste storage and plant and equipment.

 

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 meet the criteria for it to be considered under Section 96(2) of the Act in so far as the nature of the approval for residential flat building is not changing. The proposal despite part of the works already being carried out have been assessed against the relevant assessment criteria notably the key sections of SEPP 65, the objectives of the height of buildings standard in the RLEP and relevant provisions in the RDCP 2013. The proposed modifications will retain a bulk and scale that is generally consistent with the approved development and will not result in any appreciable adverse amenity impacts on the neighbouring properties or the streetscape character. The proposed modifications are assessed as satisfying the associated objectives of the assessment criteria and subject to conditions will be suitable for the site.

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants consent under Sections 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 11/2015 to modify the Land and Environment Court approval by increase in height by 280mm, alterations to facade, alteration to internal layout and modification to basement, at No. 293-297 Alison Road, Coogee NSW 2034, in the following manner:

 

Non-standard conditions

 

Amend condition 1 to read:

 

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

Drawn by

Dated

Cover A0000 Rev C01

Alex Phegan Pty Ltd

 

12 June 2015

Location A0000 Rev C01

12 June 2015

Site Analysis A1002 Rev C01

12 June 2015

Demolition A0000 Rev C01

12 June 2015

Level 04 A0000 Rev C01

12 June 2015

Level 03 A0000 Rev C01

12 June 2015

Level 02 A0000 Rev C01

12 June 2015

Level 01 A0000 Rev C01

12 June 2015

Ground A0000 Rev C01

12 June 2015

Basement 01 A0000 Rev C01

12 June 2015

Basement 02 A0000 Rev C01

12 June 2015

Area GFA A0000 Rev C01

12 June 2015

Landscape/Deep Soil A0000 Rev C01

 

12 June 2015

Elevation North A0000 Rev C01

 

12 June 2015

Elevation North 02 A0000 Rev C01

 

12 June 2015

Elevation South A0000 Rev C01

 

12 June 2015

Elevation South 02 A0000 Rev C01

 

12 June 2015

Elevation East A0000 Rev C01

 

12 June 2015

Elevation West A0000 Rev C01

 

12 June 2015

A3100 Section

Section 01 A3101 Rev C01

 

12 June 2015

A3100 Section

Section 02 A3102 Rev C01

 

12 June 2015

A3100 Section

Section 03 A3103 Rev C01

 

29 July 2015

A3100 Section

Section 04 A3104 Rev C02

 

29 July 2015

Finished Board A6001 Rev C01

 

12 June 2015

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Received

598125m_2

19 June 2015

 

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Date received by Council

Cover A0000 Rev S9602

Alex Phegan Pty Ltd

 

4 July 2016

Site Analysis A1002 Rev  S9602

4 July 2016

Roof Plan A2102 Rev S9602

4 July 2016

Level 03 A2103 Rev S9602

4 July 2016

Level 02 A2104 Rev S9602

4 July 2016

Level 01 A2105 Rev S9602

4 July 2016

Ground A2106 Rev S9602

4 July 2016

Basement 01 A2107 Rev S9602

4 July 2016

Basement 02 A2108 Rev S9602

4 July 2016

Area GFA A2301 Rev S9602

4 July 2016

Landscape/Deep Soil A2302 Rev S9602

4 July 2016

Elevation North A3001 Rev S9602

4 July 2016

Elevation North 02 A3002 Rev S9602

 

4 July 2016

Elevation South A3003 Rev S9602

 

4 July 2016

Elevation South 02 A3004 Rev S9602

 

4 July 2016

Elevation East A3005 Rev S9602

 

4 July 2016

Elevation West A3006 Rev S9602

 

4 July 2016

A3100 Section

Section 01 A3101 Rev S962

 

4 July 2016

A3100 Section

Section 02 A3102 Rev C01

 

4 July 2016

A3100 Section

Section 03 A3103 Rev C01

 

4 July 2016

A3100 Section

Section 04 A3104 Rev C02

 

4 July 2016

A4000 Detail Façade Detail Façade 01 A4001 Rev S9602

 

4 July 2016

A4000 Detail Façade Detail Façade 01 A4002 Rev S9602

 

4 July 2016

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Received

598125m_3

12 April 2016

 

as amended by the Section 96 plans and documentation listed below, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application lodged 14 October 2016,:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

A2106 – Plan Ground – Rev CC02

ESS Architects

24.03.17

L01 – Landscape Plan – Issue H

Amber Road

23.03.17

L02 – Landscape planting and materials palette – Issue C

23.03.017

L03 – Landscape section and elevations – Issue G

23.03.17

 

and as further amended by the plans listed below, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the plans and/or detailed in the Section 96 application lodged 24 October 2017 :

 

Plan

Drawn by

Date

A0000 Revision S9605

ESS Architects

29.09.17

A1002 Revision S9605

29.09.17

A2102 Revision S9605

29.09.17

A2103 Revision S9605

29.09.17

A2104 Revision S9605

29.09.17

A2105 Revision S9605

29.09.17

A2106 Revision S9605

29.09.17

A2107 Revision S9605

29.09.17

A2108 Revision S9605

29.09.17

A3001 Revision S9605

29.09.17

A3002 Revision S9605

29.09.17

A3003 Revision S9605

29.09.17

A3004 Revision S9605

29.09.17

A3005 Revision S9605

29.09.17

A3006 Revision S9606

22.01.18

A3101 Revision S9605

29.09.17

A3102 Revision S9605

29.09.17

A3103 Revision S9605

29.09.17

A3104 Revision S9605

29.09.17

A4001 Revision S9605

29.09.17

A4002 Revision S9605

29.09.17

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Received

829399M

11 August 2017

 

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

 

Add the following condition:

 

3c.     The screen colour across the façade of the development shall be restricted to a more recessive colour such as beige. Details showing compliance with the condition shall be submitted to Council’s Heritage Planner for approval prior to an amended construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

3d.     Plan number A3006 dated 22.01.18 shall be amended to correctly reference the parapet of the rear building as RL31.05. Details showing compliance with this condition shall be submitted to the Certifying Authority.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                          13 February 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D16/18

 

Subject:             6 Chapel Street, Randwick (DA/66/2016/B)

Folder No:                   DA/66/2016/B

Author:                   Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 modification to the approved development to amend north facing windows, enclose west facing balcony and  amend and delete conditions 22, 23 & 24

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Alex Pascoe

Owner:                        A & A Pascoe

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.png?guid=c57a5ff5-1432-4bbf-8096-1ba98f4dd941&contentType=image%2Fpng

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

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

 

Proposal

 

The application to modify the development includes the following modifications;

 

a)  Provide new high light windows to the northern elevation of the building.

b)  Enclose the rear approved balcony,

c)  Modify Condition 22 to allow for the removal of a willow tree which has been damaged in a recent weather event and has been recommended for removal by an Arborist,

d)  Delete Conditions 23 & 24 which also relate to this willow tree and have been imposed in error.

 

Conditions 22, 23 & 24 of the development consent state;

 

Tree Management

22.   The existing established screen planting around the perimeter of the rear yard performs an important screening, privacy and amenity function for both the occupants and neighbours, and as they are not in direct conflict with any works, so must be retained in-situ as part of this application. 

 

Pruning of Neighbour’s Tree

23.   Permission is granted for the minimal and selective pruning of only those lower growing branches from the southern aspect of the Salix babylonica (Weeping Willow) which is located wholly in the rear yard of the adjoining private property to the north, no.4, only where they overhang the common boundary, into/above the subject site, and need to be pruned in order to avoid damage to the tree; or; interference with the first floor as shown.

 

24.   This approval does not imply any right of entry onto a neighbouring property nor does it allow pruning beyond a common boundary; however, where such measures are desirable in the best interests of correct pruning procedures, and ultimately, the ongoing health of this tree, the applicant must negotiate with the neighbour/tree owner for access to perform this work.

 

Site History

 

The original application detailed alterations and additions to the existing dwelling, including a new first floor. The premises is within the St Marks heritage conservation area. The original application was determined at the Planning Committee Meeting of the 10th May 2016.

 

The development consent was subsequently modified to alter the material of southern elevation privacy louvres to fixed opaque glazing to 1.6m above floor area. Approval was granted to the Section 96(1A) application on the 27th July 2017.

 

Section 96 Amendment

 

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

 

Substantially the Same Development

The modifications will not result in a significant change to the nature of the original and for the purposes of assessing a Section 96 application satisfy the definition of being substantially the same development.

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. No submissions have been received in relation to this modification.  

Key Issues

 

Heritage

 

The site is within the St Marks heritage conservation area and is occupied by a Federation style dwelling. The original application and a subsequent Section 96 application have previously been approved and this application proposes design changes at first floor and changes to several consent conditions.

 

The proposed changes which are the subject of this Section 96 application have been considered by Council’s Heritage Planner who has advised that the proposed changes to the north and west elevations of the first floor will not impact on the streetscape of the St Marks heritage conservation area or the heritage significance of the heritage items further to the south. The existing and proposed consent conditions relating to landscape screening have no heritage impact.

 

Landscaping

 

The proposed modifications to the landscape conditions have been referred to Council’s Landscape Development Officer for consideration and comment.

 

In relation to the willow tree this has now been determined to be wholly within the subject site and due to issues associated with recent storm damage its removal is now sought. The submitted Arborists report has detailed that this tree is now unsafe and unsuitable for retention. In addition this species is already exempt from the provisions of Council’s DCP as it is undesirable as it is invasive and has an aggressive root system. It could be removed without approval and there are therefore no objections raised to its removal as requested.

 

Condition 22 can remain unchanged as it relates to general tree management.

 

Condition 23 relating to the pruning of the Willow must be amended to reflect the need to now only prune the Crepe Myrtle in the front yard of the subject site and should now read;

 

Pruning

23.     Permission is granted for the minimal and selective pruning of the Lagerstroemia indica (Crepe Myrtle, T1) that is located in the front yard of the subject site, between the front boundary and carport, only where needed so as to avoid damage to the tree, interference with the approved works; or; so as to provide the required clearance from the overhead power lines.

 

For clarity in the development consent condition 24 can be amended to allow for the removal of the willow tree.

 

Building modification

 

The proposed modification to alter the building design to provide for high light windows in the northern elevation of the building and to enclose the rear balcony will not result in any adverse impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining properties with respect to privacy.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

That the application to modify the development consent be approved.

 

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/66/2016 for 6 Chapel Street Randwick subject to the conditions contained to this report:

 

A       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

DWG A102/A, A103/A, and A104/A

Robertson + Marks

13 Jan. 2016

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

A239862

8 February 2016

 

as amended by the Section 96 ‘A’ plans and documentation listed below

 

Plan No.

Drawn by

Dated

DWG s96-01 Issue A

Sofair Design

May 2017

 

as amended by the Section 96 ‘B’ plans and documentation listed below

 

Plan No.

Drawn by

Dated

DWG s96-01 Issue A

Sofair Design

October 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:

 

B       Amend conditions 23 & 24 to read;

 

Pruning

23      Permission is granted for the minimal and selective pruning of the Lagerstroemia indica (Crepe Myrtle, T1) that is located in the front yard of the subject site, between the front boundary and carport, only where needed so     as to avoid damage to the tree, interference with the approved works; or; so as to provide the required clearance from the overhead power lines.

 

Tree Removal 

24    Despite being located beyond the extent of the approved works, approval is still        granted for removal of the Salix matsudana ‘Tortuosa’ (Weeping Willow, T2)     that is located in the rear yard of the subject site, in the northwest corner,      given its poor, unsafe/declining condition as a result of recent storm damage,        with this species already exempt from the provisions of Council’s DCP as it is      recognized as an undesirable species due to its invasive and aggressive root     system.

 

Non standard conditions

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                          13 February 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D17/18

 

Subject:             27 Meeks Street and 65 Willis Street, Kingsford (DA/795/2015/B)

Folder No:                   DA/795/2015/B

Author:                   William Jones, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 modification of Land and Environment Court approval by addition of central hot water plant room, addition of communal drying area, alteration to layout of accessible rooms G01 and G02, removal of screen on eastern side of car park, alteration to exterior louvres, alter increase in some some window sill heights and alteration to some exterior finishes.

                                      Original consent: Demolition of existing building on site and and construction of a new part 3 and part 4 storey boarding house containing 33 rooms at Nos. 65 Willis Street and 27 Meeks Street, Kingsford.

Ward:                     West Ward

Applicant:                Mr M Klapsogiannis

Owner:                        Ekos (Kingsford) Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

This Section 96 (AA) application is being reported to the Planning Committee meeting as the original application was determined by the Land and Environment Court.

Details of Current Approval

 

·      DA/795/2015: Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a new 4 storey boarding house containing 38 rooms.

 

-       Refused Council on 28 June 2016.

-       S82A review was submitted. Refused Council on 24 May 2016.

-       Approved Land and Environment Court on 28 March 2017.

 

·      DA/795/2015/A: Section 96 (AA) application to delete conditions in relation to BASIX and splayed corner and removal of Tree T9.

 

-       Approved delegated on 19 October 2017.

Proposal

 

Section 96 (AA) modification of Land and Environment Court approval by addition of central hot water plant room, addition of communal drying area, alteration to layout of accessible rooms G01 and G02, removal of screen on eastern side of car park, alteration to exterior louvres, alter increase in some some window sill heights and alteration to some exterior finishes.

 

According to the Applicant, the proposed modifications are in response to the requirements of the Building Code of Australia, Australian Standards and conditions of consent. Specifically, the proposed modifications include:

 

Ground floor

 

·      Addition of a hot water plant and plantroom for hydraulic services;

·      Revised layout for accessible rooms G02 and G01;

·      Provision of a communal clothes drying area on southern side (condition provided by the Land and Environment Court); and

·      Removal of open decretive screens and their replacement with solid walls at frontage for fire safety purposes.

First, Second and Third floors

 

·      Increase in length of the metal louvers on the east façade for fire safety purposes.

East elevation

 

·      Window sill adjustment to provide 1.6m sill height on Level 1 and 2 (condition provided by the Land and Environment Court).

Northern and southern elevations

 

·      All louvers made to align with one another on northern façade; and

·      Provision of rendered horizontal bands across the southern façade to provide additional articulation.

 

Site

 

The subject site comprises 2 lots, which together form a long rectangular site that is a corner site with frontages to Willis Street to the west, Meeks Street to the north and Bow Lane to the south. The site is currently occupied by 2 single storey dwellings with access off Willis Street. A 2-storey residential flat building sits adjacent to the site to the east with the majority of surrounding development comprising older residential flat buildings and single storey dwellings.

 

Section 96 Assessment

 

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

 

Section 96AA 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 the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and

The proposal is considered to be substantially the same development as was originally approved.

(b)  it has notified the application in accordance with:

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

(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 development in accordance with the RDCP – Public Notification. The application was also advertised in the local newspaper.

(c)  it has notified, or made reasonable attempts to notify, each person who made a submission in respect of the relevant development application of the proposed modification by sending written notice to the last address known to the consent authority of the objector or other person, and

Reasonable attempts to notify each person who made a submission in respect of the original DA was carried out.

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

2 submissions were received, which have been considered further below.

 

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:

 

8/23 Meeks Street, Kingsford NSW

 

 

 

 

Issue

Comment

The DA as approved by the Court should proceed, and further modification should not be approved.

 

If modifications are sought, then the Court approval should be voided and a new DA lodged.

Modifications to the Court approved DA are permitted via Section 96 (AA) of the of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The proposed modifications have been assessed and are supported.

Removal of screens, alterations to exterior louvers and changes to window sill heights will increase noise and privacy impacts for surrounding properties. The increased length of the louvers on the eastern façade is due to the communal corridors being considered open space, which will increase noise and privacy impacts on residents of 29 Meeks Street.

The proposed extension of the louvers to the corridors is for fire safety purposes in accordance with the Building Code of Australia (BCA). The Land and Environment Court’s condition requiring all louvers on the eastern elevation at the third floor to be fixed upwards by 45 degrees will remain, therefore there will be no privacy impacts as a result of the increased length of the louvers. The approved use of the corridors is for circulation and cannot be used for communal open space, which is provided separately at the ground floor level.

The proposed window sill heights have been increased to 1.6m in accordance with conditions provided by the Court to prevent privacy impacts.

The proposed replacement of the permeable brick screens to the car park will help to reduce potential noise and privacy impacts.

 

8/60 Willis Street, Kingsford NSW

 

Issue

Comment

The accessible room doorways into the main hallway do not comply with the BCA.

The existing condition requiring the entire development to comply with the BCA will not be modified as part of the S96 (AA) application. Compliance with the relevant standards is assessed as part of a Construction Certificate after the S96 (AA) application is approved and can be achieved via deemed to satisfy, or an alternative performance solution.

There are no bicycle racks on the plans, which is required to be shown for lodgement.

Satisfactory documentation was lodged for assessment of the proposed modifications. Bicycle racks are shown on the ground floor plan adjacent to Room G01, which are not proposed to change.

 

Key Issues

 

Assessment of Proposed Changes

 

Northern block:

 

·      A revised layout for accessible rooms G02 and G01 is proposed to comply with Australian Standards.

 

Planner comment: The accessible rooms remain complaint with the minimum room size for a single lodger specified by the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (12m2 required and 14.6m2 proposed). The modified layout does not change the footprint or the bulk and scale of the building and is therefore supported.

Southern block:

 

·      Hot water and hydraulic services plantrooms are proposed (required for the issue of a Construction Certificate) and provision of a communal clothes drying area on southern side (condition provided by the Land and Environment Court).

Planner comment: The communal area will remain compliant with the minimum size specified by the Randwick DCP (1.2m2 per resident = 39.6m2), providing a communal area with 39.8m2. The clothes drying area is appropriately located adjacent to the communal outdoor area in accordance with the Court’s condition.

 

Northern elevation (Meeks Street frontage):

 

·      A horizontal rendered band is proposed between the ground floor and the first floor of the northern block. The second floor louvered window (to the staircase of the southern block) is proposed to align with the lower windows of the front block.

Planner comment: The proposed changes will result in a more unified streetscape presentation and additional articulation that will enhance the streetscape character and is therefore supported.

 

Southern elevation (Bow Lane frontage):

 

·      A horizontal rendered band is proposed between the ground floor and the first floor of the southern block.

Planner comment: The proposed change will provide additional articulation that will enhance the streetscape character and is therefore supported.

 

Western elevation (Willis Street frontage):

 

·      Replacement of the perforated brick screening with a solid brick wall to the car park is proposed as part of the southern block. This change is due to fire rating requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

Planner comment: The wall area proposed to be made solid is relatively small and is partially concealed behind a decorative feature wall. There will be no impact to the streetscape character as a result of the proposed modification given the building will remain sufficiently articulated.

 

Eastern elevation:

 

·      Replacement of the perforated brick screening with a solid brick wall to the car park is proposed as part of the southern block. This change is due to fire rating requirements of the Building Code of Australia;

·      An extension of the metal louvers to the corridors is proposed as part of the southern block (to comply with the Building Code of Australia for fire rating purposes); and

·      Amendments to the windows on the northern block with a sill height of 1.6m (condition provided by the Land and Environment Court).

Planner comment: The adjacent development to the east comprises a 2-storey residential flat building (known as Brival Court). The proposed changes to the eastern façade will not impact the amenity of the adjacent development given the building will remain sufficiently articulated and the raised sill heights will ensure privacy impacts will not occur. The Court’s condition requiring all louvers on the eastern elevation at the third floor to be fixed upwards by 45 degrees will remain, therefore there will be no privacy impacts as a result of the increased length of the metal louvers.

 

The extension of the louvers will not increase the gross floor area of the building given the corridors were already counted towards gross floor area as per the original DA assessment given they were enclosed by the existing louvers and by a solid wall.

 

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

 

The development remains compliant with the provisions of the SEPP.

 

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

 

Standard conditions of consent requiring the continued compliance of the development with the SEPP: BASIX were included in the original determination.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

The proposed modifications are ancillary to the approved boarding house, which is permitted with consent in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone. The development remains consistent with the general aims and objectives of the RLEP 2012.

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

None applicable.

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