RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Randwick Development Assessment Panel Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

Thursday 22 March 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


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Randwick Development Assessment Panel                                                               22 March 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Randwick Development Assessment Panel Meeting

 

Notice is hereby given that a Randwick Development Assessment Panel Meeting of the Council of the City of Randwick will be held in the Council Chamber, 1st Floor 90 Avoca Street, Randwick on Thursday, 22 March 2018 at 1:00pm

 

Chairperson:                                Annalise Tuor

 

Expert Members:                         Sandra Robinson and Heather Warton

 

Community Representative:           Brenton Thomas (East Ward)

 

Quorum:                                   Three (3) members

 

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of RDAP by Councillors and 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.

Development Application Reports

D1/18       149-155 Malabar Road, South Coogee (DA/502/2017)................................ 1

D2/18       170 Clovelly Road, Randwick (DA/336/2017)......................................... 101

D3/18       4B Neptune Street, Coogee (DA/640/2017)........................................... 167

D4/18       299 Storey Street, Maroubra (DA/493/2017)......................................... 187

D5/18       16 Asher Street, Coogee (DA/380/2017).............................................. 223

Miscellaneous Reports

M1/18       Randwick Development Assessment Panel Guidelines.............................. 293

M2/18       Randwick Development Assessment Panel delegations in relation to development appeals.......................................................................................... 301

M3/18       Disclosure of Interest Returns............................................................ 303     

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Kerry Kyriacou

Acting Director City Planning


Randwick Development Assessment Panel                                                               22 March 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D1/18

 

Subject:             149-155 Malabar Road, South Coogee (DA/502/2017)

Folder No:                   DA/502/2017

Author:                   Willana Associates, Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                    Demolition of existing structures, construction of part 3, part 4 storey residential flat building containing 16 dwellings, basement parking for 22 cars, landscaping and associated works (variation to building height control).

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                Mr S Morrison

Owner:                        Janmar Units Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=559c47c4-f11d-4e17-9e46-56efade0cd32&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

 

 

 

Executive summary

 

The application is referred to the Randwick Development Assessment Panel (RDAP) as:

 

·           The development is subject to SEPP 65.

·           The development contravenes the development standard for building height by more than 10%.

·           13 unique submissions by way of objection were received.

 

Proposal

 

This application seeks consent for demolition of existing structures on the site and construction of a part 3, part 4 storey, residential flat building containing 16 dwellings, basement parking for 22 cars, landscaping and associated works.

Amended plans were received on 17 December 2017 and aimed to address the Design Review Panel’s (DRP) concerns and those of Council’s.

A summary of the proposed amendments includes the following:

§ Increased setback from the laneway from 5.5m to 6m

§ Increased setback to Malabar Road to a minimum 6m.

§ Increased setback of basement from 2.5/3.27m to 4m clear.

§ Level 3 penthouse further setback (west – 6m to 8.5m, south -5m to 7.1m, north - 5.5m to 6m).

§ Deletion of 1 dwelling at Level 3 resulting in less building bulk (total of 16 apartments instead of 17) and reduction in density.

§ Increased landscaping and deep soil area and increased screen planting.

§ Addition of solar panels on the Roof Level.

The amended scheme was re-notified on 16 January 2018 for a period of 14 days and no additional submissions were received.

Figure 1: Proposed Malabar Road Streetscape (West Elevation)

 

Site Description and Locality

The subject site includes a number of allotments comprising the following addresses and respective lot and DP numbers:

 

 

Address

Lot and DP Number

149-151 Malabar Road

Lot A DP 323530

153 Malabar Road

Lot 1 DP 1124785

155 Malabar Road

Lot 2 DP1124785

 

The site is located on the eastern side of Malabar Road between Napper Street and Bedford Place. The site is an irregular shaped lot with a frontage of 28.02m to Malabar Road and a 50.29m frontage to Garie Place Lane, forming the northern boundary; a rear eastern boundary of 36.735m and a total site area of 1463.08m2.

 

No. 149-151 Malabar Road is currently occupied by a part 2 and part 3 storey brick residential flat building with tile roof containing six units, semi-basement car parking and a rear hardstand area. A landscaped area wraps around the rear of the properties at No 153 and 155 Malabar Road and contains a number of existing trees. No.153 Malabar Road is occupied by a single storey brick semi-detached residence with tile roof. No.155 Malabar Road is occupied by a 2-storey rendered brick building with metal roof set to the street alignment.

 

Figure 2: 149 – 155 Malabar Road, South Coogee (the Site)

 

 

Figure 3: Garie Place Lane and northern boundary of the site (to the right)

 

Figure 4: 155 Malabar Road, South Coogee (southern portion of 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. Amended Plans were submitted during the assessment process to reflect the Design Review Panel and referral comments. The proposal was re-notified between 16 January 2018 and 20 January 2018. No additional submissions were received as a result of the re-notification process.

 

The following submissions were received as a result of the notification process:

 

·      141 Malabar Rd, , SOUTH COOGEE

·      1/145 Malabar Rd, , SOUTH COOGEE

·      147 Malabar Rd, , SOUTH COOGEE

·      160 Malabar Rd, , SOUTH COOGEE

·      1/6 Garie Pl,, SOUTH COOGEE

·      3/6 Garie Pl,, SOUTH COOGEE

·      1/8 Garie Pl,, SOUTH COOGEE

·      2/8 Garie Pl,, SOUTH COOGEE

·      4/8 Garie Pl,, SOUTH COOGEE

·      1 Napper St, SOUTH COOGEE

·      3 Napper St, SOUTH COOGEE

·      5 Napper St, SOUTH COOGEE

·      157 Moverly Road, South Coogee

 

Issues

Comments

Insufficient residential and visitor parking and availability of on-street parking

The proposal results in a shortfall of one car space in accordance with the RDCP (23.2 spaces required and 22 spaces provided). The site is located within 50 metres of bus services and provides a motorcycle space and 10 bicycle spaces. Council’s Engineers have supported the traffic and parking arrangement. The location of the site and additional provision of parking for other transport modes warrants the shortfall of 1 car spaces in this location.

Potential safety issues with regard to increased traffic and pedestrian activity in the laneway

Traffic and access arrangements are satisfactory.  Refer to Council Engineer’s comments in the detailed assessment section of this report. To facilitate the predicted increase in pedestrian and vehicular traffic, the applicant proposes a dedication of 1.5m wide of the subject site to Council and this will allow provision for a minimum 3.6m wide carriageway (kerb to kerb) plus a minimum 1.3m wide footpath behind the kerb along the full laneway frontage. A waiting bay is also provided at the Malabar Road frontage requiring additional dedication at this location.

Inappropriate increase in height creating an undesirable precedent

The variation to the height is discussed below under the detailed assessment section of this report. The variation relates to the uppermost portion of Level 3. The height variation and submitted Clause 4.6 are satisfactory with acceptable built form and negligible amenity impacts.

Potential flooding issues with the development and laneway status is as a stormwater easement

Previous flooding comments have been satisfactorily addressed in the amended plans. Refer to Engineer’s comments in the detailed assessment section of this report.

Inappropriate location for vehicle entry – access should be moved to southern portion of Malabar Road.

Randwick DCP encourages vehicle entries to be provided from secondary street frontages where possible. The building envelope and form has been guided by the DRP with the current access point considered most appropriate. No issues regarding the access location have been raised within the referral from Engineering.

 

Providing direct access off Malabar Road could provide greater conflicts whilst the development provides access off the laneway and introduces a passing bay to assist with sigh lines and reduces the potential for accidents. 

Visual privacy and noise impacts to surrounding properties

The proposed design, orientation of units and setbacks minimise visual and noise impacts to surrounding properties. The proposed design is considered acceptable in terms of amenity impacts.

 

The building envelope orientates the units to the Malabar Road and laneway frontages, resulting in less opportunities to overlook adjoining properties to the south and east. Increased setbacks as part of the amended plans submitted 17 December 2017 to the laneway and all sides of the penthouse level provide greater separation to mitigate visual and noise impact. Windows are appropriately offset to neighbouring properties and the majority of balconies provided are solid material to limit privacy issues.

Mature trees need to be retained

Removal and retention of trees is documented within the submitted landscape plans and arborist report. Appropriate mature trees are retained. Refer to Tree Management and Landscape comments in the detailed assessment section of this report and tree management has been appropriately conditioned.

Laneway access for trucks during construction

A construction management plan to the satisfaction of Council will be required before any works commence on the Site.

Northern orientation of balconies leads to privacy and amenity impacts

The orientation of balconies allows for greater solar access to usable spaces of the proposed units. The proposal has been amended to provide greater setbacks to the laneway and results in acceptable impacts to privacy and amenity with regard to design and distance. There is greater physical separation between properties along this side and the laneway will be widened.

Geotechnical implications

Appropriate measures are conditioned to ensure that any geotechnical implications of the proposal will be adequately managed. No outstanding issues regarding geotechnical implications have been raised within Engineer referrals. 

Waste management arrangements in the laneway

If consent is granted, a waste management plan is required to be prepared and submitted to Council prior to the Construction Certificate. 

 

Key Issues

 

i.    Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to development standard (Building Height)

 

The proposed development has a maximum building height of 13.488m, which does not comply with the development standard under Clause 4.3 of the LEP. The proposed variation to the maximum height of building standard is summarised in the table below.

 

 

Building Height and Variance

Development Standard

12m

Proposal

Up to 13.488m

Excess above RLEP Standard

11.2% (1.488m variance)

 

The Applicant has submitted a Clause 4.6 exception report to the building height standard prescribed by Clause 4.3.  This exception has been discussed in the detailed assessment section of this report. In summary, the exception has been considered with respect to the provisions of Clause 4.6 and is accepted on the grounds that:

 

·           The objective of Clause 4.6(1)(b) will be satisfied.

·           Compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

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

·           The proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for the development within the zone.

·           Contravention of the development standard does not raise any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning.

·           There will be no public benefit of maintaining the development standard.

 

ii.   External Wall Height

 

The site is subject to a maximum external wall height control of 10.5m. The proposed development adopts a flat roof design, with external wall heights of up to 13.488m on Level 3.

 

Figure 5: South elevation demonstrating 10.5 wall height variation

 

The proposed variation is considered satisfactory given the extent of articulation and the increased setbacks provided to the upper levels of the building. The contemporary design appropriately adopts a flat roof as opposed to a pitched roof. The proposed external wall heights do not result in adverse visual impact or excessive overshadowing, as discussed elsewhere within this report.

 

iii.   Visual Privacy/Building Separation

 

The proposal involves an area where a 4m side setback is proposed on the southern elevation, towards the Malabar Road frontage. The Apartment Design Guide (ADG) requires a side setback of 6m for habitable rooms and balconies. The proposed non-compliance is not inconsistent with the intent of the ADG as the proposal retains acceptable separation for visual privacy given the relationship between the subject site and the adjoining property to the south. The angled subdivision pattern results in the proposed built form having a 4m setback at the front portion of the property, not adjoining the existing built form at 159-161 Malabar Road. The proposed design orientates the balcony towards the Malabar Road and laneway frontages and Level 3 is further setback to 7m from the southern boundary. The separation is therefore considered acceptable.

 

As noted above, the building envelope orientates the dwellings to the Malabar Road and laneway frontages, resulting in less opportunities to overlook adjoining properties to the south and east. Increased setbacks as part of the amended plans submitted on 17 December 2017 to the laneway and all sides of the penthouse level provide greater separation to mitigate visual and noise impact, particularly to the rear yards of 147 Malabar Road and 1-5 Napper Street on the opposite side of the laneway. Windows are appropriately offset to neighbouring properties and the majority of balustrades provided to balconies are solid material to limit privacy issues.

 

iv.  Car Parking

 

The proposed development provides 22 car spaces within the basement level. 23.2 spaces are required under Randwick DCP to account for the number of apartments and visitor spaces. A Traffic Impact Statement was submitted with the application demonstrating the ability to cater for visitor parking spaces off site. The proposed development is also located in very close proximity to bus services in both directions from Malabar Road. The development is in an accessible location and close to many good facilities and services.

 

Referrals from Council’s Engineering and Infrastructure Services did not raise further issue in respect to the deficit in parking and the proposed shortfall is acceptable in this instance for the following reasons:

·       The shortfall relates to visitor parking only. Residential component fully complies with the DCP.

 

·       Parking survey indicates there is some spare capacity within the surrounding street network to accommodate any additional visitor parking demand

 

·       There are bus stops just north of the site on Malabar Road with access to regular and frequent services including routes 353 (Eastgardens to Bondi Junction) ,376 (Maroubra Beach to Central),377 (Maroubra Beach to Circular quay), X77 (Express service to City). Other services (316,317) are available in Moverly Road located approximately 350m walk west of the site. 

 

·       12 bicycle spaces have been provided in excess of DCP requirements (i.e. 10 spaces). It is noted that there is a dedicated bicycle lane on Malabar road.

 

·       The two nearest carshare pods are currently located approximately 600m (10 min walk) north of the site at the corner of Brook & Oberon St and near the corner of Neptune and Beach Street South Coogee.

 

Otherwise the configuration, layout and size of spaces complies with Council’s controls and the Australian Standards.

 

v.   Rear setback

 

Control 3.4.3 of Part C2 of Randwick DCP requires a minimum rear setback for residential flat buildings of 15% of the allotment depth (7.5m in this instance) or 5m, whichever is the greater. A 5890mm rear setback is provided at Level 1 and therefore does not comply with the 7.5m required. The proposed setback is considered satisfactory given the orientation of units on the eastern part of the building to overlook the laneway to the north. Privacy screening is provided to these balconies on the eastern façade.

 

The variation to the setback is predominantly on Level 1, with Level 2 further setback to 7.49m. The secondary frontage to the laneway means that the eastern boundary somewhat functions as a side boundary and would be compliant with side setback requirements.

 

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 for demolition of existing structures on the site and construction of a part 3, part 4 storey, residential flat building containing 16 dwellings, basement parking for 22 cars, landscaping and associated works be approved (subject to conditions) for the following reasons:

 

·       The proposed development satisfies the matters for consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended.

 

·       The proposal is consistent with the objectives contained within the RLEP 2012 and the relevant requirements of the RDCP 2013.

 

·       The proposal is consistent with the objectives contained within SEPP 65.

 

·       The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the R3 zone in that the proposed activity and built form will provide for the housing needs of the community whilst enhancing the aesthetic character and protecting the amenity of the local residents.

 

·       The scale and design of the proposal is considered to be suitable for the location and is compatible with the desired future character of the locality.

 

·       The design and planning outcome for the site will establish a positive precedent in the area.

 

Non-standard condition

 

2.   a. Planter boxes having a minimum width of 900mm and a minimum height of 600mm shall be installed along the entire outer perimeter of the roof terrace. The plans including associated landscaped plan shall be amended to reflect this detail and also include details of the proposed vegetation to be installed in the planter boxes.

 

Detailed Assessment

1.         Section 4.15 matters for consideration

 

The site has been inspected and the application has been assessed having regard to Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended.

 

Section 4.15 ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

Section 4.15 (1)(a)(i) – Provisions of any environmental planning instrument

See below.

 

Section 4.15(1)(a)(ii) – Provisions of any draft environmental planning instrument

Nil.

Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) – Provisions of any development control plan

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

 

Section 4.15(1)(a)(iiia) – Provisions of any Planning Agreement or draft Planning Agreement

Not applicable.

Section 4.15(1)(a)(iv) – Provisions of the regulations

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

Section 4.15(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 4.15(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 4.15(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 4.15(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.

 

2.         Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

2.1      State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPS)

 

2.1.1 SEPP 65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment Developments

 

SEPP No. 65 aims to promote quality design of Residential Flat Buildings. The proposal is subject to the policy as it involves the development of a residential flat building being 3 storeys and more in height. The proposal has been considered by Council’s Design Review Panel three times. An extract of the Panel’s final comments is provided below.  

 

Principle 1: Context and Neighbourhood Context

Malabar Road consists of a mix of single dwellings, 2 storey and 3 storey older style residential apartment buildings. The subject site is an R3 zoning and therefore suitable for the type of multi-unit dwelling proposed. The site is close to public transport, shops, services and open spaces including Coogee and Maroubra Beach’s. 

 

Principle 2: Scale and Built Form

The proposal allows a large green open-space of approximately 25 x 14 metre to the south west of the site. This approach is commended and protects the amenity of numbers 159 to 161 Malabar Road, and number 8 and 10 Garie Place, and provide usable common open-space to the development.

 

The setback from Malabar Road should be a minimum of 6 metres to the outer face of the building, as noted in the Site Analysis Plan (DA01). For clarify, the outer face of the building is the balcony edge. This setback should therefore include all above ground balcony edges. Apartments G05, 105 and 205 should be redesigned to ensure maximum afternoon solar access to their living rooms. The solid blade on the north-west corner of these balconies shades the balconies and living areas and should be rethought when this apartment is redesigned. These apartments may extend further east to achieve a more useable living room.

 

The panel supports the reduction of the setback from the eastern boundary to 4 metres if that zone features a landscaped area and the carpark entry is wholly under the building footprint. The number of windows looking east should be reduced and others blinkered with 45 degree screens to mitigate the effect on no.10 Garie Place.

The setback from the lane way should be a minimum of 4 metres from the existing boundary to the balcony edges, which requires a minor increase to the northern setback of Units 101 and 201. The Panel supports the minor noncompliance in overall height on level 3, subject to the setbacks noted above being adequately addressed.

 

Principle 3: Density

Satisfactory. If landscaping amenity around the boundaries of the site are increased and height is largely compliant.

 

Principle 4: Sustainability

Further considerations:

§ All bathrooms on external walls should have operable external windows to reduce the need for artificial ventilation. This includes all bathrooms opening onto the breezeway walkway

§ Awning windows provide poor ventilation options.  Louvres should be considered.

§ Sun-shading and or weather protection provided to suit orientation

§ Consideration of solar hot water heaters and on-site water retention

§ Ceiling fans for bedrooms and living areas - these should be marked on the plans

§ Air-conditioning appears to be shown on each balcony - this needs to be clarified.

§ Ventilating skylights to top floor apartments, natural daylight and northern winter sun could be optimised on the top floor apartments by introducing clerestory windows

§ Window types and operation to accommodate different weather conditions, and allow occupants a variety of ventilation options whilst maintaining security.

§ Roof slabs should be provided with foam insulation covered with pebble ballast to create effective thermal comfort to the top floor apartments if no solar array is used.

§ Outdoor clothes drying areas have been shown on the drawings

 

Principle 5: Landscape

Satisfactory and a very significant improvement on previous. The internal space of the development has now been designed in relation to the adjoining yards and open spaces in surrounding properties, increasing open space amenity, light and vegetation for the entire block.  Deep soil planting has been more effectively used for planting at the perimeter of the site, to provide privacy to and from the development.

 

Principle 6: Amenity

The requirements of the ADG to provide a minimum of 1m² of sunlight in the middle of winter to the living room floor and outdoor spaces is not achieved in G05, 105, and, 205 and these should be redesigned to improve their solar gain. The main entry is now accessible and should be off Malabar Road with the lift lobby visible.

 

Principle 7: Safety

Satisfactory.

 

Principle 8: Housing Diversity and Social Interaction

The Panel supports a range of units on this well-serviced site. The consolidation of private amenity space provides an ideal opportunity to social interaction between the residents.

 

Principle 9: Aesthetics

With this more determined and rigorous approach to planning the selection of materials has been able to be simplified and reduced in range. The actual selection of brickwork and finishes should be shown on the drawings, with specific reference to supplier and styles proposed.

 

Planner’s Comments

 

The applicant submitted amended plans on 19 December 2017 and aimed to address the Panel’s concerns. In particular, amendments relating to the building envelope and sustainability measures.

 

Amendments to the plan include:

 

§   Increased setback from the laneway from 5.5m to 6m

§   Increased setback to Malabar Road to a minimum 6m.

§   Increased setback of basement from 2.5/3.27m to 4m clear.

§   Level 3 penthouse further setback (west – 6m to 8.5m, south -5m to 7.1m, north - 5.5m to 6m).

§   Deletion of 1 dwelling at Level 3 resulting in less building bulk (total of 16 apartments instead of 17) and reduction in density.

§   Increased landscaping and deep soil area and increased screen planting.

§   Addition of solar panels on the Roof Level.

 

Apartment Design Guide

An assessment has been carried out in accordance with Part 3: Siting the Development and Part 4: Designing the Building of the Apartment Design Guide against the design criteria requirements. Any non-compliance to the design criteria includes a merit based assessment as per the design guidance of the Apartment Design Guide.

 

Clause

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

Part 3: Siting the Development

3A -1

Site Analysis

 

Each element in the Site Analysis Checklist should be addressed.

Site analysis satisfactory and addresses elements in the checklist.

Yes

3B-1

Orientation

 

Buildings along the street frontage define the street, by facing it and incorporating direct access from the street (see figure 3B.1).

Units are oriented to Malabar Road and the lane way to the north. Pedestrian entry from Malabar Road with vehicle access from lane way.

Yes

 

Where the street frontage is to the east or west, rear buildings should be oriented to the north.

Rear units oriented to the north.

Yes

 

Where the street frontage is to the north or south, overshadowing to the south should be minimised and buildings behind the street frontage should be oriented to the east and west

The built form is orientated towards the northern boundary, minimising overshadowing to the south.

Yes

3B-2

Orientation

 

Living areas, private open space and communal open space should receive solar access in accordance with sections 3D Communal and public open space and 4A Solar and daylight access.

Solar access requirements will be achieved for the development (81% achieved) above the 70% minimum requirement

Yes

 

Solar access to living rooms, balconies and private open spaces of neighbours should be considered.

Adjoining neighbours receive three hours of solar access.

 

 

Where an adjoining property does not currently receive the required hours of solar access, the proposed building ensures solar access to neighbouring properties is not reduced by more than 20%.

Adjoining neighbours receive three hours of solar access.

Yes

 

If the proposal will significantly reduce the solar access of neighbours, building separation should be increased beyond minimums contained in section 3F Visual privacy.

Solar access remains satisfactory

N/A

 

Overshadowing should be minimised to the south or down hill by increased upper level setbacks.

The upper level is setback an additional metres (5m total) from the southern boundary and solar access is compliant.

Yes

 

A minimum of 4 hours of solar access should be retained to solar collectors on neighbouring buildings.

A minimum of four hours to the roof of 159 Malabar Road is retained.

 

Yes

3D-1

Communal and Public Open Space

 

Communal open space has a minimum area equal to 25% of the site (see figure 3D.3)

25% provided across the site.

Yes

 

Developments achieve a minimum of 50% direct sunlight to the principal usable part of the communal open space for a minimum of 2 hours between 9 am and 3 pm on 21 June (mid winter).

The communal open space will receive at least two hours solar access during the winter solstice. The orientation of the site and built form means the area is vulnerable to overshadowing.

Yes

3E-1

Deep Soil Zones

 

Deep soil zones are to meet the following requirements:

Site Area: 650-1500m2 = 7% of Site area, min. 3m dimension

15% deep soil zones are provided on site.

Yes

3F-1

Visual Privacy

 

Separation between windows and balconies is provided to ensure visual privacy is achieved. Minimum required separation distances from buildings to the side and rear boundaries are as follows:

 

Up to 12m (4 storeys) – Habitable rooms and balconies = 6m, non-habitable rooms = 3m

The proposed developments have minimum 4m setback to the laneway. Side setback to the southern boundary from 4m to 15.79m. Rear setback of 6m.

Partial non-compliance however setbacks are considered appropriate given the context of the site and surrounding area. Areas of non-compliance are to the laneway and front area to the south, where no buildings are built due to the irregular southern boundary alignment.

3J-1

Bicycle and Car Parking

 

The minimum car parking requirement for residents and visitors is set out in the Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, or the car parking requirement prescribed by the relevant council, whichever is less.

 

The car parking needs for a development must be provided off street

23.2 required - Shortfall of two car spaces when rounded up. Engineer comments round down to shortfall of 1 space.

No - See RDCP and Development Engineer Assessment

Part 4: Designing the Building

4A

Solar and Daylight Access

 

Living rooms and private open spaces of at least 70% of apartments in a building receive a minimum of 2 hours direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm at mid

winter in the Sydney Metropolitan Area and in the Newcastle and Wollongong local government areas

81% (13/16) of the apartments will receive direct solar access in the living room for two hours during the winter solstice. All balconies receive two hours solar access.

Yes

 

A maximum of 15% of apartments in a building receive no direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm at mid-winter

0 apartments receive no direct sunlight.

Yes

4B

Natural Ventilation

 

At least 60% of apartments are naturally cross ventilated in the first nine storeys of the building. Apartments at ten storeys or greater are deemed to be cross ventilated only if any enclosure of the balconies at these levels allows adequate natural ventilation and cannot be fully enclosed

All apartments have cross ventilation.

Yes

4C

Ceiling Heights

 

Measured from finished floor level to finished ceiling level, minimum ceiling heights are:

Habitable Rooms – 2.7m

Non-habitable – 2.4m

2.7m floor to ceiling heights for habitable rooms.

Yes

4D

Apartment Size and Layout

 

Apartments are required to have the following minimum internal areas:

Studio - 35m2

1 bedroom - 50m2

2 bedroom - 70m2

3 bedroom - 90m2

 

The minimum internal areas include only one bathroom. Additional bathrooms increase the minimum internal area by 5m2 each

1 bedroom =

b/w 53.6m2-58.7m2

 

2 bedroom =

b/w 76.5m2 – 95m2

 

3 bedroom = 98.2m2

 

Yes

 

Every habitable room must have a window in an external wall with a total minimum glass area of not less than 10% of the floor area of the room. Daylight and air may not be borrowed from other rooms

All habitable rooms comprise of a window opening for the purposes of light and will not have an area less than 10% of the floor area of the room. For the purposes of ventilation all apartments have multiple aspects.

Yes

 

Habitable room depths are limited to a maximum of 2.5 x the ceiling height

 

Yes

 

In open plan layouts (where the living, dining and kitchen are combined) the maximum habitable room depth is 8m from a window

Open plan layouts are located within an 8 metres depth of a habitable window.

Yes

 

Master bedrooms have a minimum area of 10m2 and other bedrooms 9m2 (excluding wardrobe space

Bedrooms will achieve minimum area requirements in 9m2 and 10m2, respectively.

Yes

 

Bedrooms have a minimum dimension of 3m (excluding wardrobe space

All bedrooms have a minimum dimension of 3m.

Yes

 

Living rooms or combined living/dining rooms have a minimum width of:

• 3.6m for studio and 1 bedroom apartments

• 4m for 2 and 3 bedroom apartments

1 bedroom – 3.3m

2 bedroom – 4.1m

Some variation to 1 br dimension, however variations are minor and open into larger kitchen areas and remain functional.

4E

Apartment Size and Layout

 

All apartments are required to have primary balconies as follows:

Studio apartments 4m2

1 bedroom apartments 8m2 2m dim.

2 bedroom apartments 10m2 2m dim.

3+ bedroom apartments 12m2 2.4m dim.

 

The minimum balcony depth to be counted as contributing to the balcony area is 1m

The apartments have the following minimum sizes:

 

1br: 10m2

2br: 11m2

3br: 13m2 

Yes

 

For apartments at ground level or on a podium or similar structure, a private open space is provided instead of a balcony. It must have a minimum area of 15m2 and a minimum depth of 3m

Ground floor apartments all have courtyards ranging from 9.7m2 – 109m2 however larger private open spaces are provided for each ground floor unit than just the courtyard.

 

Yes

4F

Common Circulation and Spaces

 

The maximum number of apartments off a circulation core on a single level is eight

The core provides entry to a maximum of 5 apartments.

Yes

4G

Storage

 

In addition to storage in kitchens, bathrooms and bedrooms, the following storage is provided:

 

Studio apartments 4m3

1 bedroom apartments 6m3

2 bedroom apartments 8m3

3+ bedroom apartments 10m3

 

At least 50% of the required storage is to be located within the apartment

The development includes compliant storage within each apartment and basement.

Yes

 

 

2.1.2 SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) applies to all land and aims to provide for a State-wide planning approach to the remediation of contaminated land.

 

Clause 7 of SEPP 55 requires the consent authority to consider whether land is contaminated prior to granting consent to the carrying out of any development on that land. If the land is contaminated, the consent authority must be satisfied that the land is suitable in its current state or will be suitable after remediation for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out.  There is no evident risk to human health and the environment in this case to warrant a more detailed investigation given the following:

 

§ The immediate surrounds have been used for residential purposes for a considerable number of years. 

§ There is no evidence to suggest that potential land contaminating activities, such as those listed in Table 1 and Appendix A of the contaminated land planning guidelines of SEPP 55, have been carried out on the subject site or adjoining properties.

§ The site is not identified under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012) as constituting contaminated land or land that must be subject to a site audit statement. 

§ The site is not subject to a notice, order, management proposal or site audit statement under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997.

§ Standard conditions are recommended to be included in a consent to require all necessary legislative and policy requirements (in particular Australian Standard 2601 (2001) Demolition of Structures) be adhered to with respect to demolition works and the removal of any asbestos containing materials from the site. This will avoid any surface contamination, subject to conditions.

 

Accordingly, nothing restricts Council, under SEPP 55, from consenting to the carrying out of the development. 

 

2.1.3 SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 (SEPP BASIX) operates in conjunction with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 to ensure the effective attainment of the NSW Government sustainability targets.  It applies in this case and thus the DA warrants the submission of a BASIX Certificate.  The DA was originally accompanied by an appropriate BASIX Certificate and the plans annotated with commitments.  The certificate satisfactorily demonstrated that the energy and water efficiency targets can be met subject to the implementation of certain commitments.  An updated BASIX certificate to reflect the plans as amended will be required and conditioned prior to CC.

 

Standard conditions of consent are recommended, inclusive of conditions requiring the following:

§  The relevant details, as stated in the certificate, be indicated on Construction Certificate plans. 

§  The commitments are implemented and a compliance certificate is submitted to Council verifying this prior to obtaining an occupation certificate.

 

2.2      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

The proposed development is defined as a ‘residential flat building’ under Randwick LEP 2012.  A ‘residential flat building’ means:

 

a building containing 3 or more dwellings, but does not include an attached dwelling or multi dwelling housing’.

 

Clause 1.9A – Suspension of covenants, agreements and instruments

The submitted survey plan indicates that the site is only affected by one instrument which states ‘land excludes minerals and is subject to the reservations and conditions in favour of the crown – see crown grant (s)’.  Clause 1.9A does not affect the rights or interests of the Crown and hence the provisions of this instrument.  Nevertheless the instrument is a common instrument imposed on land that would not restrict the development of land under the current circumstances.

 

Part 2 – Permitted or prohibited development

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

 

Clause 2.3 (2) requires the consent authority to have regard to the objectives for development in the zone.  The objectives of the zone are listed and addressed below. 

 

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

 

The proposal is for a medium density residential flat building, meeting the housing needs of the community.

 

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

 

A mix of apartment types are proposed in the development.

 

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

 

N/A

 

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

 

The proposed RFB is consistent with surrounding development and adopts a generally appropriate built form and orientation for the streetscape.

 

•      To protect the amenity of residents.

 

The proposal adopts appropriate setbacks and design to protect the amenity of residents. The proposal will not result in loss of aural or visual privacy that cannot be overcome by the adoption of certain measures as discussed in this report.  In addition, the proposal will maintain adequate access to views and solar access to the living areas within the bounds of reasonable expectations given the width constraints of the site.  Subject to standard conditions, the proposed demolition and construction works will result in reasonable/controlled amenity impacts on nearby residents.  (The matters of acoustic solar access, and view impacts have been discussed in Table 4 below)

 

•      To encourage housing affordability.

 

The proposal provides a greater variety of housing types than currently available on the site.  It will provide a more affordable form, as opposed to the cost of any semi-detached, dwelling house and townhouse developments within the same locality.

 

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

 

N/A

 

Clause 2.6 – Subdivision – consent requirements

No subdivision is proposed under the subject development application. A condition is recommended to advise that no approval is granted under this consent to the strata subdivision of the application and a separate DA needs to be submitted, (only where SEPP (exempt and complying) provisions don’t apply).  The allocation of car parking must respect the car parking requirement of Part B7 of RDCP 2013.

 

Clause 2.7 – Demolition requires development consent

Clause 2.7 requires demolition of a building or work to be carried out only with development consent.  The proposal includes demolition of existing building on the subject site.  Standard conditions are recommended to ensure that works are appropriately executed and adequate safeguards are provided during and after works.

 

The following Clauses of RLEP 2012 apply to the proposal:

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Clause 4.3 - Height of Building (Maximum)

12m

13.488m

No.  Refer to section below table.

Clause 4.4 - Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

0.9:1

0.9:1

Yes

 

Clause 4.3 – Height of buildings

A 12m (maximum) building height standard applies under Clause 4.3.  The majority of the built form will be no more than 12m in height.  Only minor sections of certain roof features will exceed the 12m height limit as indicated in table below.

 

Height variation to lift overrun (0.98m) and partial unit 401 with roof over terrace (1.488m).

Proposed max. RL = 60.79 

Proposed maximum height = 13.488m

Variance = up to 1.488m

 

Below is an image which highlights the sections that will exceed the maximum permissible building height.

Figure 6 | Section B-B demonstrating extent of height non-compliance

Clause 4.6 Exception to Development Standard - Height of Building

The proposed development has a maximum building height of 13.488m and does not meet the relevant development standard of Clause 4.3 of RLEP 2012. The proposed variation to the maximum height of building standard is summarised in the table below and demonstrated in Figure 6.

 

 

Building Height and Variance

Development Standard

12m

Proposal

Up to 13.488m

Excess above RLEP Standard

11.2% (1.488m variance)

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

(3) 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:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The objectives of the height of building development standard are set out in clause 4.3 of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

The applicant has provided the following amended Clause 4.6 submission for Council’s consideration:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Officer’s assessment of the Clause 4.6 exception

 

The amended proposal exceeds the maximum building height standard by 11.2% or 1.488m. Notwithstanding, the main considerations are whether the additional height is justified and satisfies the key objectives of the building height standard and the R3 zone. These objectives are assessed as follows:

 

Objectives of the R3 zone

 

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

 

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

 

The proposed residential flat building provides good housing choice that varies between smaller apartments up to four bedrooms and will see additional high-quality housing stock in the area.

 

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

 

The proposed development provides a variety of apartments in an accessible location. The proposal remains compliant with the FSR standard and provides a medium density residential development.

 

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

 

The proposed development, as amended, provides a modern, contemporary design that responds to the transitioning nature of the locality and will contribute to the desired future character of the area. The building adopts acceptable setbacks, design and materials to complement the area. Areas of variation to the height standard are recessed, setback from boundaries and the front building line.

 

•      To protect the amenity of residents.

 

The proposal will provide for high amenity for future residents without impacting upon the amenity of neighbouring sites. The assessment of this proposal indicates that amenity impacts on neighbouring properties will not be unreasonable, particularly with respect to undue overshadowing or visual privacy.

 

•      To encourage housing affordability.

 

The provision of additional housing within the area assists in meeting future residential demand. The proposal provides for a variety of unit sizes and therefore will cater for different types of tenants.

 

Objectives of the building height development standard

 

The key objectives of the height of building standard are listed as follows:

 

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

 

The size and scale of the development is compatible with the desired future character of the locality. The proposed development is compliant with the relevant controls relating to site coverage, landscaped open spaces and primary controls such as floor space ratio. There will be a minor variance to the height which will not impact on the development’s compatibility with the desired future character. In this way, the proposal is considered compatible with the desired future character of the locality. 

 

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

 

The closest heritage item to the subject site is Randwick Cemetery, located at 42-138 Malabar road Maroubra Road.  This item is of local significance.  The proposed development will have no additional implications to the significance and setting of the item, including views to the item.  It will be adequately setback and satisfactory in form and scale.

 

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.

 

Neighbouring properties are considered to be reasonably protected in terms of amenity. The level of solar access, view sharing and privacy has been reasonably maintained and overall, it is considered that the applicant has justified that strict compliance with the building height is unnecessary in this particular case. The area of non-compliance is minor and this part of the building does not contribute to any overlooking or overshadowing and the fact the upper level is recessed from the building line. It will not be a highly dominating or visually dominating element from the public domain (won’t be visible from the laneway) nor will it be highly dominating when viewed from surrounding and neighbouring buildings as it is sited towards the front of the Site. 

 

Therefore, it is considered that the Clause 4.6 exception to the development standard can be supported as a good planning outcome.

 

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

 

The proposal sits comfortably within the site and the medium density residential character of Malabar Road and the surrounding locality.

 

In summary, the applicant’s written request highlights the high level of compliance with the building envelope and site planning controls. In addition, the applicant has provided amended plans in response to the comments and recommendations of the Design Review Panel, resulting in an enhanced building design that would contribute positively to the desirable future character of the locality. It is considered that the applicant’s written request has successfully demonstrates that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

  

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

 

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the aims of the RLEP 2012, the objectives of the standard and the zone in that the floor space provided achieves good amenity within the units both in terms of natural light and ventilation, suitable areas of private open space and will present well within the streetscape character and that envisaged by the RLEP 2012. The proposed development does not result in any unacceptable and unreasonable impact on the amenity of residents

Overall, given the above assessment, the proposed development is in the public interest because it is an orderly and permissible use of the site with acceptable impact.

 

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

 

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

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

 

Comments:

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

 

The proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical standard is not considered necessary in this case, as the proposed development is generally consistent with the medium density housing forms envisaged by the RLEP 2012 for this locality, it does not unreasonably compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the desired streetscape character.

 

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

 

Overall, the proposal is considered to be suitable for the site, and the applicant’s written justification for contravening the height of building standard is considered to be well founded and therefore supportable.

 

Clause 5.10 - Heritage Conservation

The closest heritage item to the subject site is Randwick Cemetery, located at 42-138 Malabar road Maroubra Road.  This item is of local significance.  The proposed development will have no additional implications to the significance and setting of the item, including views to the item.  It will be adequately setback and satisfactory in form and scale.

 

Clause 6.2 – Earthworks

The relevant matters of Clause 6.2 have been considered.  The development will be satisfactory with respect to these matters, subject to standard conditions and conditions recommended by Council’s Engineering Department, (as discussed in Section 5 below) being included in a consent and enforced.  The conditions will ensure the following:

 

·           Appropriate soil and erosion control measures will be established prior to the commencement and maintained until the completion of all the works.  Periodic maintenance of the measures will be undertaken to ensure the measures remain effective. 

·           An appropriate stormwater drainage system will be provided which will include on-site detention.  Details of such a system must be submitted for the approval of Council’s Development Engineer prior to obtaining a construction certificate.

·           The quality of any off-site fill will be suitable for residential use.  Where appropriate, excavated soils are to be used as backfill, or appropriately classified and sent to a waste management centre. 

·           A Construction Site Management Plan will be submitted for approval prior to commencing works.  It must include a Waste Management Plan for demolition and construction wastes and the treatment / destination of excavated materials.

·           Dilapidation reports will be submitted on all neighbouring properties within the zone of influence.

 

Clause 6.3 – Flood Planning

Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the subject proposal and has not raised any issues with regard to the flood planning levels, as amended.

 

Clause 6.4 Stormwater Management

Stormwater management for the site will be satisfactory with respect to the provisions of Clause 6.4, subject to the implementation of conditions as recommended by Council’s Development Engineer. 

 

Clause 6.8 – Airspace operations

Under the provisions of the Air Navigation (Building Control) Regulations, the concurrence of the Sydney Airports Corporation Limited is required where buildings will have a height of 15.24 metres or greater and fall within the Conical Surface of the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces for Sydney Airport.  The proposed development will not have a height in excess of 15m.

 

Clause 6.9 – Development in areas subject to aircraft noise

The site is not indicated to be within an ANEF contour of 20 or greater on the Sydney Airport 2033 ANEF Map endorsed by Air Services Australia.

 

Clause 6.10 Essential Services

Clause 6.10 of the Randwick LEP 2012 states that Council must not grant consent to ‘development unless it is satisfied that any of the following services that are essential for the development are available or adequate arrangements have been made to make them available when required’:

 

§  The supply of water

§  The supply of electricity

§  The disposal and management of sewage

§  Stormwater drainage or on-site conservation

§  Suitable vehicular access.’

 

The essential services for sewer, water and electricity exist on the site.  They will be available for the development.  As discussed above, conditions are to be included in the consent to ensure an appropriate stormwater drainage system is established on the site.  Vehicular access will be from Malabar Road via the side laneway. 

 

A condition is recommended to require liaison with the relevant service authorities to determine any special requirements prior to the commencement of works.

 

2.3      Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013

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

 

The relevant provisions of the DCP are addressed in the tables below. (Note: a number of control provisions that are not related to the proposal have been deliberately omitted.)

 

DCP Clause

Control

Proposal

Compliance

B4

Landscaping and Biodiversity

2

Landscape Plan

 

 

 

(i)   Details of all existing tress within or adjacent to the site and trees proposed to be removed/ retained/ relocated or pruned.

The Notification Plan and Landscape Plans submitted incorporates the removal on the trees on the site. The applicant has clarified this at a meeting.

Yes

 

 

 

(ii)  Details of existing natural features.

The Survey Plan provides the details of existing natural features.

Yes

 

 

(iii) Details of design including location of hard and soft landscaped areas and open space in relation to existing and proposed buildings.

The Landscape Plan includes the location of hard and soft landscaping and the open space areas in relation to the proposed buildings.

Yes

 

 

(iv) Details, including locations, of selected plant species.

The Landscape Plan includes the details of the locations and the selected plants species. 

 

Yes

 

 

(v)  Basic drainage details, i.e. the location of all pits and lines, irrigation, hose cocks, etc.

Refer to Engineer comments.  Conditions are recommended to ensure adequate features are provided.

Yes, subject to condition.

 

 

(vi) Erosion and sediment control measures.

A standard condition of this effect is recommended on the development consent.

Satisfactory, subject to conditions.

3

Landscape Design

 

 

3.1

Existing Vegetation and Natural Features

 

 

 

(i)  Maximise the retention and protection of existing vegetation including trees, shrubs and groundcover.

The existing vegetation is proposed to be removed.  Refer to comments provided by ‘Landscape Officer’.  The removal of the on-site trees has been assessed to be satisfactory subject to suitable replacement landscaping.

Satisfactory, subject to conditions.

 

(iii) Retain and stockpile topsoil for reuse in the landscaped area.

Where appropriate, topsoils are recommended to be reused in the landscaped area.

Satisfactory, subject to condition.

3.2

Selection and Location of Plant Species

 

 

(i)  Native species must comprise at least 50% of the plant schedule, incorporating a mix of locally indigenous trees, shrubs and groundcovers appropriate to the area and surrounds.  Plant species, such as noxious weeds or invasive species must not be included in the landscape design stock.

Refer to Landscape referral comments which generally support the proposed landscaping. Standard conditions of this effect are recommended.

 

Satisfactory, subject to conditions.

 

(ii)  Link, extend and enhance existing fauna and flora habitats through appropriate selection and location of plant species, where relevant.

Appropriate plant species and locations have been proposed.

Yes

 

(iv) Select and locate plants to improve the environmental performance and living amenity of the development, such as:

a)  Plant deciduous shade trees to control solar access.

b)  Intercept glare from hard surfaces.

c)  Channel air currents into the buildings.

d)  Provide windbreaks where desirable.

e)  Screen noise and reduce visual impacts to enhance privacy.

Conditions have been recommended by Council’s Landscape Officer to ensure suitable replacement vegetation is provided.

 

 

Yes, subject to condition.

3.3

Water Efficiency

 

 

 

(i)  Maximise the capture and absorption of rainfall and prevent runoff, by:

a)  Minimising the amount of hard surface area.

b)  Directing the overland flow of rainwater to permeable surfaces, such as garden beds.

c)  Utilising semi-pervious surfaces for paved areas.

The development will include deep soil zones, OSD and rainwater tanks to control runoff impacts. 

 

Satisfactory.

 

(ii)  Plant low water consumption and deep rooting plants.

 

 

A condition of this effect is recommended.

Satisfactory, subject to conditions.

 

(iii) Avoid large areas of lawn, which generally require greater amounts of water and fertiliser than native groundcovers, shrubs and trees.

The outcome will be satisfactory.

Satisfactory.

 

(iv) Design water features to function with non-potable water.

No water features are proposed.

N/A

 

(v) Use water efficient irrigation systems, such as:

a)  Automated sub-soil drip systems.

b)  Soil moisture sensors.

c)  Use of non-potable water sources (e.g. rainwater).

A condition to ensure compliance is achieved is included.

 

Satisfactory, subject to conditions.

B5

Preservation of Trees and Vegetation

3

Information Required with Applications

 

(i)  Any application for a permit or development consent to carry out tree works must contain various information.

A condition is recommended to be included in a development consent to ensure that the necessary application for a permit is submitted for Council’s consideration.

Yes, subject to condition.

 

(ii)  The following additional information is required when seeking development consent:

a)  A description of existing trees (containing information as required above) on adjoining land:

-   Within three (3) metres of the site boundaries (including street and park trees).

-   Where the canopy of a tree/s overhangs the site boundaries.

b)  any proposed landscape treatments, identifying:

-   trees to be retained and protected.

-   Methods of retention and/or protection during any works.

-   proposed new plantings (species, mature heights and canopy spread).

-   Altered soil levels, including cut and fill details.

-   Site drainage, including siltation and erosion controls to be implemented where necessary.

-   Proposed horticultural details, including growing mediums, mulching and.

The submitted details have enabled a considered assessment.  Conditions are recommended to be included in a consent to ensure an appropriate outcome, as discussed in this report.

Satisfactory.

 

(iii) An Arborist’s Report is required to be submitted with an application.

The Landscape Officer has advised that no Arborist Report is necessary in this case.

N/A

 

 

B6 Recycling and Waste Management

DCP Clause

Control

Proposal

Compliance

4.

On-Going Operation

 

 

 

(iv) Locate and design the waste storage facilities to visually and physically complement the design of the development. Avoid locating waste storage facilities between the front alignment of a building and the street where possible.

All waste facilities will be located within the basement level.

Yes

 

(v)  Locate the waste storage facilities to minimise odour and acoustic impacts on the habitable rooms of the proposed development, adjoining and neighbouring properties.

The bin storage room will be located well within the basement level.  It will not result in odour or acoustic impacts to any habitable rooms.

Yes

 

(vi) Screen the waste storage facilities through fencing and/or landscaping where possible to minimise visual impacts on neighbouring properties and the public domain.

 

Waste storage located in basement

Yes

 

(vii) Ensure the waste storage facilities are easily accessible for all users and waste collection personnel and have step-free and unobstructed access to the collection point(s).

Waste storage facilities are accessible within the basement level with step-free access to the collection point.

Yes

 

(viii)Provide sufficient storage space within each dwelling / unit to hold a single day’s waste and to enable source separation.

 

Sufficient storage space is provided within each unit (preferably under the kitchen sink) to hold a single day’s waste and enable source separation.

Satisfactory, subject to condition.

 

(ix) Bin enclosures / rooms must be ventilated, fire protected, drained to the sewerage system and have lighting and water supply.

 

A condition is recommended to ensure the storage room is equipped with the required features including appropriate wall and floor construction features (such as an appropriately graded floor, coved walls as the intersection with the floor etc.).

Satisfactory, subject to condition.

B7

Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access

3.

Parking & Service Delivery Requirements

 

Car parking requirements:

1space per 2 studios

1 space per 1-bedroom unit (over 40m2)

1.2 spaces per 2-bedroom unit

1.5 spaces per 3- or more bedroom unit

1 visitor space per 4 dwellings

24 required

22 provided

No

 

Motor cycle requirements:

5% of car parking requirement

1 space provided

Yes

4.

Bicycles

 

Residents:

1 bike space per 2 units

Visitors:

1 per 10 units

10 required

10 provided

Yes

B8

Water Management

 

 

3

Stormwater Management

 

 

3.2

On-site Detention and Infiltration

 

 

(i)  On-site detention and infiltration systems shall be designed and constructed to comply with the requirements of Council’s Private Stormwater Code.

A condition is recommended to require this.

Satisfactory subject to condition.

 

(ii)  On-site detention storage volume may be reduced through the use of Stormwater infiltration systems.

Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the submitted details and recommended conditions to be included in a consent.

Satisfactory subject to condition.

3.2

Construction Water Management

 

 

(i)  All DAs involving excavation or other site disturbance shall submit a Soil and Erosion Management Plan demonstrating how sediment and contaminants from construction shall be contained and managed.

A standard condition is recommended to ensure this.

Satisfactory subject to condition.

 

(ii)  Separate approval will be required from Council for any proposals to discharge stormwater, seepage water or groundwater from a construction site into Council's stormwater drainage system. Council may require water quality testing of the discharged water by a suitably qualified environmental consultant.

A standard condition is recommended to ensure this.

Satisfactory subject to condition.

3.4

Stormwater Infrastructure

 

 

 

(ii)  New structures may not be constructed above public stormwater infrastructure or inter-allotment drainage.

A condition is recommended to ensure this.

Satisfactory subject to condition.

4

Groundwater

4.2

Basement Design and Construction

 

 

(i)  Provide a letter or report prepared by a suitably qualified engineer experienced in the design of structures below a water table, confirming that the proposed basement will be designed and constructed in a manner that is suitable for the site conditions.

Geotechnical information has been submitted and reviewed by Council engineers. A condition is recommended to require this.

Satisfactory, subject to condition.

 

 

C2 Medium Density Residential

 

DCP Clause

Control

Proposal

Compliance

2

Site Planning

2.1

Site Layout Options

Site layout and location of buildings must be based on a detailed site analysis and have regard to the site planning guidelines for:

·      Two block / courtyard example

·      T-shape example

·      U-shape example

·      Conventional example

Site layout is based on a detailed site analysis with a perimeter building for irregular site, in line with Design Review Panel comments.

Yes

2.2

Landscaped open space and deep soil area

2.2.1

Landscaped open space

 

A minimum of 50% of the site area (469.4m2) is to be landscaped open space.

 

58%

Yes

2.2.2

Deep soil area

 

(i)   A minimum of 25% of the site area (234.7m2) should incorporate deep soil areas sufficient in size and dimensions to accommodate trees and significant planting.

15%

No – ADG compliant

 

(ii)  Deep soil areas must be located at ground level, be permeable, capable for the growth of vegetation and large trees and must not be built upon, occupied by spa or swimming pools or covered by impervious surfaces such as concrete, decks, terraces, outbuildings or other structures.

Deep soil areas are located around the boundaries of the site including the communal open space area.

Yes

 

(iii)  Deep soil areas are to have soft landscaping comprising a variety of trees, shrubs and understorey planting.

A variety of soft landscaping features are provided.

Yes

 

(iv) Deep soil areas cannot be located on structures or facilities such as basements, retaining walls, floor slabs, rainwater tanks or in planter boxes.

Deep soil is provided compliant with the ADG requirements and is capable of providing mature trees and soft landscaping across the site.

Yes

 

(v)  Deep soil zones shall be contiguous with the deep soil zones of adjacent properties.

 

Yes

2.3

Private and communal open space

2.3.1

Private open space

 

Private open space is to be:

(i)   Directly accessible from the living area of the dwelling.

(ii)  Open to a northerly aspect where possible so as to maximise solar access.

(iii)  Be designed to provide adequate privacy for residents and where possible can also contribute to passive surveillance of common areas.

Areas of private open space are well located and are orientated mainly towards the north to increase solar access through to spaces.

Yes

 

For residential flat buildings:

(vi) Each dwelling has access to an area of private open space in the form of a courtyard, balcony, deck or roof garden, accessible from with the dwelling.

(vii) Private open space for apartments has a minimum area of 8m2 and a minimum dimension of 2m.

All areas and dimensions compliant.

 

The areas comply with the ADG standards and provisions

Yes

2.3.2

Communal open space

 

 

 

Communal open space for residential flat building is to be:

(a)  Of a sufficient contiguous area, and not divided up for allocation to individual units.

(b)  Designed for passive surveillance.

(c)  Well oriented with a preferred northerly aspect to maximise solar access.

(d)  adequately landscaped for privacy screening and visual amenity.

(e)  Designed for a variety of recreation uses and incorporate recreation facilities such as playground equipment, seating and shade structures.

Communal open space is located at the south eastern corner at Ground Level. It is a large, open landscaped area with outdoor facilities for passive and minor active recreation.

 

 

Yes – see ADG criteria also

3

Building Envelope

3.1

Floor space ratio

 

See RLEP 2012 table above

 

See RLEP 2012 table above

3.2

Building height

 

See RLEP 2012 table above

 

See RLEP 2012 table above

3.3

Building depth

 

For residential flat buildings, the preferred maximum building depth (from window to window line) is between 10m and 14m.

Any greater depth must demonstrate that the design solution provides good internal amenity such as via cross-over, double-height or corner dwellings / units.

The proposal has a maximum building depth of less than 14m.

Yes

3.4

Setbacks

3.4.1

Front setback

(i)     The front setback on the primary and secondary property frontages must be consistent with the prevailing setback line along the street.

Notwithstanding the above, the front setback generally must be no less than 3m in all circumstances to allow for suitable landscaped areas to building entries.

(ii)     Where a development is proposed in an area identified as being under transition in the site analysis, the front setback will be determined on a merit basis.

(iii)    The front setback areas must be free of structures, such as swimming pools, above-ground rainwater tanks and outbuildings.

(iv)    The entire front setback must incorporate landscape planting, with the exception of driveways and pathways.

 6m - Consistent with adjoining front setbacks.

 

Landscaping is provided in the front setback with the exception of pedestrian pathways.

Yes

3.4.2

Side setback

 

Residential flat building

 

(i) Comply with the minimum side setback requirements stated below:

   -    Irregular - merit

-    20m and above: 4m

(ii)     Incorporate additional side setbacks to the building over and above the above minimum standards, in order to:

-    Create articulations to the building facades.

-    Reserve open space areas and provide opportunities for landscaping.

-    Provide building separation.

-    Improve visual amenity and outlook from the development and adjoining residences.

-    Provide visual and acoustic privacy for the development and the adjoining residences.

-    Ensure solar access and natural ventilation for the development and the adjoining residences.

(iii)    A fire protection statement must be submitted where windows are proposed on the external walls of a residential flat building within 3m of the common boundaries. The statement must outline design and construction measures that will enable operation of the windows (where required) whilst still being capable of complying with the relevant provisions of the BCA.

Southern side setbacks are between 4m and 12.6m at ground floor. Level 3 setbacks to the southern side are between 7.1m and 9m. This provides ample separation for visual privacy and scale given the relationship with the adjoining built-form at 159-161 Malabar Road, where the proposed minimum setback of 4m adjoins the adjoining front yard area with minimal amenity impacts.

 

Setbacks to the northern side, fronting the lane way, are 4-4.5m to the balcony and 6m-7m to the external wall.

 

Both side setbacks have been increased in response to comments by the Design Review Panel and are considered appropriate distances to manage bulk and amenity impacts.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

3.4.3

Rear setback

 

For residential flat buildings, provide a minimum rear setback of 15% (7.5m) of allotment depth or 5m, whichever is the greater.

Minimum 5.9m provided – this is an irregular lot and on merit provides adequate setback with compliant landscaped area and separation distances for visual privacy.

No, satisfactory.

4

Building Design

4.1

Building façade

 

 

(i)     Buildings must be designed to address all street and laneway frontages.

(ii)     Buildings must be oriented so that the front wall alignments are parallel with the street property boundary or the street layout.

(iii)    Articulate facades to reflect the function of the building, present a human scale, and contribute to the proportions and visual character of the street.

(iv)    Avoid massive or continuous unrelieved blank walls. This may be achieved by dividing building elevations into sections, bays or modules of not more than 10m in length, and stagger the wall planes.

(vi)    Conceal building services and pipes within the balcony slabs.

The front façade is well articulated and is a well presented building to the streetscape. The design incorporates a variety of materials and finishes that add to the diversity and provide visual interest to its appearance and presentation to the street.

The building addresses the street and laneway frontage. The building contains suitable articulation along its façade as well as side elevations.

4.2

Roof design

 

 (i)    Design the roof form, in terms of massing, pitch, profile and silhouette to relate to the three dimensional form (size and scale) and façade composition of the building.

(ii)     Design the roof form to respond to the orientation of the site, such as eaves and skillion roofs to respond to sun access.

(iii)    Use a similar roof pitch to adjacent buildings, particularly if there is consistency of roof forms across the streetscape.

(iv)    Articulate or divide the mass of the roof structures on larger buildings into distinctive sections to minimise the visual bulk and relate to any context of similar building forms.

(v)    Use clerestory windows and skylights to improve natural lighting and ventilation of internalised space on the top floor of a building where feasible. The location, layout, size and configuration of clerestory windows and skylights must be sympathetic to the overall design of the building and the streetscape.

(vi)    Any services and equipment, such as plant, machinery, ventilation stacks, exhaust ducts, lift overrun and the like, must be contained within the roof form or screened behind parapet walls so that they are not readily visible from the public domain.

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

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

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

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

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

(viii) The provision of landscape planting on the roof (that is, “green roof”) is encouraged. Any green roof must be designed by a qualified landscape architect or designer with details shown on a landscape plan.

Flat parapet roof across different levels. No trafficable areas on the roof.

 

A terrace is proposed for the penthouse unit on Level 3, located to the east of the unit. The terrace has been reduced in size in response to comments made during the assessment process. It is setback 1.5m from the external wall on the southern side and 2m to the north, with a glass balustrade. The size and increased setbacks is considered acceptable and the location does not result in overlooking of adjoining communal open space or visual privacy issues. A condition has been included requiring a planter box to be fixed around the terrace to provide soft landscaping and assist in visual privacy.

 

 

The lift overrun is sited behind the front building line, in a setback recess in the centre of the building. It is incorporated within the design satisfactorily behind aluminum and timber vertical screening.

 

 

The flat roof has been used to reduce building height. The design is appropriate for a contemporary development despite surrounding buildings of older stock predominantly having pitched roofs.

 

4.4

External wall height and ceiling height

 

(ii) Where the site is subject to a 12m building height limit under the LEP, a maximum external wall height if 10.5m applies.

Non-compliance with the wall height on Level 3, which is further recessed to levels below. The use of a flat roof and variation to the height of building development standard results in non-compliance. The non-compliance is considered to be minor and will not adversely affect the street or amenity of immediately adjoining properties.

See key issue section of this report.

 

(iii)  The minimum ceiling height is to be 2.7m for all habitable rooms.

Min. 2.7m

Yes

4.5

Pedestrian Entry

 

 (i)    Separate and clearly distinguish between pedestrian pathways and vehicular access. 

Included as part of the design.

Yes

 

(ii)     Present new development to the street in the following manner:

-    Locate building entries so that they relate to the pedestrian access network and desired lines.

-    Design the entry as a clearly identifiable element in the façade composition.

-    Integrate pedestrian access ramps into the overall building and landscape design.

-    For residential flat buildings, provide direct entries to the individual dwellings within a development from the street where possible.

-    Design mailboxes so that they are convenient to residents, do not clutter the appearance of the development at street frontage and are preferably integrated into a wall adjacent to the primary entry (and at 90 degrees to the street rather than along the front boundary).

-    Provide weather protection for building entries.

 

Postal services and mailboxes

(i)     Mailboxes are provided in accordance with the delivery requirements of Australia Post.

(ii)     A mailbox must clearly mark the street number of the dwelling that it serves.

(iii)    Design mail boxes to be convenient for residents and not to clutter the appearance of the development from the street.

The entry design fronts Malabar Road at a central position of the frontage. It is readily identifiable through design and the break in landscaping for access. The entrance has both stairs and ramp accessing the site. Mail boxes are located adjacent the entry near the street and the entrance area is adequately covered from the elements by the above awning. 

Individual entries to units on the Ground level are provided access through their private open space and courtyard. The size and design of these gates are clearly for private use, as opposed to the larger and identifiable main access to the building.

Yes

4.6

Internal circulation

 

 (i)  Enhance the amenity and safety of circulation spaces by:

-     Providing natural lighting and ventilation where possible.

-     Providing generous corridor widths at lobbies, foyers, lift doors and apartment entry doors.

-     Allowing adequate space for the movement of furniture.

-     Minimising corridor lengths to give short, clear sightlines.

-     Avoiding tight corners.

-     Articulating long corridors with a series of foyer areas, and/or providing windows along or at the end of the corridor.

Appropriately addressed in the submitted plans as amended.

Yes

 

(iii) Where apartments are arranged off a double-loaded corridor, limit the number of units accessible from a single core or to 8 units.

5 units per core

Yes

4.7

Apartment layout

 

 (i) Maximise opportunities for natural lighting and ventilation through the following measures:

-     Providing corner, cross-over, cross-through and double-height maisonette / loft apartments.

-     Limiting the depth of single aspect apartments to a maximum of 6m.

-     Providing windows or skylights to kitchen, bathroom and laundry areas where possible.

Providing at least 1 openable window (excluding skylight) opening to outdoor areas for all habitable rooms and limiting the use of borrowed light and ventilation.

All habitable rooms have openable windows.

Yes

 

(ii)  Design apartment layouts to accommodate flexible use of rooms and a variety of furniture arrangements.

Open plan adopted

Yes

 

(iii)  Provide private open space in the form of a balcony, terrace or courtyard for each and every apartment unit in a development.

A balcony or courtyard is provided to each apartment.

Yes

 

(iii)     Avoid locating the kitchen within the main circulation space of an apartment, such as hallway or entry.

Kitchens are appropriately located within the apartments, using an open plan layout with dining and living areas. Circulation areas are not obstructed by the kitchen locations.

Yes

4.8

Balconies

 

(i)       Provide a primary balcony and/or private courtyard for all apartments with a minimum area of 8m2 and a minimum dimension of 2m and consider secondary balconies or terraces in larger apartments.

 

All units have a primary balcony or courtyard with a minimal area of 10m2 and with a dimension of 2m.

 

 

 

 

Yes- also see ADG controls

 

(ii)      Provide a primary terrace for all ground floor apartments with a minimum depth of 4m and minimum area of 12m2. All ground floor apartments are to have direct access to a terrace.

 

Courtyards provided – Unit G03 is less than 12m2 however a greater private open space is also provided surrounding the courtyard and has a good orientation to the north.

Partial – G03 satisfactory due to greater open space area than courtyard.

4.9

Colours, materials and finishes

 

 (i)    Provide a schedule detailing the materials and finishes in the development application documentation and plans.

(ii)     The selection of colour and material palette must complement the character and style of the building.

(iv)    Use the following measures to complement façade articulation:

-    Changes of colours and surface texture

-    Inclusion of lightweight materials to contrast with solid masonry surfaces

-    The use of natural stones is encouraged.

(v)    Avoid the following materials or treatment:

-    Reflective wall cladding, panels and tiles and roof sheeting

-    High reflective or mirror glass

-    Large expanses of glass or curtain wall that is not protected by sun shade devices

-    Large expanses of rendered masonry

-    Light colours or finishes where they may cause adverse glare or reflectivity impacts

(vi)    Use materials and details that are suitable for the local climatic conditions to properly withstand natural weathering, ageing and deterioration.

(vii)   Sandstone blocks in existing buildings or fences on the site must be recycled and re-used.

External colours, materials and finishes provided and appropriate for the area and design.

Yes

4.12

Earthworks Excavation and backfilling

 

 (i)   Any excavation and backfilling within the building footprints must be limited to 1m at any point on the allotment, unless it is demonstrated that the site gradient is too steep to reasonably construct a building within this extent of site modification.

(ii)    Any cut and fill outside the building footprints must take the form of terracing following the natural landform, in order to minimise the height or depth of earthworks at any point on the site.

(iii)   For sites with a significant slope, adopt a split-level design for buildings to minimise excavation and backfilling.

Excavation of 4m for basement carpark. This is not unreasonable and within the standard limits for a development of this scale.

Yes

5

Amenity

5.1

Solar access and overshadowing

 

Solar access for proposed development

 

(ii)     Living areas and private open spaces for at least 70% of dwellings within a residential flat building must provide direct sunlight for at least 3 hours between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

All private open spaces receive appropriate solar access. 13/16 units (81%) receive solar access to living rooms

Yes

 

(iii)    Limit the number of single-aspect apartments with a southerly aspect to a maximum of 10 percent of the total units within a residential flat building.

No units are single aspect on the southern side.

Yes

 

(iv)    Any variations from the minimum standard due to site constraints and orientation must demonstrate how solar access and energy efficiency is maximised.

Compliance achieved.

Yes

 

Solar access for surrounding development

 

(i)   Living areas of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours access to direct sunlight to a part of a window between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

 

(ii) At least 50% of the landscaped areas of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

 

(iii) Where existing development currently receives less sunlight than this requirement, the new development is not to reduce this further.

The amended shadow diagrams provided on 17/12/17, particularly the elevation view of 159 Malabar Road, demonstrate that the proposed development does not further overshadow any living areas than the existing structures. 3 hours of sunlight is achieved between the hours of 9am and 1pm. Minor additional overshadowing occurs to landscaped areas within the front yard however the area in question is largely hardstand for car spaces and therefore of negligible impact.

Yes

5.2

Natural ventilation and energy efficiency

 

(i)   Provide daylight to internalised areas within each dwelling and any poorly lit habitable rooms via measures such as ventilated skylights, clerestory windows, fanlights above doorways and highlight windows in internal partition walls.

Appropriate daylight access achieved.

Yes

 

(iii)  All habitable rooms must incorporate windows opening to outdoor areas. The sole reliance on skylight or clerestory windows for natural lighting and ventilation is not acceptable.

Note - kitchens generally rely on operability of living room windows and door openings however as they are part of an open plan layout it is considered acceptable.

Yes

 

(iv) All new residential units must be designed to provide natural ventilation to all habitable rooms. Mechanical ventilation must not be the sole means of ventilation to habitable rooms.

Natural ventilation is provided to all apartments.

Yes

 

(v)  A minimum of 90% of residential units should be naturally cross ventilated. In cases where residential units are not naturally cross ventilated, such as single aspect apartments, the installation of ceiling fans may be required.

100%

Yes

 

(vi) A minimum of 25% of kitchens within a development should have access to natural ventilation and be adjacent to openable windows.

See note for 5.2(iii) above.

Yes

5.3

Visual privacy

 

 (i)  Locate windows and balconies of habitable rooms to minimise overlooking of windows or glassed doors in adjoining dwellings.

(ii)  Orient balconies to front and rear boundaries or courtyards as much as possible. Avoid orienting balconies to any habitable room windows on the side elevations of the adjoining residences.

(iii)  Orient buildings on narrow sites to the front and rear of the lot, utilising the street width and rear garden depth to increase the separation distance.

(iv) Locate and design areas of private open space to ensure a high level of user privacy. Landscaping, screen planting, fences, shading devices and screens are used to prevent overlooking and improve privacy.

(v)  Incorporate materials and design of privacy screens including:

-    Translucent glazing

-    Fixed timber or metal slats

-    Fixed vertical louvres with the individual blades oriented away from the private open space or windows of the adjacent dwellings

-    Screen planting and planter boxes as a supplementary device for reinforcing privacy protection

Windows are appropriately offset, treated or dimensioned.

 

Additional privacy measures required.

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

5.4

Acoustic privacy

 

 (i)  Design the building and layout to minimise transmission of noise between buildings and dwellings.

(ii)  Separate “quiet areas” such as bedrooms from common recreation areas, parking areas, vehicle access ways and other noise generating activities.

(iii)  Utilise appropriate measures to maximise acoustic privacy such as:

-    Double glazing

-    Operable screened balconies

-    Walls to courtyards

-    Sealing of entry doors

The proposal is appropriately designed to maintain acoustic privacy, including recessed setbacks to the terrace for Unit 301.

Yes

5.5

View sharing

 

 (i)    The location and design of buildings must reasonably maintain existing view corridors and vistas to significant elements from the streets, public open spaces and neighbouring dwellings.

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

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

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

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

(vi)    Clearly demonstrate any steps or measures adopted to mitigate potential view loss impacts in the development application.

 

No significant view loss identified as part of the development which is non-compliant with height.

5.6

Safety and security

 

(i)     Design buildings and spaces for safe and secure access to and within the development.

 Appropriate entries and spaces for safety are provided.

Yes

 

(iii)    For residential flat buildings, provide direct, secure access between the parking levels and the main lobby on the ground floor.

Direct access provided.

Yes

 

(iv)    Design window and door placement and operation to enable ventilation throughout the day and night without compromising security. The provision of natural ventilation to the interior space via balcony doors only, is deemed insufficient.

Louvers and window placement allows for ventilation without compromising safety.

Yes

 

(v)    Avoid high walls and parking structures around buildings and open space areas which obstruct views into the development.

Such elements are avoided.

Yes

 

(vi)    Resident car parking areas must be equipped with security grilles or doors.

Security grilles provided.

Yes

 

(vii)   Control visitor entry to all units and internal common areas by intercom and remote locking systems.

An intergrated security system is to be implemented.

Yes

 

(viii)  Provide adequate lighting for personal safety in common and access areas of the development.

Recommend condition requiring appropriate lighting.

Yes

 

(ix)    Improve opportunities for casual surveillance without compromising dwelling privacy by designing living areas with views over public spaces and communal areas, using bay windows which provide oblique views and casual views of common areas, lobbies / foyers, hallways, open space and car parks.

The design of the proposal allows for casual surveillance to street frontages and the communal space area.

Yes

 

(x)    External lighting must be neither intrusive nor create a nuisance for nearby residents.

Can be conditioned.

Yes

 

(xi)    Provide illumination for all building entries, pedestrian paths and communal open space within the development.

 

 

Can be conditioned.

Yes

6.1

Location

 

(i)   Car parking facilities must be accessed off rear lanes or secondary street frontages where available.

Accessed from lane way.

Yes

 

(ii)  The location of car parking and access facilities must minimise the length of driveways and extent of impermeable surfaces within the site.

Driveway is of appropriate design.

Yes

 

(iii)  Setback driveways a minimum of 1m from the side boundary. Provide landscape planting within the setback areas.

Passing bay on eastern boundary. Landscaped setback beyond.

Satisfactory

 

(v) For residential flat buildings, comply with the following:

(a)   Car parking must be provided underground in a basement or semi-basement for new development.

(b)   On grade car park may be considered for sites potentially affected by flooding. In this scenario, the car park must be located on the side or rear of the allotment away from the primary street frontage. 

Semi basement for parking.

Yes

6.2

Configuration

 

(i)   With the exception of hardstand car spaces and garages, all car parks must be designed to allow vehicles to enter and exit in a forward direction.

 All cars will be able to enter and leave in a forward direction.

Yes

 

(ii)  For residential flat buildings, the maximum width of driveway is 6m. In addition, the width of driveway must be tapered towards the street boundary as much as possible.

Driveway appropriate for the laneway.

Satisfactory.

 

(iv) Provide basement or semi-basement car parking consistent with the following requirements:

(a)   Provide natural ventilation. 

(b)   Integrate ventilation grills into the façade composition and landscape design.

(c)   The external enclosing walls of car park must not protrude above ground level (existing) by more than 1.2m. This control does not apply to sites affected by potential flooding.

(d)   Use landscaping to soften or screen any car park enclosing walls.

(e)   Provide safe and secure access for building users, including direct access to dwellings where possible.

(f)    Improve the appearance of car park entries and avoid a ‘back-of-house’ appearance by measures such as:

-    Installing security doors to avoid ‘black holes’ in the facades.

-    Returning the façade finishing materials into the car park entry recess to the extent visible from the street as a minimum.

-    Concealing service pipes and ducts within those areas of the car park that are visible from the public domain. 

Detailed elements provided within the proposal where relevant.

Yes

7

Fencing and Ancillary Development

7.1

Fencing

 

 (i)  Fences are constructed with durable materials that are suitable for their purpose and can properly withstand wear and tear and natural weathering.

(ii)  Sandstone fencing must not be rendered and painted.

(iii)  The following materials must not be used in fences:

-    Steel post and chain wire

-    Barbed wire or other dangerous materials

(iii) Expansive surfaces of blank rendered masonry to street frontages must be avoided.

Can be conditioned.

Yes

7.2

Front Fencing

 

(i)   The fence must align with the front property boundary or the predominant fence setback line along the street.

The front fence aligns with the property boundary.

Yes

 

(ii)  The maximum height of front fencing is limited to 1200mm, as measured from the footpath level, with the solid portion not exceeding 600mm, except for piers. The maximum height of front fencing may be increased to 1800mm, provided the upper two-thirds are partially open, except for piers.

Maximum height of front fence is less than 1.2m with non-solid portion accordingly.

Yes

 

(iii)  Construct the non-solid portion of the fence with light weight materials that are at least 30% open and evenly distributed along the full length of the fence.

Vertical metal picket fence adopted.

Yes

 

(v)  The fence must incorporate stepping to follow any change in level along the street boundary. The height of the fence may exceed the aforementioned numerical requirement by a maximum of 150mm adjacent to any stepping.

The fence does not require stepping to Malabar Road.

Yes

 

(vi) The preferred materials for front fences are natural stone, face bricks and timber.

Face bricks used.

Yes

 

(vii) Gates must not open over public land.

No gates are designed to open out onto the laneway or Malabar Road

Yes

7.3

Side and Rear Fencing

 

 (i)    The maximum height of side, rear or common boundary fences is limited to 1800mm, as measured from the ground level (existing). For sloping sites, the fence must be stepped to follow the topography of the land, with each step not exceeding 2200mm above ground level (existing).

(ii)     In the scenario where there is significant level difference between the subject and adjoining allotments, the fencing height will be considered on merits.

(iii)    The side fence must be tapered down to match the height of the front fence once pasts the front façade alignment.

(iv)   Side or common boundary fences must be finished or treated on both sides.

Fencing on laneway steps down to the east with appropriate maximum height of 2.2m and continued use of non-solid portions.

Yes

7.6

Storage

 

 (i)    The design of development must provide for readily accessible and separately contained storage areas for each dwelling.

(ii)     Storage facilities may be provided in basement or sub floor areas or attached to garages. Where basement storage is provided, it should not compromise any natural ventilation in the car park, reduce sight lines or obstruct pedestrian access to the parked vehicles.

(iii)    In addition to kitchen cupboards and bedroom wardrobes, provide accessible storage facilities at the following rates:

(a)    Studio apartments – 6m3

(b)    1-bedroom apartments – 6m3

(c)    2-bedroom apartments – 8m3

(d)    3 plus bedroom apartments – 10m3

Compliant storage areas are provided for each dwelling with storage areas for each unit identified within the Basement Level on the plans and within individual units as well as on balconies.

 

 

Yes

7.7

Laundry facilities

 

 (i)    Provide a retractable or demountable clothes line in the courtyard of each dwelling unit.

Internal laundry facilities are provided and they include dryers which will assist. Communal area includes outdoor drying facilities.

Yes

 

(ii)     Provide internal laundry for each dwelling unit.

Laundry provided to each unit.

Yes

 

3.         Referral Comments

 

Environmental Health Comments:

An acoustic assessment will be requested prior to Construction and also prior to Occupation Certificate being issued so as to ensure noise in between units and also from the proposed plant and equipment complies with the relevant requirements.

Engineer Comments:

SUMMARY COMMENTS

The amended plans have addressed Development Engineering’s last remaining concerns in regards to flood protection at the Malabar Road frontage and no further objections are raised to the application subject to the comments and conditions provided in this report. The amended scheme also reduces the parking shortfall to 1 space only (4%) (previously 3). This is not of concern to Development Engineering given the site’s location in close proximity to a bus stop regular and frequent

 

FLOODING COMMENTS

The assessing officer is advised that there is a large entrapped low point centered in Garie Place (downstream) and to the east of the site as well as another sag point located on Malabar Road (upstream) to the north west of the site. The size of the contributing catchments is significant and flooding associated with these two entrapped low points may result in the subject site being susceptible to flooding during major storm events.

 

As the application does not lie within any of the catchments for the Council commissioned flood Studies the applicant was advised in pre-lodgment advice to undertake their own flood study to obtain the relevant flood planning levels for the subject site.

An overland flood analysis by LP consulting and HecRas has been submitted with the application which has determined the relevant flood planning levels

Sec 5.3 Part B8 of the DCP currently includes the following in relation to flood planning levels

 

·      All new habitable floor is to be provided at or above the level of the 1% AEP (1 in 100yr) flood plus 0.5m freeboard or twice the depth of flow if adjacent to a flow path.

 

·      All basement garages are to be protected to the level of the 1% AEP + 0.5m freeboard with the exception of the access driveway where a reduced freeboard of 300mm is permissible.

 

·      Any impact on Overland flow paths or flood storage must not result in increases in flood levels on neighbouring properties.

 

The flood study has responded to these requirements by recommending the following

 

·      The habitable ground floor is to be set appropriately above the 1 in 100yr flood level in the adjacent laneway. This level will vary as you proceed down the laneway.

 

·      The proposed basement ramp is required to be set 300mm above the flood level which will result in crest set at  RL 46.45 AHD

 

Pre and post development HecRas analysis has indicated that there will be a small localized increase in post development flood levels in Garie Place Lane along the site frontage (between CH 29.1 & CH 42.8 in the flood study). The small increase will not exceed 100mm and is not likely to impact on floor levels of neighbouring or subject properties.  Flood levels will actually fall upstream and remain unchanged downstream from this point.

 

Additional concerns were raised by Development Engineering in regards to the protection of the pedestrian openings on Malabar Road which had not been protected. The amended plans and addendum to flood study have now addressed this concern by revising flood levels & providing a raised threshold at the Malabar Road Entrance at RL 49.78 before descending again down to the floor level of RL 49.46 AHD. The flood levels at this location is predicted in the amended study as RL 49.54 with a flood depth of 240mm. Applying the freeboard of twice the depth of flow will require protection up to RL 49.78 of which the development now complies. The outstanding flooding issues have therefore been satisfactorily addressed and will provide protection against the 1 in 0yr flood level predicted by the flood study.

 

DRAINAGE COMMENTS

Development Engineering does not normally support approving drainage plans and instead recommends performance-based conditions, however due to the flooding issues and drainage complexities of the site, general drainage conditions are not appropriate in this instance. Drainage shall therefor be in general accordance with the drainage plans and flood study recommendations prepared by LP Consulting. Suitable conditions have been provided in this report.

 

GEOTECHNICAL COMMENTS

The submitted geotechnical report by GeoEnviro Consultancy did not establish the presence of any groundwater on the site however provision for its presence has been allowed for in conditions provided in this report should its presence be identified during excavation and construction. 

 

GARIE PLACE LANE DEDICATION COMMENTS

Garie Place Lane is currently only 3.66m (12ft) wide (with road pavement width of about 2.8m) and with no formal footpath provided. To facilitate the predicted increase in pedestrian and vehicular traffic the applicant proposes a dedication to Council of at least 1.5m. This will allow provision for a minimum 3.6m wide carriageway (kerb to kerb) plus a minimum 1.3m wide footpath behind the kerb along the full laneway frontage. This is supported by Development Engineering and is consistent with pre-lodgement advice.

 

In addition, a waiting bay shall be provided at the Malabar Road frontage requiring additional dedication at this location.

 

PARKING PROVISION COMMENTS

Existing Parking and Traffic Conditions

The proposed development site currently comprises of a residential flat building containing 3 dwellings, a residential dwelling, and a shop top house.

 

Parking and vehicular access is currently provided for the residential flat building from Garie Place Lane only which is only 3.66m (12ft) wide and technically a Council reserve. This appears to historically been the situation for many years probably since the building’s construction in the 1940’s.

 

Proposed Development

Part B7 of Council’s DCP specifies vehicle parking for multi-unit housing is to be provided at the following relevant rates;

1 space per 1 bedroom unit

1.2 spaces per 2 bedroom unit

1.5 spaces per 3 bedroom unit

1 visitor space per 4 units (but none where development is less than 4 dwellings)

 

The amended proposal is for demolition of the existing building and construction of a new residential flat building containing 16 units and comprising of 4 x 1 bedroom, 6 x 2 bedroom, 3 x 2 bedroom + study, 2 x 3 bedroom and 1 x 4 bedroom units.

 

Parking required        = (4 x 1) + (9 x 1.2) + (3 x 1.5) + 16/4(visitor)

        = 4 + 10.8 + 4.5 + 4.0

        = 23.2

        = say 23 spaces

 

Parking provided =     22 spaces

 

Parking shortfall =     1 space (4%) * See assessment below

 

Motorbike Parking

Motorbike Parking is to be provided at 5% of the vehicle parking requirement.

 

Motorbike parking required = 0.05 x 23 = 1.15 = say 1 space

 

Motorbike parking provided = 1 space (complies)

 

Bicycle Parking

For Flats/multi dwelling bicycle parking to be provided at 1 space per 2 units plus 1 visitor space per 10 units

 

Bicycle parking required = 16/2 + 16/10 = 9.6 = say 10 spaces

 

Bicycle Parking provided = 12 spaces (complies)

 

Assessment of Parking Shortfall

The 1 space parking shortfall is an improvement of the 3-space shortfall originally proposed for the development which the accompanying traffic and parking report attempted to justify for the following reasons;

 

·      The shortfall relates to visitor parking only. Residential component fully complies with the DCP.

 

·      Parking survey indicates there is some spare capacity within the surrounding street network to accommodate any additional visitor parking demand

 

·      There are bus stops just north of the site on Malabar Road with access to regular and frequent services including routes 353 (Eastgardens to Bondi Junction) ,376 (Maroubra Beach to Central),377 (Maroubra Beach to Circular quay), X77 (Express service to City). Other services (316,317) are available in Moverly Road located approximately 350m walk west of the site. 

 

·      12 bicycle spaces have been provided in excess of DCP requirements (10 spaces). It is noted that there is a dedicated bicycle lane on Malabar road.

 

·      The two nearest carshare pods are currently located approximately 600m (10 min walk) north of the site at the corner of Brook & Oberon St and near the corner of Neptune and Beach Street South Coogee.

 

In consideration of the above factors and after undertaking a site inspection Development Engineering has assessed the minor shortfall (1 space) in vehicular parking and it is considered that the proposed development will not create any unacceptable impacts on the availability of the on-street parking in the vicinity given the availability and provision of alternative forms of transport. No objections are raised on parking provision.

 

PARKING LAYOUT COMMENTS

The carpark layout including carspace sizes, aisle widths and overhead clearances appears to comply with the requirements of Australian Standard 2890.1:2004. A suitable condition has also been provided in this report.

 

Access driveway

The access driveway is wide enough to permit two way traffic flow for the first 6m in accordance with pre-lodgement advice and AS 2890.1 and a traffic signalling system is proposed thereafter to manage flow into the carpark. This is satisfactory.

 

The driveway incorporates a high point to protect the basement from flooding in Garie place Lane. The proposed grades including transitions will allow a vehicle to enter/exit the site without scraping.

 

Waiting bay

A waiting bay is provided at the Malabar Road intersection consistent with prelodgement advice and AS 2890.1. This is satisfactory

 

UNDERGROUNDING OF POWER

At the ordinary Council meeting on the 27th May 2014 it was resolved that;

 

Should a mains power distribution pole be located on the same side of the street  and within 15m of the development site, the applicant must meet the full cost for Ausgrid to relocate the existing overhead power feed from the distribution pole in the street to the development site via an underground UGOH connection.

 

The subject is located within 15m of a power pole on the same side of the street hence the above clause is applicable. A suitable condition has been included in this report.

 

Waste Management Comments

The applicant is required to submit to Council and have approved by Council’s Director Planning, a Waste Management Plan (WMP) detailing waste and recycling storage and disposal for the development site.

 

The plan shall detail the type and quantity of waste to be generated by the development; demolition waste; construction waste; materials to be re-used or recycled; facilities/procedures for the storage, collection recycling & disposal of waste and show how the on-going management of waste for the units will operate.

 

Comments on the number of Waste Bins

Council’s ‘Waste Management Guidelines for Proposed Developments’ specify a waste generation rate for multi-unit housing of 120L/unit/week for normal garbage and 60L/unit/week for recycling. Assuming a standard 240L bin this translates to 1 bin per two units for normal garbage (weekly collection) and 1 bin per two units for recycling (fortnightly collection)

 

For the proposed 16 units 8 garbage and 8 recycling bins will be required.

 

As some landscape areas are also provided it is required that a minimum of 3 x 240L green waste bins also be provided.

 

Total Number of BINS = 8(garbage) + 8(recycling) + 3(green waste)

        = 19 x 240L BINS

 

Total number of bins provided = 20 x 240L bins (complies)

 

 

Tree Management Comments

The submitted Arborists Report recommends the following:

 

·      The retention of all five street trees;

·      Removal of a total of sixteen trees from within the site, the majority of which are exempt from Council’s DCP due to their small size or being undesirable species;

·      Retention of two trees within the site;

·      Protection of five trees on neighbouring private properties.

 

The inspection of 20 October 2017 confirmed the presence of three juvenile trees on the public verge across the width of the site, comprising a 2m tall Eucalyptus sp. (Gum, T1) in front of no.149, then two similar sized Banksia integrifolia (Coastal Banksias, T2-3), being one each in front of both no.153 & no.155, which despite their small size, are still covered by the DCP, and will provide a long-term contribution to the streetscape into the future.

 

Despite no external works being proposed along the Malabar Road frontage (with the basement entry to be provided from Garie Place at the rear), there is still potential for them to be affected by secondary impacts such as from trucks, machinery, the delivery of materials and similar, as all site access will be gained off Malabar Road and the existing Lane Way, and as such, protection conditions and a bond have been imposed, as well as for the Callistemon viminalis (Bottlebrush, T4) and Banksia integrifolia (Coastal Banksia, T5) that are located to the north of the development site, in front of no.147.

 

The only established vegetation within any of the front setbacks is the 6m tall Cupressus sempervirens (Swanes Golden Cypress, T10) within no.149, which can be removed as it is not significant in anyway, along with the variety of other smaller shrubs in this same area, being T6-9, 11 & 35, comprising Cameila’s, NSW Xmas Trees and a Banksia, subject to the new landscape treatment being provided in this same area as shown, as this will assist with presentation of the development to the streetscape and its integration into the area.

 

There are several established specimens around the northwest corner of the existing building at no.149, in the northern side setback, which are visible from the street, with their co-joined canopies providing shade, screening and privacy between this site and no.147 on the northern side of the lane.

 

They comprise from west to east, a 6m tall Plerandra elgantissima (False Aralia, T12), which is a rare, exotic species that has been supressed by other more dominant trees nearby; then a larger, 14m x 12m Liquidambar styraciflua (Liquidambar, T13), which was previously topped at a height of 7m, with its entire crown now comprising epicormic re-growth, which has reduced its safe life expectancy; a 12m tall Agonis flexuosa (Willow Myrtle, T14) of fair health and condition, with distorted main trunks which has been suppressed by T13, then lastly, a 6m tall Howea fosteriana (Kentia Palm), which has not been assessed in the Arborist Report.

 

These three canopy trees are growing in a restricted environment, confined by the kerb and bitumen laneway to their north, as well as the footprint of the existing unit block to their south, all of which would have affected normal, radial root growth, and would have grown with a dependence on these structures to some degree, so removal/demolition of any of these may threaten stability of the trees.

 

This group are also in direct conflict with all aspects and levels of the works, so while they do perform a function for the immediate area, none are significant enough in anyway to warrant the major re-designs that would be required to accommodate their preservation, as this would have a major impact on the layout of the entire development. Namely, any allowances made in this part of the site for their retention, will subsequently reduce the amount of deep soil that is available for open space and new plantings around the southeast corner of the site, so consistent with past advice that was provided for PL/18/2017, as well as the recommendations contained in the submitted Arborists Report, approval is granted for their removal.

 

The screening shrubs on the opposite/northern side of the lane, wholly in the rear yard of the private property at no.147, against the southern boundafry, were observed to perform an important amenity function for these neighbours, which will be even more valuable for them during construction and upon completion, and while they will not be directly affected given their physical distance from the actual building works, as well as the barriers that have been created by the impervious concrete kerbs and road surface, clearance pruning will be necessary, along with others further to the east, so as to facilitate machinery access in the laneway during the course of works, with relevant conditions provided.

 

Beyond the rear/eastern site boundary, growing wholly on the adjoining private property at 10 Garie Place, almost hard up against the common boundary, there is a mature, 10m tall Persea americanna (Avocado, T15), which is covered by the DCP, assists with screening between these two sites, with its western aspect overhanging substantially into the development site.

 

Council has a common law responsibility to ensure it is not affected in anyway by this application, with the main threats identified as root damage and root loss from construction of the basement entry ramp off the Lane Way, shown to be almost right on the common boundary (Basement Plan, DA02), which would result in a major incursion of its TPZ of 25%, with the amount of pruning required from its western aspect to avoid conflict with any machinery or similar being another major impact that needs to be considered.

 

AS4970:2009 requires that for such major incursions, the site Arborist undertake additional site investigations and reporting to demonstrate how this tree could remain viable; however, this has not been performed or provided, with the Report instead recommending the use of sympathetic construction techniques involving a 100mm layer of structural soil/crushed gravel, over which, filter fabric will then be added, to maintain gaseous exchange between the root system and the atmosphere.

 

A comparison between existing ground levels (45.66) and those proposed for the new driveway (RL46.46) show that while a crest will be provided in order to address flooding concerns, a difference of only 80mm will be provided; however, this does not take into account the thickness of the new driveway slab, typically 100mm thick, so this may negate this space altogether.

 

Conditions in this report still adopt these measures, as it should still be feasible to provide structural soil to some degree, and in order to maintain a high degree of control and protection for this neighbouring tree, Council’s Officer has imposed additional requirements, over and above what has been recommended by the Arborist, and requires hand-dug root mapping prior to excavating for any footings, along with the use of a pier and beam/cantilevered style footing to support the new driveway, kerb/retaining wall and any other similar structures that are proposed within its TPZ, with these measures aimed at avoiding/minimizing any impacts on its root system.

 

In the rear yard of the subject site, halfway across the width of the eastern boundary, there are two over-mature Agonis flexuosa (Willow Myrtles, T18 & 20) of 12m in height, each with broadly spreading crowns of 14-16m across, which are covered by the DCP, and are easily the most established vegetation assessed for this proposal.

 

Their co-joined canopies dominate this area of communal open space, and are recognized as prominent site features that provide shade, amenity, screening and privacy for both occupants and several neighbouring properties; however, they have both been assigned very short life-spans, with both having distorted and included trunks. In fact, the bracing and cables that have been tied between the co-dominant trunks of T20 are the only way this tree has still remained upright in the ground.

These defects described above are recognized as structural faults that drastically reduces their suitability for preservation, even irrespective of this development, and are seen to pose a threat to the future safety of person and property as they continue their natural senescence.

 

While significant in terms of dimensions and presence in the local landscape, they are unsuitable for preservation based on detailed arboricultural assessments, and as both are also in direct conflict with all aspects and levels of the development, their safe retention into the future cannot be guaranteed, so cannot be supported, with consent reluctantly granted for their removal, consistent with the Pre-lodgement advice, and consistent with the Arborists Reports findings and recommendations.

 

The various shrubs in this vicinity can also be removed due to their insignificance, including the Schefflera arboricola (Dwarf Umbrella, T16), Strelitzia nicholii (Giant Bird of Paradise, T17), the small Agonis flexuosa (Willow Myrtle, T19) and Cordyline australis (Cordyline, T22), as shown.

 

Given the quantity of vegetation that will need to be removed so as to accommodate the works, Council requires retention of the 6m tall Howea fosteriana (Kentia Palm, T23) located within the subject site, further to the south of the group described above, as well as the 8m tall Lophostmeon confertus (Brush Box, T27), right in the southeast corner of the site, as given the setback of the basement well to their north, they can easily be retained and incorporated as existing site features into the landscaping that is shown for the area of communal open space. 

 

The group located wholly on the adjoining private property to the east, 8 Garie Place, against the common boundary, being T21 (Brush Box) and T24-26 (Bangalow Palms), will all need to be protected and retained as part of the works, but as no major works are proposed in this area, with the eastern wall of the basement sited well away, only minor conditions are needed.

 

Those various small shrubs and palms around the southeast corner as well as centrally throughout the subject site can all be removed, including T28-35 in the Arborists Report, as none are significant, and can be readily replaced with new plantings.

 

Landscape Comments

The submitted Landscape Plans shows the use of mostly native layered screening planting and 11 feature canopy trees around the perimeter of the site, along with 4 native palms and understory within the two internal courtyards, with several turfed terraces to be provided as communal open space along the southern boundary, around the southeast corner of the site, including outdoor BBQ’s and seating/benches for the use of future occupants.

 

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

B.     That the RDAP, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 4.16 and 4.17 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 502/2017 for demolition of existing structures on the site and construction of a part 3, part 4 storey, residential flat building containing 17 dwellings, basement parking for 22 cars, landscaping and associated works, at No. 149-155 Malabar Road, South Coogee, subject to the development consent conditions attached to this report, for the following reasons:

 

·      The proposed development satisfies the matters for consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended.

 

·      The proposal is consistent with the objectives contained within the RLEP 2012 and the relevant requirements of the RDCP 2013.

 

·      The proposal is consistent with the objectives contained within SEPP 65.

 

·      The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the R3 zone in that the proposed activity and built form will provide for the housing needs of the community whilst enhancing the aesthetic character and protecting the amenity of the local residents. 

 

·      The scale and design of the proposal is considered to be suitable for the location and is compatible with the desired future character of the locality.

 

·      The design and planning outcome for the site will establish a positive precedent in the area.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Development Consent Conditions - 149-155 Malabar Rd, South Coogee (DA/502/2017)

 

 

 

 


Development Consent Conditions - 149-155 Malabar Rd, South Coogee (DA/502/2017)

Attachment 1

 

 


Randwick Development Assessment Panel                                                               22 March 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D2/18

 

Subject:             170 Clovelly Road, Randwick (DA/336/2017)

Folder No:                   DA/336/2017

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Alterations and additions for shop top housing development comprising a new rear two storey building with garage (associated with commercial use) and 1 bedroom dwelling above, alterations to existing commercial premises fronting Clovelly Road and alterations and additions to 2 bedroom dwelling above (variation to building height and floor space ratio controls).

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Hawksley Holdings P/L

Owner:                        Ms L H Mitchell

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

 

 

Executive summary

 

The application is referred to the Randwick Development Assessment Panel (RDAP) as the development contravenes the development standards for building height and floor space ratio by more than 10%.

 

1.   Proposal

 

Alterations and additions for shop top housing development comprising a new rear two storey building with garage (associated with commercial use) and 1 bedroom dwelling above, alterations to existing commercial premises fronting Clovelly Road and alterations and additions to 2 bedroom dwelling above.

 

Note: The application was amended in response to matters raised by Council and in order to minimise impacts on neighbouring properties and the streetscape. These amendments include:

 

·      Setting back the rear addition further from the rear boundary;

·      Deleting and replacing rear office with a one bedroom apartment above rear car space ancillary to the shop premises facing Clovelly Road;

·      Amended layout of 2 bedroom apartment above shop premises facing Clovelly Road

 

The amended plans received by Council were renotified to surrounding properties in line with the DCP requirements. A further set of amended plans and amended BASIX certificate have been received by Council on 6 March 2018 increasing the front setback of the second floor level to minimise the dominance of the development from Clovelly Road frontage.

 

2.   Site

 

The site is located on the southern side of Clovelly Road and extends to the southern side of a right of way at the rear.  The nearest cross streets are Carrington Road to the west.

 

The site has a site area of 202.3m². The site frontage to Clovelly Road is 6.325m skewed; and 33.528 to rear right of way which forms part of the neighbour to the east at No. 172-180 Clovelly Road. Located on the site is a three storey building towards the north and a detached single storey building fronting the right of way that provides access from Carrington Road through to Clovelly Road. Figure 1 below shows the street view.

 

The neighbouring site to the east (No. 172-180 Clovelly Road) is a five storey residential flat building with 21 apartments. Adjoining to the west (right side in photo) is a row of three properties containing multi storey buildings with shop premises at ground level, with upper level residential directly above and behind. The subject site and row of shops to the west are in the neighbourhood centre zone (Zone B1) permitting shop top housing with zero side setbacks. The surrounding sites to the east and south are zoned medium density residential and contain a mix of residential flat buildings and single dwellings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Figure 1: Street view from in a south westerly direction shows the subject frontage (bounded in green), heritage item at the corner of Carrington Road and Clovelly Road.

 

The site slopes and steps down from north to south by approximately 2.9m from Clovelly Road to a rear right of way which accounts for the basement under the shop and the rear outbuilding facing the right of way.  A gentle cross-fall occurs from west side to east side. The slope down the site to the rear is an inherent characteristic of the subject site and surrounding properties nearby and further south.

 

There is no significant on-site vegetation.

 

Vehicle access to the site is available via the right of way at the rear which services the row of shops west of the site.

 

The existing building is not heritage listed. A locally listed heritage item identified as I314 in the RLEP, is located several doors down at the corner of Carrington and Clovelly Road - No. 81A Carrington Road shown in the photo above. It is a three storey ‘Art Deco residential flat building’ with a ground level shop fronting Clovelly Road.

 

To the north – the opposite side of Clovelly Road, separated by an island servicing a regular Bus stop, are terrace buildings with ground floor retail and first floor residential accommodation. These properties are also located within the Neighbourhood Centre zone (B1).

 

Figure 2: Zones: Shaded light blue: Neighbourhood Centre Zone B1; Shaded dark red: Medium Density Residential zone R3; Shaded light red: Low density Residential development. Orange line: Right of way accessible from Carrington Road through to Clovelly Road.

 

Figure 3: Right of way at rear of site showing the adjoining site at 166-168 Clovelly Road at left, subject site, adjoining five storey flat building at No. 172-180 Clovelly Road and the four storey flat building at the opposite side of the right of way at No. 83-87 Carrington Road.

 

3.   Submissions

 

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

 

·      Unit 7, 172-180 Clovelly Road, Randwick

·      166-168 Clovelly Road, Randwick (submission received after notification of amended proposal)

·      162-164 Clovelly Road, Randwick (submission received after notification of amended proposal)

 

Issue

Comment

The third floor, above the maximum height restrictions, should be built in accordance with Randwick Council regulations.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed building exceeds the maximum height control, the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 requires Council to be flexible in the application of built form controls and to consider how the proposal may still achieve the objectives of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP 2012), and Randwick Development Control Plan (RDCP) 2013.

 

The applicant submitted a Clause 4.6 exception to the height of buildings development standard which is assessed as providing sufficient planning grounds for satisfying the objectives of the standard and the zone.

 

In short, this proposed developments size and scale is not markedly different to the existing and it will be consistent with the built forms on neighbouring properties. Moreover, the only sections in which it exceeds the maximum is limited to a rear portion of the building. As demonstrated throughout this report the proposed development as amended and conditioned satisfies the objectives of the standard by not resulting in a significant or unreasonable adverse impact on the streetscape or the amenity of neighbouring properties in relation to solar access, light, privacy or views. Overall, the proposed development as amended is not considered to be an overdevelopment. 

The proposed lengthening of the garage and first floor above the garage will reduce light and ventilation to our 1st floor level apartment (7/172-180 Clovelly Road) whose living room windows face along the right of way.

The rear setback of the garage and level above has been increased to between 4.88m and 3.42m from the rear boundary which is a substantial increase compared to the originally proposed rear setback of between 0.9m and 1.6m. The increased rear setback has improved sight lines from this apartments living and bedroom windows which run diagonally across the subject site. The increased setbacks has also improved light and ventilation to these two west facing living and bedroom windows.

The sun diagrams also demonstrate no appreciable overshadowing impact to these two windows caused by the proposed development whereby the overshadowing is caused by developments to the west from No. 81A Carrington Road and 166-168 Carrington Road.

The proposed 3rd floor will create visual bulk and reduce daylight to the windows and doors of the building and rear yard of 166-168 Clovelly Road.

The proposed development creates additional visual bulk however it is not considered obtrusive or result in unreasonable adverse visual bulk or reduction of daylight for the following reasons:

 

·      The front part of the building is located alongside the two buildings adjoining and will not result in any obtrusive elements. It is noted that no minimum setback is required for the western side boundary as the adjoining site is within a business zone.

 

·      The rear two storey portion of the development is opposite the neighbour’s lounge room window however as indicated above no minimum setback is required for the shop top housing development under the DCP as is within a business zone. In any event, the neighbour’s lounge room window is setback 1.2m from the side boundary opposite, which alleviates to a large extent the impact of visual bulk and daylight access.

To ensure there are no problems to the drainage PVC pipe that runs from NO. 162-164 Clovelly Road ending at 170 Clovelly Road (why is it draining to private property and not the right of way) we request that this be maintained and that the builders during excavation ensure that they do not block the drainage pipes which would back up to the downpipes at No. 162-164 Clovelly Road.

Noted and suitable conditions are included in relation to stormwater.

 


 

4.   Key Issues

 

Classification of development

The amended plans raised questions as to the permissibility of the development as shop top housing in so far as the amendment locating a studio (a residential use) at the rear of the shop facing Clovelly Road was not located above the shop premises and not classified as shop top housing as informed by Hrsto v Canterbury City Council (No. 2) [2014] NSWLEC 121. The applicant provided an addendum statement indicating that the development remained shop top housing by relying on the interpretation of a development as shop top housing made by the Land and Environment Court in Arco Iris Trading Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council 2015 [NSW] LEC 113. In short, the interpretation provided in Arco… was that despite a residential use being behind a shop, if that residential use is located above a shop-use with a separate frontage then it may be classified as shop top housing. Council sought legal opinion in relation to the addendum statement whereby it was indicated that the proposal could be considered as shop top housing as defined in the Standard Instrument and is therefore permissible development on the site.

 

Clause 4.6 exceptions to development standards

The proposed development exceeds the maximum height of buildings and floor space ratio development standards in Clauses 4.3 and 4.4 of the RLEP respectively. The height of the building is 11.89m, which exceed the maximum 9.5m standard by 2.39m representing a variation of 25%. The floor space ratio of the development is 1.075:1 exceeding the maximum 1:1 floor space ratio standard representing a variation of 7.5%.

 

The applicant has submitted an exception to the development standard as required under Clause 4.6 of the RLEP for both these standards. The applicant has provided well-founded arguments that the maximum standard for both the height of the building and floor space ratio should not be strictly applied. In relation to height, the proposal exceeds the maximum height of the building along a relatively small part of the development at the rear and does not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on the streetscape character or the amenity of the neighbouring properties which are key objectives under both the objectives of the B1 neighbourhood centre zone and the standard. In relation to floor space ratio, although the proposal exceeds the maximum standard, the proposal distributes floor area appropriately within the site and where necessary amendments such as increasing the front setback of the second floor level minimise the bulk and scale of the development, minimising adverse impacts on the streetscape character and the amenity of neighbouring properties are reasonably protected which are key objectives of the standard and the zone.

 

Solar access and overshadowing

The relevant controls in the DCP are:

 

i.   Commercial and mixed use development are not to reduce sunlight to adjacent dwellings below a minimum of 3 hours of sunlight on a portion of the windows of the habitable rooms between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

 

ii.  Where adjacent dwellings and their open space already receive less than the standard hours of sun, new development should seek to maintain this solar access where practicable.

 

iii. If suitably justified, Council may accept a reduction in solar access for the subject site and adjacent development if the topography and lot orientation are such that the standard is considered unreasonable.

 

There are two adjoining properties to the east being No. 172-180 Clovelly Road and to the west being No. 166-168 Clovelly Road.

-    Eastern side neighbour

 

In relation to the eastern neighbour, specifically the rear apartment No. 7 of 172-180 Clovelly Road, the proposed development does not result in loss of solar access to this neighbour’s living room window during the winter solstice.

 

-    Western side neighbour

 

In relation to the western neighbour’s rear yard at No. 166-168 Clovelly Road, the proposed development results in loss of solar access to a portion of the rear yard of the eastern neighbour after 8am and before 9am. This is the only solar access the rear yard currently receives during the winter solstice as it is overshadowed by its own building and by neighbouring buildings further west.

 

The loss of solar access is significant however as provided for by the DCP provisions, consideration needs to be given to the topography, lot orientation and scale of neighbouring development. On this basis, the north-south orientation of sites combined with sloping lower land at the rear, where the neighbour’s rear yard is located, means that any development located at the high northern part which is not inconsistent with the bulk and scale of developments along this side of Clovelly Road will have similar overshadowing consequences.

 

In accordance with the DCP, given the topography, lot orientation and scale of neighbouring development it is considered that that the additional shadowing to this neighbours property is largely an unavoidable consequence of the urban pattern of development on the subject site and the surrounding area in the neighbourhood centre zone, and not a result of inappropriate distribution of bulk or height associated with the proposed development.

 

Building heights

In neighbourhood centres with a 9.5m maximum height limit, development must not exceed 2 storeys in height (with the exception of habitable roof space/partial floor, which must be setback so as not to be visible from the street or incorporated into the roof design to have the appearance of a roof rather than an additional storey). Three storeys are proposed.

 

An assessment is required against the following objectives under the RDCP in relation to the number of storeys and the reduced floor to ceiling height at ground level:

 

·      To ensure an appropriate relationship between new development, street width and surrounding dwellings.

·      To ensure appropriate floor to ceiling heights within commercial buildings and to enable flexibility of uses through higher floor to ceiling heights for ground floor development.

·      To achieve a consistent built street edge height.

 

The DCP makes provisions for accepting an alternative number of storeys and/or floor to ceiling heights having regard to existing predominant storeys and or floor to ceiling heights within the centre and the character of the street. An assessment is carried out as follows:

 

-    Number of storeys

 

The proposed three storeys is generally similar to the height of the development to the west and the roof level extending 680mm higher than the existing parapet was originally only setback 400mm provided from the front and was not designed as a habitable roof form but rather would be clearly evident from street level and dominate the parapets across the site and neighbouring parapets. The amened plans received by Council, the subject of assessment increased the setback from the front to 1.2m thus reducing the prominence of the third storey (second level) whereby it reads as a roof form and imposes less on the street edge of existing similar parapets along this side of Clovelly Road. It is also noted that the adjoining building to the east is a five storey flat building and the corner development to the west has an upper level addition that is partially viewable from the public domain.

 

Overall, despite the development containing three storeys instead of the maximum 2 storeys permitted under the RDCP, it is considered that the proposed development will satisfy the relevant objectives.

 

Ground level floor to ceiling height

 

The proposed reduction of the ground level floor to ceiling height will not unduly impact on the streetscape as the existing awning currently drops down to below the internal ceiling height at ground level. In addition, Council’s Heritage Planner raises no objection to the proposed ground level works subject to the retention of the green tiles that frame the ground level. No objections are raised regarding the proposed second floor level.

 

Overall, in terms of character, it is considered that the increased setback of the second level will remain subservient to the main building form along Clovelly Road and the required retention of tiles along the ground level frontage will satisfy the relevant objectives under the DCP.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

That the Randwick Development Assessment Panel supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 4.3 and 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to maximum height of buildings and maximum floor space ratio, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning be advised accordingly.

 

That the application to Development Application No. DA/336/2017 for alterations and additions for shop top housing development comprising a new rear two storey building with garage (associated with commercial use) and 1 bedroom dwelling above, alterations to existing commercial premises fronting Clovelly Road and alterations and additions to 2 bedroom dwelling above at 170 Clovelly Road, Clovelly  NSW  2031 be approved (subject to conditions) for the following reasons:

 

·      The proposed development satisfies the matters for consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended

 

·      The proposal is consistent with the objectives contained within the RLEP 2012 and the relevant requirements of the RDCP 2013

 

·      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.

 

Non-standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.   All privacy screens must be constructed with either:

 

·      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.   Existing parapet detailing including string courses, pilasters and inset panels, are to be retained in conjunction with the widening of the original upper level balcony.  Amended drawings are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

c.   The existing original shopfront with tiled surround is to be retained in conjunction with the proposed development.  Amended drawings are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 


 

Detailed Assessment

5.   Section 4.15 matters for consideration

 

The site has been inspected and the application has been assessed having regard to Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended.

 

Section 4.15 ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

Section 4.15 (1)(a)(i) – Provisions of any environmental planning instrument

The site is zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent. See table below for compliance with development standards.

 

The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will provide the housing needs of the community whilst enhancing the aesthetic character and protecting the amenity of the local residents.

 

See assessment in the Executive Summary, key issues section relating to such matters as Clause 4.6 exception to the development standards for height of building, FSR and detailed assessment.

Section 4.15(1)(a)(ii) – Provisions of any draft environmental planning instrument

Nil.

Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) – Provisions of any development control plan

Refer to the “Policy Control” section of this report.

Section 4.15(1)(a)(iiia) – Provisions of any Planning Agreement or draft Planning Agreement

Not applicable.

Section 4.15(1)(a)(iv) – Provisions of the regulations

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

Section 4.15(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 proposal will not result in detrimental social or economic impacts on the locality.

Section 4.15(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 4.15(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 4.15(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.

 

5.1      Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

5.1.1   State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPS)

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

SEPP No. 55 aims to promote the remediation of contaminated land for the purposes of reducing risk of harm to human health or any other aspect of the environment. To assist in considering these matters, the SEPP requires consideration of a report on a preliminary investigation where a rezoning/development allows a change of use that may increase the risk to health or the environment from contamination.

 

A preliminary contamination assessment report was not provided, however upon a review of previous development consents issued for the site, it is not considered that the premises have been used for any potentially contaminating activities. Therefore, the site can be made suitable for the proposed development.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index BASIX) 2004

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

 

The applicant has submitted a BASIX certificate. The plans have been checked with regard to this certificate and they are generally consistent with the requirements indicated for DA stage. Conditions of consent requiring the continued compliance of the development with the SEPP: BASIX have been included.

 

5.1.2   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

 

The subject site is zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre under Randwick LEP 2012. The proposal development is classified as a Shop top housing development and is permissible in the zone. The zoning objectives are addressed in the Council executive summary report in the exception to the height of buildings development standard. In general it is considered that the proposed development will satisfy the relevant objectives for the B1 zone.

 

The following Clauses of RLEP 2012 apply to the proposal:

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

1:1

1.075:1 (7.5% variance)

No, see below

Height of Building (Maximum)

9.5m

11.89m (25% variance)

No, see below

Heritage Conservation

In accordance with Clause 5.10 of the RLEP 2012, the subject site is also in the vicinity of heritage item to the west at the corner of Carrington Road and Clovelly Road requiring an assessment against the relevant objectives under the RLEP.

 

Yes see assessment comment below.

The proposed development is primarily associated with works behind the façade of the development and where works are to the front façade or viewable from the street level that is within the visual catchment of the heritage item, the proposed works are not considered to detract from the significance of the item due to the works essentially reinstating elements such as the open 1st floor level balcony and the second floor level additions are considered to be subservient in nature to the primary built form of the development and other developments along this side of Clovelly Road.

 

Overall, having regard to the significance of the heritage item it is generally considered that the proposed development is non-intrusive and will satisfy the relevant objectives in the RLEP that seek to minimise the impact of development on the heritage conservation in the Randwick Local Government Area.

 

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to a Development Standard

 

a)  Building Height

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

 

Height

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Building Height

Development Standard

9.5m

Proposal

11.89m (RL65.36 - RL77.25); (Existing building has a height of 11.02m (RL65.55 - RL76.57).

Excess above RLEP Standard

25% (Existing variation 16%)

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Officer’s assessment of the Clause 4.6 exception

 

It is considered that the proposal meets the objectives of the standard and strict compliance with the maximum height standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case for the following reasons:

 

·      The non-compliance is a small section relative to the existing development on site and the departure is minor such that the end development will be indiscernible from a development of compliant height from the Clovelly Road frontage. The following image shows the height towards the Clovelly Road frontage is less than the 9.5m maximum height control.

 

 

Image: The yellow indicates those elements of building above the existing shown shaded grey.

 

·         The proposed additions at the front towards the Clovelly Road frontage are setback behind the front parapet. The front setback at second floor level ensures that the size and scale of development does not dominate the existing streetscape and will be subservient to the existing streetscape character and the desired future character of the locality.

·         The proposed development is located over the existing building footprint towards the rear and is compatible with the scale of the neighbouring developments.

·         Council’s Heritage Planner does not raise any significant matters of concern with the proposed scale of the development having regard to the existing heritage item at the western corner of Clovelly Road and Carrington Road which has a habitable upper level addition.

·         Overall, the bulk scale and height of the additions and relationship of built form with adjoining developments are considered acceptable. The non-compliant heights of the development does not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views.

 

In conclusion, the applicant’s written request has successfully demonstrated that compliance with the development standard in question is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

 

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

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

 

It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives because it’s built form subject to condition is sympathetic to the existing commercial and residential environment in terms of massing and built form, it does not detract from the nearby heritage item and will not have any unacceptable impacts on the amenity of residents.

 

The proposed development is considered to be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the standard and the relevant objectives for development within Zone B1 - Neighbourhood Centre and the relevant objectives in the adjoining Residential R3 zone.

 

Does the Council have delegation to exercise the concurrence function of the

Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for development that contravenes a development standard? If so:

 

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

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

 

Comments:

Pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 08–003 (dated 9 May 2008) the concurrence of the Director- General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed to the granting of development consent to the development that contravenes the development standard for the maximum allowable FSR of buildings in clause 4.4 of RLEP 2012.

 

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

 

The proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. However, strict adherence to the numerical standard will be unnecessary in this case for maintaining the density of commercial and residential development envisaged under the LEP for the locality.

 

b)  Request to vary development standard - Floor Space Ratio

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

 

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

Development Standard

1:1 (173.46sqm)

Proposal

1.075:1 (186.5sqm)

Excess above RLEP Standard

7.5% (13.04sqm)

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

(b)    to ensure that 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 in the main outline the following key arguments for the departure from the standard:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Officer’s assessment of the Clause 4.6 exception

 

It is considered that the proposal as amended meets the objectives of the standard and strict compliance with the maximum FSR is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case for the following reasons:

 

·       The bulk and scale of the loft addition is predominantly sited behind the front section of the parapet along Clovelly Road. With the increased setbacks from the front the proposed bulk and scale of the development will be compatible with the streetscape character and not result in any significant adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties.

·       The proposed development is sufficiently articulated and responds to environmental and energy needs of future occupants in a difficult site.

·       The compatibility of the proposed development, which is in close proximity to a local heritage item has been supported by Council’s Heritage Planner.

·       The proposed development adequately takes account of impacts on adjoining properties in respect of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views having particular regard to the distribution of floor area throughout the site and that envisaged in the neighbourhood centre zone;

·       The additional floor area is large contained within the footprint at the front and is generally consistent with the coverage and siting of development along this side of Clovelly Road and that envisaged for the neighbourhood centre zone

·       The provision of housing in the form of a two bedroom and one bedroom apartment is consistent with the uses envisaged for the site and the surrounding area providing additional housing and choice. The primary business function of the site is also maintained inclusive of the right of way at the rear.

 

In conclusion, the applicant’s written request has successfully demonstrated that compliance with the development standard in question is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the FSR standard detailed by the applicant and assessed in the planning comments above. The objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (Zone B1 – Neighbourhood Centre) are:

 

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

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

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

 

It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives because its bulk and scale are sympathetic to the existing adjoining residential and business environment and built form. The built form will not detract from the adjoining shop top housing developments to the west and the Local Heritage item in proximity to the site. The proposed developments distribution of bulk has carefully considered the amenity of the neighbouring properties and will not result in any unacceptable impacts on the amenity of residents.

 

The proposed development is considered to be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the standard and the relevant objectives for development within Zone B1 – Neighbourhood Centre zone to the west and the adjoining Zone R3 - Medium Density Residential to the east.

 

Does the Council have delegation to exercise the concurrence function of the

Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for development that contravenes a development standard? If so:

 

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

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

 

Comments:

Pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 08–003 (dated 9 May 2008) the concurrence of the Director- General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed to the granting of development consent to the development that contravenes the development standard for the maximum allowable FSR of buildings in clause 4.4 of RLEP 2012.

 

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

 

The proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. However, strict adherence to the numerical standard will be unnecessary in this case for maintaining the density of development envisaged under the RLEP for the locality.

 

Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013

 

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

 

The relevant provisions of the DCP are addressed below.

 

B6 Recycling and Waste Management

 

DCP Clause

Control

 

Compliance

4.

On-Going Operation

 

 

 

(iv) Locate and design the waste storage facilities to visually and physically complement the design of the development. Avoid locating waste storage facilities between the front alignment of a building and the street where possible.

 

No impact on streetscape

 

(v)  Locate the waste storage facilities to minimise odour and acoustic impacts on the habitable rooms of the proposed development, adjoining and neighbouring properties.

 

Internal with tap and hose

 

(vi) Screen the waste storage facilities through fencing and/or landscaping where possible to minimise visual impacts on neighbouring properties and the public domain.

 

 

No visual impact on public domain

 

(vii) Ensure the waste storage facilities are easily accessible for all users and waste collection personnel and have step-free and unobstructed access to the collection point(s).

 

 

Access through central courtyard

 

(viii)Provide sufficient storage space within each dwelling / unit to hold a single day’s waste and to enable source separation.

 

 

Cupboards under the kitchen sink can accommodate daily waste

 

(ix) Bin enclosures / rooms must be ventilated, fire protected, drained to the sewerage system and have lighting and water supply.

 

 

Conditioned.

B7

Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access

3.

Parking & Service Delivery Requirements

 

Car parking requirements:

1space per 2 studios

1 space per 1-bedroom unit (over 40m2)

1.2 spaces per 2-bedroom unit

1.5 spaces per 3- or more bedroom unit

1 visitor space per 4 dwellings

 

 

See development engineer’s comments further below and Council executive summary report.

 

Motor cycle requirements:

5% of car parking requirement

 

 

No parking required

4.

Bicycles

 

Residents:

1 bike space per 2 units

Visitors:

1 per 10 units

 

Conditioned to provide two bicycle spaces for each apartment – can be located in the courtyard.

 

Part D6 Neighbourhood Centre

 

The subject site is listed as being subject to the controls in part D6 neighbourhood centres in the RDCP 2013.

 

DCP Clause

Controls

Proposal

Compliance

 

Classification

Zoning =  B1

Permissible

2

Site planning

 

 

2.1

Lot size and frontage

 

 

173.46sqm 6.325m frontage width

3

Building envelope

3.1

Floor space ratio LEP 2012 = 1:1

Proposed FSR = 1.083:1

See Clause 4.6 exception

3.2

Building height

 

 

 

Maximum overall height LEP 2012  = 9.5m

Proposed = 11.89m

See Clause 4.6 exception

 

i)   In neighbourhood centres with a 9.5m maximum height limit, development must not exceed 2 storeys in height (with the exception of habitable roof space/partial floor, which must be setback so as not to be visible from the street or incorporated into the roof design to have the appearance of a roof rather than an additional storey).

 

Three storeys are proposed. The roof level is 680mm higher than the existing parapet and a setback of only 400mm from the front north-western corner and will detract from the consistent front parapet exhibited along the front of properties west of the site.

 

 

No see comments below.

 

 

 

Minimum floor to ceiling heights:

 

Ground floor level 3.3m

Levels above 2.7m

 

Alternatively demonstrate the suitability of an alternative number of storeys and/or floor to ceiling heights having regard to:

- existing predominant storeys and/or floor to ceiling heights within the centre

- Character of the street.

Ground level 2.80m

 

 

 

Levels above 2.7m

No, see key issues section

 

 

Yes

2.4

Setbacks

2.4.1

Front setbacks

i) Development fronting a primary road above 9.5m requires a 2m setback

 

 

 

The proposed development facing Clovelly Road has a height of 9m. The top level is also setback from the front. See discussion under building heights and Clause 4.6

Yes

 

 

 

 

3.3.3

Rear setbacks

i)      Where the site has rear lane access, car parking structures (hardstand car space, carport or garage) and ancillary development must have a 1m minimum setback from the rear boundary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ii)     All ancillary buildings fronting laneways must have a maximum height of not more than 6m. The maximum external wall height is limited to 4.5m.

Any upper level (for instance, storey above garage) must be contained within the roof form as an attic storey.

 

 

The subject site has rear right of way which has the characteristics of a laneway providing vehicle access for several properties along this side of Clovelly Road with access running through from Carrington Road to Clovelly Road.

 

5.9m. The proposed rear building aligns with the rear alignments of other buildings and has a significant rear setback which lessens the degree to which it can be considered to be an outbuilding.

 

The proposed garage is setback more than 1m from the rear frontage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

3.3.2

Side setbacks:

Setbacks for alterations and additions to dwelling in B1 zones, redevelopment must address the residential sections of the DCP.

 

Where the site’s side boundary adjoins land in a business zone, provide a zero meter side setback. The western side boundary adjoins a business zone opposite the site at No. 166-168 Clovelly Road.

 

Where a side boundary of the site forms the edge of a business zone or, adjoins land in a non-business zone (and not separated by a road), provide a minimum 3m setback from the side boundary for a minimum of 60% of the allotment depth.

The eastern side boundary adjoins the R3 zone. The eastern side boundary adjoins a residential zone (R3) opposite the five storey flat building at No. 172-180 Clovelly Road.

 

For constrained sites, Council may consider a variation to the standard if the proposal can demonstrate that a reduced setback will suitably address privacy and solar access to the neighbouring properties.

 

 

The proposed development is for shop top housing

 

 

Varying side setbacks of between nil and 2.5m from the western side boundary.

 

 

The proposal has a nil eastern side boundary setback.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

No side setback required from the western side.

 

 

 

No, see merit assessment below.

 

 

Comment:

 

Objectives for setbacks under Part D6 of the DCP:

 

·      To define the street edge and establish or maintain the desired spatial proportions of development on the street.

·      To ensure a development does not detrimentally affect the amenity of adjoining residential development.

·      To ensure any building fronting a rear lane has a scale and mass secondary to the main dwelling on the site, and is appropriate for the width of the lane.

 

Eastern side setback adjoining No. 172-180 Clovelly Road

 

Having regard to the objectives above, a greater side setback is not required for the following reasons:

 

·      The condition imposed requiring a greater front setback for the upper level ensures a consistent street edge and spatial proportions relative to the neighbouring flat building to the east and the wider streetscape;

·      The nil eastern side setback is not directly opposite habitable room windows being predominately located either alongside existing zero lot alignment walls or non-habitable areas within apartments;

·      The amendments made to the development will ensure that a view corridor is retained from the living and bedroom windows of apartment 7 at the rear of No. 172-180 Clovelly Road. Moreover, these windows are at least three metres from the proposed development;

3

Building design

3.1

General - facades

 

Where a development has two street frontages, each façade treatment must respond to the buildings in those streets.

The façade treatment at the Clovelly Road frontage is conditioned to maintain the existing green brick tiles as per recommendation by Council’s Heritage Planner.

 

The rear right of way is dominated by garages at ground level and residential and or commercial premises above. The proposed development steps in from the right of way and the cantilevered balcony above provides good articulation and visual interest. The materials used in the façade are considered appropriate.

Yes see comments at left.

 

iv) Distinguish residential entries from commercial/retail entries in the case of mixed use development.

The residential entry and commercial entries are separate from each other.

Yes

 

Balconies to the street facade are to be recessed behind the principal building facade.

The proposed first and second floor balconies are located behind the existing Clovelly Road façade.

 

The rear balcony is located forward of the garage below.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

No, however the proposed balcony at first floor level is appropriately located having regard to the streetscape in that it introduces both articulation and visual interest along the right of way. The stepping back of the garage also assist with provision of permitted landscaping that will soften the site as viewed from the right of way. 

 

Balcony balustrades should comprise a light open/glazed material and should be compatible with the style of the

building

The proposed rear balustrade is an open style, inclusive of screens to restrict outlook across to the rear apartment at No. 7/172-180 Clovelly Road.

 

The front balconies are solid façade which is appropriate given the existing façade compliments the dominant neighbouring facade.

Yes

3.2

Roof forms

 

i) In centres where parapet forms are prevalent, development should include parapets that reflect the rhythm, scale and detailing of existing parapets.

 

ii) Provide flat roofs where these prevail across the centre, unless the site conditions justify an alternative roof form

(eg. Corner sites).

 

iii) Design roof forms to generate a visually interesting skyline, while minimising apparent bulk and potential for overshadowing. The style and pitch of new roofs should relate sympathetically to neighbouring buildings.

 

 

 

iv) Relate roof forms to the size and scale of the building, the building elevation and the three dimensional building form.

 

The proposed roof form is relatively flat and appropriate for the site. The proposed roof is lower than the roof of the eastern neighbour’s hipped roof form.

 

 

The proposed flat roof is appropriate for the site and sympathetic in terms of reducing the overall mass of the development as viewed from the public domain.

 

The roof over a reduced footprint provides a subservient bulk to the larger levels below.

Conditioned

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes – see comment at left.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes – see comment at left.

 

3.4

Colours, Materials and Finishes

 

i) Utilise high quality and durable materials and finishes which require minimal maintenance.

ii) Combine different materials and finishes to assist building articulation and modulation. The use of face bricks and/or natural stone cladding may assist the integration of new development into the existing streetscape.

iii) The following materials are  considered incompatible:

· Large wall tiles;

· Rough textured render and/or bagged finish;

· Curtain walls; and

· Highly reflective or mirror glass.

iv) Avoid large expanses of any single material to facades.

v) Visible light reflectivity from building materials used on the facades of new buildings should not exceed 20%.

 

Conditioned

4.3

Vehicular Access

 

i) Where new development has access available off rear laneways or side streets, vehicular access must be provided from the laneway or side streets.

ii) Where no alternative street frontage is available:

• Demonstrate alternative sustainable measures for meeting parking and delivery requirements.

• The entry to the building should be designed to give priority to pedestrians by maintaining a constant grade for the footpath crossing for pedestrians.

• Before the exit from the site, speed bumps and or warning signs to give way to pedestrians should be provided. The vehicle crossing area of the footpath should be identified by pavement blending with the footpath treatment as required by Council’s Engineering Services.

iii) Design driveways to minimise visual impact on the street and maximise pedestrian safety. Setback any rear lane garage doors 1 metres from the laneway alignment.

iv) Avoid locating access ways to driveways adjacent to the doors or windows of habitable rooms.

Retain existing carspace.

Generally considered suitable see Development engineering comments in the executive IHAP report.

5

Amenity

5.1

Solar access and overshadowing

 

Solar access to proposed development:

 

 

 

i) Commercial and mixed use development are not to reduce sunlight to adjacent dwellings below a minimum of 3 hours of sunlight on a portion of the windows of the habitable rooms between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

 

ii) Where adjacent dwellings and their open space already receive less than the standard hours of sun, new development should seek to maintain this solar access where practicable.

 

iii) If suitably justified, Council may accept a reduction in solar access for the subject site and adjacent development if the topography and lot orientation are such that the standard is considered unreasonable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

iv) Ensure that building layouts facilitate good solar access to both internal and external living spaces (e.g. Ideally locate living areas to the north and east, and service areas to the south and west of the development).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The building layout is north-south and the southern dwelling will not be able to receive solar access during the winter solstice. Solar access is restricted by this orientation and the bulk and scale of existing and surrounding development. It is important to note that if the development were restricted to a compliant height it would not achieve any benefits of solar access to the rear dwelling. This rear dwelling has been located further within the site to minimise the amenity impacts on the existing flat 7 at No. 172-184 Clovelly Road.

See discussion of overshadowing in the key issues section of the IHAP report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

See comment at left

5.2

Acoustic and Visual Privacy

 

i) Developments are to be designed to minimise noise transmission by:

•   Locating busy noisy areas next to each other and quieter areas next to each other;

•   Locating bedrooms away from busy roads and other noise sources;

•   Using storage or circulation areas within a dwelling to buffer noise from adjacent apartments, mechanical services or corridors/lobbies.

•   Avoid locating wet areas, such as toilets, laundries and kitchens, adjacent to bedrooms of adjoining dwellings.

 

 

Most internal areas are appropriately located within the site relative to neighbouring properties.

 

The one bedroom apartment is located over the commercial carspace. The use of the future hours of operation of the commercial premises will have to be considered in the context of the residential use above.  Operating the carspace during the exempt hours of 7am to 7pm will not result in any adverse impacts on the amenity of the one bedroom apartment above.

 

 

Yes – see comment at left

6

Shop top housing

 

i)        Entries to residential apartments are to be separated from commercial entries to provide security and an identifiable address for each of the different users.

 

 

ii) Each dwelling must be provided with private open space directly accessible from its living area, in the form of either a balcony at least 2m deep.

 

 

iii) Private open spaces should be:

· located adjacent to and accessible from the main living areas of the dwelling;

· located so as to maximise solar access, i.e. preferably orientated from north-east to north-west;

· located to ensure privacy and away from noisy locations, where possible; and

· screened by vegetation or a wall to ensure privacy.

Entries are separate. Commercial entry is off Clovelly Road and access from the parking space is along the western side passageway

 

Each dwelling is provided with an area of open space directly connected to living space.

 

The north facing front apartment receives abundant solar access. The rear apartment does not which is a consequence of its southern orientation and inherently vulnerability to shadowing by its own building and neighbouring buildings containing similar if not larger bulk and scale to that being proposed.

 

Overall, the development has been designed and located away from the rear boundary such that it will retain good levels of privacy for both the occupants and neighbouring properties.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

See comment at left.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Planner comment: The size and configuration of the balconies is largely driven by the existing narrow site and skewed front and rear boundaries. The rear balcony has specifically been designed to minimise adverse impacts on the neighbour’s properties. Both balconies are capable of accommodating a table and two chairs which is the minimum that would be required under the Apartment Design Guide - the design criteria document for the design quality of residential apartments under SEPP 65.

 

1.         Referral Comments

 

Development Engineer and Landscape Officer

The following comments were provided by Councils Development Engineer and Landscape Officer.

 

An amended application has been received for alterations and additions to the existing mixed use development including construction of a new two storey building with garage and offices, alterations to existing commercial premises and shop top housing fronting Clovelly Road and new second floor addition to the shop top housing.at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Amended Architectural Plans by ANA Architects  dated 12th October 2017;

·      Amended Statement of Environmental Effects by Planning Ingenuity dated 12th October 2017

·      Stormwater Concept Plans by Storm Consulting dated 15th November 2017.

 

General Comments

All issues raised in memo dated 4th August 2017 have been satisfactorily addressed with the amended plans. The amened plans have significantly altered the location of the garage which is now situated well within the site. The amended garage will be able to comply with the minimum requirements of AS 2890.1. All

 

 

 

Parking Provision Comments

Existing and proposed parking demand has been assessed using the following parking rates specified in Part B7 of Council’s DCP 2013;

 

Business premises = 1 space per 40m’

 

Residential unit      = 1.2 spaces per 2 bedroom unit

                          = 1.0 spaces per 1 bedroom unit

       

Existing Development

The site currently consists of approximately 49m2 of existing retail/studio spaces plus an existing residential unit on the first floor. The SEE states this is a 2 bedroom unit however the submitted plans appear to indicate it is a 1 bedroom only. There is currently no provision for off-street parking on the site.

 

Existing Parking Demand    = 1.0 (residential) + 1.2 (commercial)

                                      = 2.2 spaces

 

Existing parking provision   = 0 spaces

 

Existing parking shortfall    = 2.2 spaces

 

 

Sec 3.2 Part B7 of Council’s DCP 2013 states;

 

“Where Development comprises an extension, modification or change of use to an existing development, Council will generally only require that additional parking be provided to cater for the additional demands arising from increases in floor space or changes in use”

 

The existing parking shortfall of 2.2 spaces will be applied as a parking credit to the proposed development as the application need only address any additional parking demand resulting from the proposed development.

 

Proposed Development

The amended proposal has removed some of the retail/office area to reduce it to a total of 35.9m2and replaced it with a one bedroom/studio unit. A single two bedroom unit is also proposed on the first and second floor.

 

Proposed Parking Demand          = 1.2 + 1.0 (residential) + 35.9/40 (commercial)

                                             = 3.2(residential) + 0.9

                                             = 4.1 spaces

 

Parking Requirement after application of 2.2 space parking credit = 4.1 - 2.2 = 1.9 spaces

 

Proposed Parking Provision         = 1 space

 

 

Proposed Parking shortfall   = 0.9 spaces

= or 0.4 spaces if the 1 bedroom unit is assessed as a studio

 

The increase in the parking shortfall is less than one space and not expected to create any unacceptable impacts on the surrounding street network.  It is proposed to allocate the single space to retail with no objections raised by Development engineering.

 

To compensate for the small parking shortfall it is considered additional bicycle parking is appropriate. It is noted this has been provided within the basement storage room, however a condition has also been included in this report requiring a minimum of two bicycle spaces.

 

Parking Layout Comments

The amended plans indicate the internal dimensions of the relocated garage will be 3.49m x 5.8m with a minimum head clearance of 2.2m. This will satisfy the minimum requirements of AS 2890.1 and no objections are raised.

 

Upon site inspection it was noted The Right of way at the rear of the site is signposted one way with vehicles entering the site from Carrington road to the west and exiting to the east on Clovelly Road.  A swept path analysis submitted with the amended basement plan successfully demonstrates vehicles will be able to satisfactorily enter & exit the site.

 

Drainage Comments

The subject site has fall towards the Right of Way located at the rear of the site and it was not stated in the submitted documentation what the present method of stormwater disposal entails.

 

The DA Stormwater Advice by Storm Consulting initially contained insufficient detail on the existing and proposed means of stormwater disposal. It only stated that the development should be “permitted to simply use the existing stormwater connection” without actually detailing what the existing means of stormwater disposal for the site is.

 

Further information was requested in this regard in memo dated 4th August 2017 as it was suspected the existing dwelling may be discharging its stormwater illegally to the Right of way located at the rear of the site. A Drainage Concept Plan was requested and has now been received detailing discharge to the kerb and gutter on Clovelly road and an infiltration area in the rear yard.

 

 A geotechnical investigation has not yet been undertaken in the rear yard confirming site conditions are suitable for infiltration hence the Planning Officer is advised that the submitted drainage plans should not be approved in conjunction with the DA, rather, the Development Engineer has included a number of conditions in this memo that relate to drainage design requirements. The applicant is required to submit detailed drainage plans to the certifying authority for approval prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

Flooding Comments

The Council commissioned and adopted Coogee Bay Flood study does not indicate the subject site will be susceptible to flooding.  The property has not been tagged as being subject to flood related development controls.

 

Waste Management Comments

The residential component will require the minimum provision of 1 x 240l bin for garbage plus 1 x 240L bin for recycling. This can be accommodated on the basement level waste storage room.

 

 A bin storage area for the retail tenancy is located in the centre of the site at ground level adjacent to the eastern boundary large enough to accommodate 6 x 240L bins.

 

The waste storage arrangements are considered satisfactory.

 

Planning comment: An additional carspace is able to be accommodated in front of the garage as it will have minimum length of 5.8m. Whilst this will still be allocated for use by the commercial premises with a continuing shortfall in parking for the residential premises it will be able to be used for a loading space which could be used for short periods of time and alleviate some pressure on on-street parking.

 

Heritage planner:

 

The Site

The site is occupied by a two storey Interwar building comprising ground floor retail and upper floor residential/commercial, with a lower ground floor level created by the fall of the site.  To the east of the site is a four storey development with blank ground floor walls to the street, and upper levels substantially set back from the street.  To the west of the site, at nos.166 – 168 Clovelly Road, is a similar pair of two storey Interwar shops.  Further to the west at no.81A Carrington Road is an Art Deco residential flat building, listed as a heritage item under Randwick LEP 2012.  The Randwick Heritage Study Inventory Sheet Inventory Sheet makes note of the skyscraper style of the building, and decorative textured brickwork with central parapet, terracotta shingles on bays and stone portal. 

 

Proposal

The application proposes alterations and addition to the existing building to provide a two bedroom unit at the front of the site above the existing retail space, and a one bedroom unit at the rear of the site above a new garage.  At the front of the site, the existing two storey building plus lower ground floor level is to be replaced by a new three storey building, plus lower ground floor level.  The existing front façade is to be retained, with the additional level largely screened by the existing parapet.  At the rear of the site an existing single story studio building adjacent to the vehicular accessway, is to be replaced by a two story building including ground level carparking, set back from the accessway.  A central courtyard is to provide partial separation between the front and rear buildings. 

 

Submission

The application has been accompanied by a Statement of Environmental Effects (a large proportion of which has been scanned upside down).  The SEE has noted the heritage item in the vicinity, but appears not to have addressed the heritage impact of the proposal. 

 

Controls

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

 

Comments

The heritage item provides a three storey residential component with entrance from Carrington Road and a two storey residential component over ground level retail with awning to Clovelly Road.  The heritage item occupies is a prominent location on the corner of Clovelly Road and Carrington Road, and the scale, bulk and design features including higher stepped parapet above the entrance and the shingled bay at the corner, reinforce its landmark character. 

 

The existing building includes original shopfront with tiled surround and evidence of an original upper level balcony, now enclosed.  There appears to be some scope for retention rather than removal of the existing shopfront.  It is unclear whether the application proposes to retain existing parapet detailing including string courses, pilasters and inset panels, are able to be retained in conjunction with the widening of the original upper level balcony. 

 

The proposed front building will be around 1m higher than the existing parapet.  Due to the splayed front boundary, the setback of the upper level will vary between 0 and 3.3m.  In relation to the Clovelly Road site frontage, the development will be compatible with the scale of the existing façade and the adjacent buildings to the west, and will have limited streetscape visibility.  The proposed rear building will have a two storey scale, with a rear setback varying between 3.4m and 4.3m.  The four storey building to the east of the subject site has a considerably greater height than the proposed development.  The rear accessway elevation of the heritage item comprises a secondary frontage with a largely blank wall with aluminium windows and a pair of garages with access from Carrington Road.  In relation to the rear accessway site frontage, the development will be significantly lower in height than the heritage item. 

 

The proposed development will largely maintain the existing streetscape context of the heritage item and will not challenge its dominance on the Clovelly Road/Carrington Road corner.  The proposed development is separated from the heritage item and will not impact on its fabric, streetscape setting to Clovelly Road or Carrington Road and will not impact on views to or from the heritage item.  There are no heritage objections to the proposed materials and finishes. 

 

Recommendation

The following conditions should be included in any consent: 

 

·      Existing parapet detailing including string courses, pilasters and inset panels, are to be retained in conjunction with the widening of the original upper level balcony.  Amended drawings are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. 

 

·      The existing original shopfront with tiled surround is to be retained in conjunction with the proposed development.  Amended drawings are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That the RDAP supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 4.3 and 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to height of buildings and floor space ratio, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning and Environment be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That the RDAP, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 4.16 and 4.17 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/336/2017 for alterations and additions for shop top housing development comprising a new rear two storey building with ground level garage (associated with commercial use), 1st floor one bedroom dwelling and alterations and additions to existing commercial premises fronting Clovelly Road, 2 bedroom dwelling above, at No. 170 Clovelly Road, Randwick, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development consent conditions report attached to this report:

 

 

 

 

Non-standard conditions

 

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.   All privacy screens must be constructed with either:

 

·      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.   Existing parapet detailing including string courses, pilasters and inset panels, are to be retained in conjunction with the widening of the original upper level balcony.  Amended drawings are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

c.   The existing original shopfront with tiled surround is to be retained in conjunction with the proposed development.  Amended drawings are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.


 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Development Consent Conditions - 170 Clovelly Road, RANDWICK (DA/ 336/2017)

 

 

 

 


Development Consent Conditions - 170 Clovelly Road, RANDWICK (DA/ 336/2017)

Attachment 1

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Randwick Development Assessment Panel                                                               22 March 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D3/18

 

Subject:             4B Neptune Street, Coogee (DA/640/2017)

Folder No:                   DA/640/2017

Author:                   Plandev Pty Ltd, Thomas Mithen      

 

Proposal:                    Integrated development for upgrade works to Wylie's Baths including repairs to pool walls, installation of pre-cast wall panels to the upper portion of the northern and southern pool walls, new steps into the pool and a new pool valve in the eastern wall of the pool (Heritage Item). Consent is also required from NSW Office of Environment and Heritage

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                Randwick City Council

Owner:                        NSW Department of Lands - Crown Land Division

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=811b18e8-38f1-41d4-94ea-db3157c2222c&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

 

Executive summary

 

The application is referred to the Randwick Development Assessment Panel (RDAP) as the applicant is Council.

 

Proposal

 

The application seeks approval for upgrade works to Wylie's Baths. The proposal includes:

 

·      repairs to leaking pool walls with grout injection particularly in the south-eastern corner, the northern wall, and the eastern wall near the existing pool drain valve;

·      installation of pre-cast wall panels 1m high x 1.2m long x 50mm thick fixed with cementitious water proof grout directly to the upper portion of the existing northern and southern pool walls for the full width of the pool;

·      unblocking existing pool overflow slots;

·      demolition of existing steps and construction of new steps with handrails to the pool edge and into the pool; and

·      a new pool drain valve in the eastern wall of the pool to enable the whole pool to be drained for maintenance of the interior.

 

The purpose of the proposed works is to improve pool drainage and ease of maintenance, allow better access into the pool and protect swimmers from marine growth and sea urchins on the pool walls. The works will also involve removal of marine growth on the existing wall surfaces in order to attach the new pre-cast wall panels and associated with unblocking the existing overflow drainage slots. The new pre-cast panel surfaces and new pool drain valve will also facilitate ongoing future removal of marine growth from the pool interior.

 

The proposed development constitutes ‘integrated development’ under Section 91 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as approval is required from NSW Office of Environment and Heritage under the Heritage Act 1977.

 

Site Description and Locality

 

The subject site is legally described as Lots 1798 and 1799 in DP 822244 and forms part of Crown Reserve (R35160).

 

The site has an area of 5,356m2 and is irregular in shape with access via stairs from Neptune Park.

 

The site contains a 45m rock and concrete ocean swimming pool and associated changerooms, kiosk and elevated boardwalk and deck below street level. The pool is located on a natural rock shelf below the high tide mark with concrete walls around four sides and the depth of the pool varies from about 0.5m in the south-west corner to about 1.6m in the north-east corner.

 

The site of the proposed development is adjacent to Trenerry Reserve and Grant Reserve to the south and west, respectively, and the waterways of Coogee to the north and east. 

 

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

 

Heritage Impacts

The subject site is identified as a heritage item (I94) with state significance and is listed on the State Heritage Register as ‘Wylies Baths’ (SHR No. 5050360). The proposal was accompanied by a Heritage Impact Statement prepared by GML Heritage, which concludes that the proposal will not create any adverse heritage impacts and would make a positive contribution to the social significance of the place by facilitating the continued public use of the facility. Council’s Heritage Advisor has reviewed the proposal and raised no objections subject to conditions.

 

Furthermore, the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (as delegate of the Heritage Council of NSW) has provided General Terms of Approval, dated 24 January 2018, under Section 91A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Coastal Protection

The proposal involves minor upgrade works to the existing swimming facility at or below ground level including provision of new steps into the pool and upgrade to the internal pool walls and drains. It will facilitate the continued public use of Wylie’s Baths while maintaining and protecting the environmental and aesthetic values of the site. The proposal will result in improved public access to the swimming pool with the provision of new steps with handrail and will not result in any adverse Aboriginal heritage, stormwater, water quality, or coastal hazard impacts.

 

It is noted that the accompanying plans and Statement of Environmental Effects indicate the proposal will facilitate the removal of existing and future marine growth on the southern and northern pool walls and within the blocked pool drains. This reflects the existing nature of the ocean tidal swimming pool, which is located on a natural rock shelf below the high tide mark with concrete and rock walls. Ongoing maintenance is required in order to protect swimmers from growth on the pool walls and enable the draining of the pool for easier maintenance of the interior. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal will not result in any adverse ecological impacts given these ongoing maintenance requirements reflect an existing situation. In addition, the applicant has provided written confirmation from the Department of Primary Industries that a permit under the Fisheries Management Act, 1994 will not be required for the proposed works that are occurring within the pool itself.

 

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 $297,295 and forms part of the Wylie’s Baths upgrade designated within the 2017-2018 capital works budget.

 

 

Conclusion

 

That the application for minor upgrade works to Wylie’s Baths at or below ground level including provision of new steps into the pool and upgrade to the internal pool walls and drains be approved (subject to conditions) for the following reasons:

 

·              The proposed development satisfies the matters for consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended

 

·              The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the RE1 zone contained within the RLEP 2012 and the relevant requirements of the RDCP 2013.

 

·              The minor upgrade works to facilitate the continued public use of Wylie’s Baths while maintaining and protecting the environmental and aesthetic values of the site is consistent with the Coogee Beach Foreshore Plan of Management and will not result in any adverse heritage, ecological, stormwater, water quality, or coastal hazard impacts.

 

Non-standard conditions

 

2.       All of the requirements of the General Terms of Approval, dated 24 January 2018, issued by the Office of Environment and Heritage must be completed. An application under section 60 of the Heritage Act 1977 must be submitted to and approved by the Delegate of the Heritage Council of NSW prior to work commencing.

 

3.       In the event any material or additional information is uncovered during construction that involves potential impacts to any likely Aboriginal objects or archaeological relics or flora and fauna, all works are to cease and appropriate investigation is to be undertaken by a suitably qualified consultant and any relevant approvals obtained.      

 

4.       The colour and finish of the new structural concrete elements are to be compatible with the existing sandstone and concrete surfaces. 

 

5.       The new wall panels shall be extended along the full length of the northern and southern pool walls only and must not extend to the eastern and western sides of the pool. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Detailed Assessment

1.         Section 4.15 matters for consideration

 

The site has been inspected and the application has been assessed having regard to Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended.

 

Section 4.15 ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

Section 4.15 (1)(a)(i) – Provisions of any environmental planning instrument

The site is zoned RE 1 Public Recreation 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 proposal will be compatible with the existing and desired future character of the locality. It will facilitate the continued public use of Wylie’s Baths while maintaining the environmental and aesthetic values of the site in accordance with the Coogee Beach Foreshore Plan of Management.

Section 4.15(1)(a)(ii) – Provisions of any draft environmental planning instrument

As outlined in this Report, the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2016.

Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) – Provisions of any development control plan

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

Section 4.15(1)(a)(iiia) – Provisions of any Planning Agreement or draft Planning Agreement

Not applicable.

Section 4.15(1)(a)(iv) – Provisions of the regulations

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

Section 4.15(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, which are otherwise not addressed in this report, are discussed in the paragraphs below.

 

The proposed development is consistent with the recreational values of an existing recreation area, being Wylie’s Baths. The proposal would not result in detrimental social or economic impacts on the locality and is considered likely to result in positive social impacts in the locality.

 

Section 4.15(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 4.15(1)(d) – Any submissions made in accordance with the EP&A Act or EP&A Regulation

No submissions were received by Council.

Section 4.15(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.

 

2.         Integrated Development

 

The proposed development constitutes ‘integrated development’ under Section 91 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as approval is required from NSW Office of Environment and Heritage under the Heritage Act 1977.

 

The NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (as delegate of the Heritage Council of NSW) has provided General Terms of Approval (GTA), dated 24 January 2018, under Section 91A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The GTAs have been included as a condition in the recommended development consent.

 

3.         Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

3.1      State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPS)

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 – Coastal Protection

The subject site is located within the coastal zone. Clause 8 provides the following matters for consideration:

 

The matters for consideration are the following:

(a)  the aims of this Policy set out in clause 2,

(b)  existing public access to and along the coastal foreshore for pedestrians or persons with a disability should be retained and, where possible, public access to and along the coastal foreshore for pedestrians or persons with a disability should be improved,

(c)  opportunities to provide new public access to and along the coastal foreshore for pedestrians or persons with a disability,

(d)  the suitability of development given its type, location and design and its relationship with the surrounding area,

(e)  any detrimental impact that development may have on the amenity of the coastal foreshore, including any significant overshadowing of the coastal foreshore and any significant loss of views from a public place to the coastal foreshore,

(f)  the scenic qualities of the New South Wales coast, and means to protect and improve these qualities,

(g)  measures to conserve animals (within the meaning of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995) and plants (within the meaning of that Act), and their habitats,

(h)  measures to conserve fish (within the meaning of Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act 1994) and marine vegetation (within the meaning of that Part), and their habitats

(i)  existing wildlife corridors and the impact of development on these corridors,

(j)  the likely impact of coastal processes and coastal hazards on development and any likely impacts of development on coastal processes and coastal hazards,

(k)  measures to reduce the potential for conflict between land-based and water-based coastal activities,

(l)  measures to protect the cultural places, values, customs, beliefs and traditional knowledge of Aboriginals,

(m)  likely impacts of development on the water quality of coastal waterbodies,

(n)  the conservation and preservation of items of heritage, archaeological or historic significance,

(o)  only in cases in which a council prepares a draft local environmental plan that applies to land to which this Policy applies, the means to encourage compact towns and cities,

(p)  only in cases in which a development application in relation to proposed development is determined:

(i)  the cumulative impacts of the proposed development on the environment, and

(ii)  measures to ensure that water and energy usage by the proposed development is efficient.

Note.

 Clause 92 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 requires the Government Coastal Policy (as defined in that clause) to be taken into consideration by a consent authority when determining development applications in the local government areas identified in that clause or on land to which the Government Coastal Policy applies.

 

The proposal involves minor upgrade works to the existing swimming facility at or below ground level including provision of new steps into the pool and upgrade to the internal pool walls and drains. It will facilitate the continued public use of Wylie’s Baths while maintaining and protecting the environmental and aesthetic values of the site. The proposal will result in improved public access to the swimming pool with the provision of new steps with handrail and will not result in any adverse Aboriginal heritage, stormwater, water quality, or coastal hazard impacts.

 

It is noted that the accompanying plans and Statement of Environmental Effects indicate the proposal will facilitate the removal of existing and future marine growth on the southern and northern pool walls and within the blocked pool drains. This reflects the existing nature of the ocean tidal swimming pool, which is located on a natural rock shelf below the high tide mark with concrete and rock walls. Ongoing maintenance is required in order to protect swimmers from growth on the pool walls and enable the draining of the pool for easier maintenance of the interior. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal will not result in any adverse ecological impacts given these ongoing maintenance requirements reflect an existing situation.

 

Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2016

 

The subject site is located within the coastal environment area. Clause 14 provides the following matters for consideration:

 

14 Development on land within the coastal environment area

(1) Development consent must not be granted to development on land that is wholly or partly within the coastal environment area unless the consent authority is satisfied that the proposed development:

(a) is not likely to cause adverse impacts on the biophysical, hydrological (surface and groundwater) and ecological environment, and

(b) is not likely to significantly impact on geological and geomorphological coastal processes and features or be significantly impacted by those processes and features, and

(c) is not likely to have an adverse impact on the water quality of the marine estate (within the meaning of the Marine Estate Management Act 2014), in particular, having regard to the cumulative impacts of the proposed development on the marine estate including sensitive coastal lakes, and

(d) is not likely to have an adverse impact on native vegetation and fauna and their habitats, undeveloped headlands and rock platforms, and

(e) will not adversely impact Aboriginal cultural heritage and places, and

(f) incorporates water sensitive design, including consideration of effluent and stormwater management, and

(g) will not adversely impact on the use of the surf zone.

 

As noted above, the proposal involves only minor upgrade works to the existing swimming facility and will facilitate the continued public use of Wylie’s Baths while maintaining and protecting the environmental and aesthetic values of the site.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

 

The subject site is zoned RE1 Public Recreation under Randwick LEP 2012. The proposal development is classified as a recreational facility (outdoor) and is permissible in the zone. The zoning objectives are addressed as follows:

 

•      To enable land to be used for public open space or recreational purposes.

•      To provide a range of recreational settings and activities and compatible land uses.

•      To protect and enhance the natural environment for recreational purposes.

•      To protect, manage and restore areas with high biodiversity, ecological and aesthetic values, including buffer areas and habitat corridors

 

The proposed upgrade works are consistent with all of the zone objectives given it will facilitate the continued public use of Wylie’s Baths while maintaining and protecting the environmental and aesthetic values of the site.

 

The land is not affected by the foreshore building line, foreshore scenic protection area, terrestrial biodiversity, flood planning, or acid sulfate soils.

 

Clause 5.5 Development within the coastal zone

 

The subject site is located within the coastal zone. Clause 5.5 states:

 

(2)  Development consent must not be granted to development on land that is wholly or partly within the coastal zone unless the consent authority has considered:

(a)  existing public access to and along the coastal foreshore for pedestrians (including persons with a disability) with a view to:

(i)  maintaining existing public access and, where possible, improving that access, and

(ii)  identifying opportunities for new public access, and

(b)  the suitability of the proposed development, its relationship with the surrounding area and its impact on the natural scenic quality, taking into account:

(i)  the type of the proposed development and any associated land uses or activities (including compatibility of any land-based and water-based coastal activities), and

(ii)  the location, and

(iii)  the bulk, scale, size and overall built form design of any building or work involved, and

(c)  the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of the coastal foreshore including:

(i)  any significant overshadowing of the coastal foreshore, and

(ii)  any loss of views from a public place to the coastal foreshore, and

(d)  how the visual amenity and scenic qualities of the coast, including coastal headlands, can be protected, and

(e)  how biodiversity and ecosystems, including:

(i)  native coastal vegetation and existing wildlife corridors, and

(ii)  rock platforms, and

(iii)  water quality of coastal waterbodies, and

(iv)  native fauna and native flora, and their habitats, can be conserved, and

(f)  the cumulative impacts of the proposed development and other development on the coastal catchment.

The proposal involves minor upgrade works to the existing swimming facility at or below ground level including provision of new steps into the pool and upgrade to the internal pool walls and drains. It will facilitate the continued public use of Wylie’s Baths while maintaining and protecting the environmental and aesthetic values of the site.

 

(3)  Development consent must not be granted to development on land that is wholly or partly within the coastal zone unless the consent authority is satisfied that:

(a)  the proposed development will not impede or diminish, where practicable, the physical, land-based right of access of the public to or along the coastal foreshore, and

(b)  if effluent from the development is disposed of by a non-reticulated system, it will not have a negative effect on the water quality of the sea, or any beach, estuary, coastal lake, coastal creek or other similar body of water, or a rock platform, and

(c)  the proposed development will not discharge untreated stormwater into the sea, or any beach, estuary, coastal lake, coastal creek or other similar body of water, or a rock platform, and

(d)  the proposed development will not:

(i)  be significantly affected by coastal hazards, or

(ii)  have a significant impact on coastal hazards, or

(iii)  increase the risk of coastal hazards in relation to any other land.

 

The proposal involves minor upgrade works to the existing swimming facility. It will result in improved public access to the swimming pool with the provision of new steps with handrail and will not result in any adverse stormwater, water quality, or coastal hazard impacts.

 

Clause 5.10 Heritage Conservation

 

The subject site is identified as a heritage item (I94) with state significance and is listed on the State Heritage Register as ‘Wylies Baths’ (SHR No. 5050360). The proposal was accompanied by a Heritage Impact Statement prepared by GML Heritage, which concludes that the proposal will not create any adverse heritage impacts and would make a positive contribution to the social significance of the place by facilitating the continued public use of the facility. Council’s Heritage Advisor has reviewed the proposal and raised no objections subject to conditions.

 

Furthermore, the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (as delegate of the Heritage Council of NSW) has provided General Terms of Approval, dated 24 January 2018, under Section 91A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

In addition, the Heritage Impact Statement notes that the subject site is within the vicinity of an Aboriginal place of heritage significance and that Wylie’s Baths may have potential significance for Aboriginal groups both pre and post contact. However, given the minor extent of works wholly within the existing footprint of the swimming facility, it is considered unlikely that the proposal will result in any adverse impacts to Aboriginal objects or places of heritage significance. Furthermore, no concerns were raised by Council’s Heritage Planner and Condition 3 of the Heritage Office’s GTA requires a qualified heritage consultant to supervise the detailed design and construction works to minimise any potential impacts on heritage value.

 

4.       Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013

 

Part F – Miscellaneous Controls, Randwick Development Control Plan

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

 

The proposal complies with the provisions of Section F1 Development in Recreation Zones given the proposed minor upgrade works for the existing swimming facility is consistent with the Coogee Beach Foreshore Plan of Management. It will facilitate the continued public use of Wylie’s Baths while maintaining the environmental and aesthetic values of the site.

 

5.         Referral Comments

 

Heritage

 

The following comments were provided by Council’s Heritage Planner:

 

The Statement of Significance for the site notes that “built in 1907, Wylie’s Baths survives as a turn of the century bathing complex, including an Olympic sized pool, elevated boardwalk, change rooms, kiosk and store, which evidences the development of sport and recreation facilities in Sydney.” 

 

The landscape character of such sea baths results from the adaptation of man-made elements to a rugged coastal setting.  The curve of the boardwalk forms an interface between the natural cliff line and the L-shaped concrete concourse at sea level, which encloses the southern and western ends of the rock pool. 

 

Pool wall panels and outlet slots

The proposed fibre cement panels will extend around 150mm above the water line, but will be flush with the top edge of the pool walls.  The proposed panels will shorten the pool by 200mm – 300mm.  The proposed fibre cement panels will be consistent with the concrete surface of the concourse.  The water outlet slots in the northern pool wall are to be repaired and or replaced to allow the water level to remain below the top of the pool walls to discourage marine growth in this area.  The proposed slots are close to the water level and below the top edge of the pool walls which will not be impacted.  The proposed outlet slots and pool walls panels will have some visibility, but will not significantly impact on the relationship between the pool and concourse, nor the overall form of Wylie’s Baths. 

 

Replacement of existing steps

The existing steps, which have a double handrail, link the concourse level with the northern pool edge.  The proposed steps will provide a landing in the location of the existing steps leading to a new stair down to the northern pool edge (with a double handrail) and a new stair into the pool itself (with a single handrail).  The proposed steps will have a greater extent than the existing steps, but will not be higher than the existing concourse.  This are of the pool has been subject to previous modification, with the HIS noting a previous pool slide in this location.  The proposed steps will have some visibility, but will not significantly impact on the relationship between the pool and concourse, nor the overall form of Wylie’s Baths. 

 

Outlet valve

The existing valve system in the eastern wall of the pool is to be replaced by a new valve system.  The proposed works will not impact on the overall form of the pool and are necessary to ensure continued maintenance of the pool. 

 

Pool wall repairs

Repairs to the pool wall, are required in the south east corner of the pool and in the northern end of the pool and in the vicinity of the existing pool valve.  The proposed works, involving grout injection to fill cracks in the pool wall will not impact on the overall form of the pool and are necessary to maintain the integrity of the structure. 

 

In order to ensure fresh, clean water, the pool is replenished through wave action and drained into the sea.  The marine environment of the pool results in wave damage and build-up of marine growth.  The proposed upgrading works propose timely maintenance of the fabric of the pool, ensuring its continuing functioning and useability.  The upgrading works are required in response to the harsh natural environment of the coastal interface, with a focus on safety.  The proposed works will maintain a reasonable balance between man-made fabric and natural geological features.  It is considered that the proposal will maintain the heritage values of the site and allow for its continued enjoyment by the local and wider community. 

 

Recommendation

The following conditions should be included in any consent:

 

·      The colour and finish of the new structural concrete elements are to be compatible with the existing sandstone and concrete surfaces. 

 

·      The new wall panels should extend along the full lengths of the northern and southern pool walls, and are not necessary to the eastern and western sides of the pool. 

 

Comment:

 

The recommended conditions in relation to colour and finish of the new concrete wall is included in the Heritage Office’s GTA.

 

Recommendation

That the RDAP, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 4.16 and 4.17 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 640/2017 for upgrade to Wylie's Baths including repairs to pool walls, installation of pre-cast wall panels to the upper portion of the northern and southern pool walls, new steps into the pool and a new pool valve in the eastern wall of the pool, at No. 4B Neptune Street, South Coogee, subject to the development consent conditions attached to this report, for the following reasons:

 

·           The proposed development satisfies the matters for consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended.

 

·           The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the RE1 zone contained within the RLEP 2012 and the relevant requirements of the RDCP 2013.

 

·           The minor upgrade works to facilitate the continued public use of Wylie’s Baths while maintaining and protecting the environmental and aesthetic values of the site is consistent with the Coogee Beach Foreshore Plan of Management and will not result in any adverse heritage, ecological, stormwater, water quality, or coastal hazard impacts.

 

 

Attachment/s:

1.

Development Consent Conditions - 4B Neptune Street, COOGEE

 


Development Consent Conditions - 4B Neptune Street, COOGEE

Attachment 1

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Randwick Development Assessment Panel                                                               22 March 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D4/18

 

Subject:             299 Storey Street, Maroubra (DA/493/2017)

Folder No:                   DA/493/2017

Author:                   Willana Associates, Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                    Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling and conversion to a dual occupancy with associated works including infill of swimming and spa pools (variation to floor space ratio control)

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                Corona Projects Pty Ltd

Owner:                        Mr Z Q Zhang &  Mrs L H Gu

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=350e6632-43d9-4191-9d1d-73be9471921a&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 


 

Executive summary

 

The application is referred to the Randwick Development Assessment Panel (RDAP) as the development contravenes the development standard for floor space ratio by more than 10%.

 

The matter was previously considered by Council’s Planning Committee on 14 November 2017 (Item No. D80/17) where it was resolved to defer the application to allow the applicant to submit amended plans.

 

The applicant has now prepared amended plans, seeking to address Council’s previous concerns, which are the subject of this report.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves alterations and additions to the existing dwelling and conversion to an attached dual occupancy with associated works including infill of the swimming and spa pools (variation to floor space ratio control).

 

The applicant submitted amended plans on 24 January 2018, seeking to address Council’s previous concerns.

 

The proposal includes a number of alterations and additions over each level of the building which are unauthorised, with a comparison of the existing dwelling and proposed development (both original and amended proposal) provided in the table below:

 

Level

Existing/ Approved

Original Proposal

Amended Proposal (submitted on 24 January 2018)

Subfloor

(Level 1)

Subfloor, laundry with internal stairs to upper level

Unit 2: Enclosure of sub-floor with new external walls to create Bedroom 3 (with ensuite), internal stairs up from Bedroom 3 to new Bedroom 1, Bedroom 4, study#, bathroom 1, bathrooms 2 (with linen cupboard), unnamed circulation space, hallway and new entry from eastern side of dwelling.

Unit 2:

·      Removal of unauthorised walls enclosing sub-floor and stair case to level above

·      Install translucent glazing to two existing archways

·      New external and internal walls to create Unit 2, consisting of two bedrooms, each with ensuite and WIR, new store room, internal stair to level above and formal entry with new external pathway and planter boxes for screen.

Garage (Level 2)

Kitchen / meals, cool room, storeroom, Bedroom 7/ Servant’s Bedroom with toilet, 5 car garage, Bedroom 6, sauna, bathroom, games and rumpus rooms

Unit 1: Convert storeroom, Bedroom 7/ Servant’s Bedroom with toilet into cellar# and plant room; replace cool room for with 2 x car spaces.

 

Unit 2: Renovate kitchen, convert games/ rumpus rooms into dining room, living room and new study, retain sauna, convert bathroom into dressing room with external doorway, replace bedroom 6 with parking space for unit 2, fill in existing pool and spa and use as dedicated private open space for Unit 2. It is also proposed to remove several existing and unauthorised partition walls in the proposed living room and garage.

Unit 1:

·      Convert Bedroom 7/ Servant’s Bedroom/ toilet into a storeroom# and plant room (no details if existing ensuite is to be removed).

·      Removal of glass partition.

 

Unit 2:

·      Renovate kitchen, convert games/ rumpus rooms into dining room, living room, toilet and two storerooms.

·      Brick up external windows to store, toilet and small window to living room.

 

General:

·      Fill in existing pool and spa and use as dedicated private open space for Unit 2.

·      Install 1.8m high dividing fence to segregate private open space for each unit.

·      Install clothes drying lines in each courtyard.

·      Remove partition to provide parking space for Unit 2.

·      Install vehicle turntable in garage.

·      New pathway and screen planting along eastern boundary.

Street Level (Level 3)

Portico and entry, foyer with spiral stair case to upper levels, kitchen, pantry, stairs to lower level, formal dining, formal lounge, family room, separate toilet, Bedroom 5 with ensuite and rear balcony accessed via the dining and living rooms with stairs to the pool and deck below.

Unit 1: Portico and entry, foyer with spiral stair case to upper levels, kitchen, pantry, stairs to lower level bricked up, dining, formal lounge used as living room, internal wall to divide family room into a new study (accessed from main foyer) and TV room# (accessed from new doorway off dining room, separate toilet and Bedroom 5 with ensuite retained as is. The external stairs from the rear deck to the Private Open Space for Unit 2 are to be retained.

Unit 1:

·      Retain largely as is with openings to stairwell to lower level bricked up and left in situ, new internal wall to divide family room into a new study (accessed from main foyer) and TV room# (accessed from new doorway off dining room), laundry added to kitchen.

·      Privacy screen added mid-way along the southern balcony.

·      Portion of balcony adjacent to living/ dining rooms to be retained as a non-trafficable ‘concrete awning’.

Level 4

Foyer with spiral stair case down to Level 3 and up to the roof terrace, study with large void to formal lounge below, Master Bedroom with ensuite and WIR and wraparound terrace connecting with the study, separate balcony to eastern elevation of the study, Bedroom 2 with ensuite, two linen cupboards, Bedroom 3, separate bathroom and Bedroom 4.

Unit 1: As existing although study walls appear to have been removed and reconfiguration of linen cupboards has occurred at some point in time.

Unit 1: As existing although study walls appear to have been removed and reconfiguration of linen cupboards has occurred at some point in time.

Level 5 (roof)

Roof terrace accessed by spiral stairs.

No change.

No change (amended plans not provided for this level).

Note: Rooms denoted with # are considered capable of being used as a bedroom, although denoted on the plans for other purposes.

 

While the quality of the drawings has improved somewhat, they still fail to distinguish the existing, approved building from the unauthorised works and the proposed works.

 

The proposal is also dysfunctional from a practical point of view, which would lead to a poor quality of life for future occupants. Unit 1 does not have any direct connection to a private open space area capable of functioning as required. Washing from the laundry (contained in the existing kitchen cabinets) would have to be carried down two flights of stairs to the clothes line in the courtyard on the level below, located on the southern side of the building. The internal stairs located adjacent to the Kitchen to Unit 1 will also be bricked up and left in situ, however this area, as well as the unusually shaped hallway could be utilised more effectively.

 

In addition, the plant room and store to Unit 1 (former servant’s bedroom and ensuite) has no direct link to either unit and can easily operate independently of the remainder of the building as a bedroom, while no details as to whether the toilet will be removed from the proposed plant room have been provided.

 

Furthermore, the private open space areas, located on the southern side of the building and at the lowest portion of the Site, will not contain any deep soil and will be comprised entirely of concrete. The utility of these areas will be significantly compromised by being overshadowed for almost the entire day.

 

Site Description and Locality

The site is known as 299 Storey Street, Maroubra and is located on the southern side of the street. The lot is legally described as Lot 1 within Deposited Plan 594649. The site has a frontage to Storey Street of 15.5m and a depth of 35.38m. The site has a slope from the north to the south of approximately 8m. The total area of the site is 786.6m2. The site currently contains a four storey dwelling house that is the subject of this DA.

 

Relevant history

DA-493/2017 was originally lodged on 10 August 2017 in response to Council initiating regulatory actions against the owners for alleged unauthorised works to convert the existing dwelling into an attached dual occupancy. The subject DA was reported to Council’s Planning Committee meeting on 14 November 2017 (Item No. D80/17) where it was resolved to defer the application to allow the applicant to submit amended plans.

 

The applicant submitted amended plans on 24 January 2018, seeking to address Council’s previous concerns. The amended plans are the subject of this report.

 

Submissions

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

 

·      286 Storey St, Maroubra

 

Issues

Comments

The residence is used as short term accommodation that is incompatible with the area and could pose a safety risk.

The alleged use of the premises is subject to separate enforcement processes before Council. The enforcement processes are also, in part, dependent upon the outcome of the subject DA. Notwithstanding this, the application before Council seeks consent for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling and conversion of the dwelling to create an attached dual occupancy. The proposed works and use are permissible with the consent of Council under the provisions of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The objector has not however, supplied any evidence to indicate any antisocial activities in the local area linked to the alleged use of the premises.

There will be additional people living at the premises which will impact on the availability of on-street parking.

 

The proposal will result in additional people residing at the property. Council’s planning controls require each development provide adequate on-site car parking to cater for the likely demand for parking. In this instance, the proposal is required to provide two parking spaces for each dwelling, which has been complied with.

 

 

 

·      288 Storey St Maroubra

 

Issues

Comments

Rubbish and debris from construction of the original dwelling was not secured and blew across the neighbourhood.

While this matter is not relevant to the current application, suitable conditions regarding the control of construction waste can be included in any approval issued in respect of the proposal.

The dwelling is currently used as an unauthorised place of short term stay accommodation (AirBnB). The residents park their cars on the street in front of other properties.

As discussed previously, the alleged unauthorised use is a separate enforcement matter that is not directly relevant to the current proposal. While each development must be assessed on its merits against the applicable planning controls, adequate on-site parking must also be provided and be both accessible and utilised. In this instance, the proposal satisfies Council’s on-site parking requirements, however other factors, such as the use of the garage for the storage of goods or the perceived narrowness and gradient of the existing driveway, appear to impact on the ability of the occupants to utilise that car parking at present.

 

The amended plans, which were received by Council on 24 January 2018, have not be renotified to adjoining owners and do not alter the responses provided to each objection.

 

Key Issues

 

The proposal seeks to vary a development standard contained within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. A Clause 4.6 exception was submitted to Council addressing the non-compliance sought on the original plans. The applicant has not provided an amended Clause 4.6 submission that addresses the amended plans.

 

Pursuant to Clause 4.4 of the RLEP 2012, the floor space ratio of the building must not be more than 0.5:1 on the site. A floor space ratio of 0.89:1 is proposed, increasing from 0.78:1 at present.

 

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

 

Floor Space Ratio

Development Standard

0.5:1 (GFA of 393.3 m2)

Existing

Proposed – Original Plans

                   – Amended Plans

0.78:1 (GFA of 613.55 m2)

0.98:1 (GFA of 770.87 m2)

0.89:1 (GFA of 700.07 m2)

Excess above the standard (amended plans)

77.99% (of which 57% already exists)

 

Notwithstanding the absence of an amended Clause 4.6 submission from the applicant, it should be noted that the assessment of the original Clause 4.6 submission did not support the variation to the floor space ratio development standard. While the applicant has submitted an amended plan proposing a smaller gross floor area, the proposal still represents a significant variation to the floor space ratio development standard that is not supported by a Clause 4.6 submission addressing the proposal as amended.

 

The internal functioning of Unit 2 has also been improved however basic aspects, adequate privacy and a direct connection with useable private open space areas containing deep soil areas and landscaping remain an area of concern. The applicant’s statement that solar access to internal areas has been maximised cannot be supported given the relative level, orientation of habitable rooms and the open space areas and lack of any windows facing a northerly aspect. Internal amenity will remain significantly compromised for proposed Unit 2 and shadow diagrams demonstrating the actual level of solar access or overshadowing of the private open space areas have not been provided.

 

In terms of privacy, the private open space to Unit 2 will still be easily overlooked from the kitchen and existing balcony to Unit 1, with the privacy screen on the balcony being relatively ineffective. The privacy screen would need to extend at least to the slight angle in the balcony to be effective, rendering any outlook from the southern living room window of Unit 1 to be of poor quality. Further, the simple removal of the balustrade without any remedial works to the windows/ doors from the dining and living rooms of Unit 1 does not provide a permanent or effective solution to mitigating privacy issues.

 

Additionally, the applicant has not provided any details of the proposed landscaping or the treatment of each private open space area. The filling of the existing pool represents a significant opportunity to provide some deep soil landscaping/ turf, yet this has been ignored.

 

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

 

Council may wish to pursue enforcement action against the land owner regarding the alleged unauthorised use and works, which may incur costs. If the applicant chose to appeal Council’s decision in the NSW Land and Environment Court, Council would need to defend its decision and engage legal counsel to assist with the defence.

 

Conclusion

 

The application results in a significant variation to the maximum floor space ratio imposed by the RLEP 2012, of 0.5:1, proposing 0.89:1. The existing dwelling has an FSR of 0.78:1. The applicant proposes to utilise existing subfloor and partial basement garage level to provide the new dwelling (Unit 2), retaining the majority of the existing dwelling as Unit 1.

 

Aside from the significant variation to the FSR development standard, the application also fails as follows:

 

·      The site coverage exceeds the maximum of 45% (approximately 80%);

·      The deep soil areas are less than 35% of the site area (approximately 10%);

·      The private open space area for Unit 2 is overlooked by main living rooms and the rear decks of Unit 1 while the only private open space area having suitable dimensions for Unit 1 is remotely located on the rooftop or at the level below via a staircase;

·      The private open space for Unit 2 does not receive adequate solar access;

·      Side setbacks are inadequate for dual occupancy development to ensure adequate landscaping, privacy and overall amenity;

·      Pedestrian access to Unit 2 is not directly visible from the street, lacks adequate passive surveillance, is not connected to any living rooms and is also via a stairway which covers an existing stormwater easement along the eastern boundary;

·      Adequate solar access to the living rooms of Unit 2 cannot be achieved;

·      Unit 2 does not have adequate natural ventilation due to the orientation, poor and inefficient internal layout and window placements; and

·      Unit 1 is not provided with a laundry and no details are provided of the location of clothes drying areas for either dwelling.

 

Overall, the proposal results in a substandard development which will not ensure an adequate level of residential amenity and create an unacceptable precedent for similar dwelling conversions.

 

The application is, therefore, recommended for refusal for the following reasons:

 

·      The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant objectives of R2 – Low Density zone under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in relation to the desired future character of the locality and the protection of residential amenity.

·      The proposal exceeds the maximum floor space ratio of 0.5:1 specified in Clause 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and a written Clause 4.6 variation has not been submitted in support of the proposal (as amended) and accordingly, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that strict application of the control is either unreasonable or unnecessary or that there are sufficient environmental planning reasons to justify contravening the development standard.

 

·      Approval of such a significant variation to the floor space ratio development standard without satisfactory justification as required by Clause 4.6(3) of the of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 would not be in the public interest as it is inconsistent with the objectives of the floor space ratio development standard and the objectives for development within the R2 – Low Density zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.

 

·      The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant objectives of Building Design under Part C1 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 in that the excessive height and density, lack of adequate solar access and privacy, excessive site coverage, lack of adequate private open space, lack of adequate deep soil zones, poor internal layout, poor pedestrian access and lack of adequate natural ventilation would result in unreasonable impacts for the future residents of the development in terms of overall residential amenity, privacy and solar access.

 

·      The proposal does not comply with the landscape and permeable surface requirements under Part C1 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013.

 

·      The proposal does not achieve adequate side and rear setbacks for dual occupancy development under Part C1 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013, resulting in to inadequate solar access, private open space, privacy and residential amenity.

 

·      The proposal does not satisfy the visual privacy requirements under Part C1 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 because it would result in unreasonable internal privacy impacts as a consequence of overlooking from the kitchen and rear balcony of Unit 1 directly over the private open space area for Unit 2.

 

·      Private open space which achieves suitable dimensions for Unit 1 is not directly accessible from living rooms within the dwelling, is located only on levels either above or below the habitable rooms and in such a manner that direct overlooking of adjoining dwellings occurs and is not provided with any landscaping to ensure an adequate level of amenity or utility.

 

·      The proposal would result in inadequate levels of internal amenity due to a lack of solar access to the living rooms and private open space areas of Unit 2 and poor natural ventilation due to the setbacks, orientation, poor internal floor layout and inadequate window design and placement.

 

·      Pedestrian access to Unit 2 is inadequate as it cannot be easily seen from the street, can only be accessed via a stairway above a stormwater drainage easement and indirect path of travel within the lower level of the dwelling and is not provided with an acceptable level of passive surveillance from the public domain.

 

·      The approval of a development with poor levels of internal amenity, inadequate facilities and private open space areas, poor natural ventilation and inadequate solar access despite such a significant density which is well above the stipulated floor space ratio is not in the public interest and will set an undesirable precedent for other similarly inadequate proposals, resulting in a significant adverse effect on the wider health and wellbeing of the community.

 

Detailed Assessment

1.         Section 4.15 matters for consideration

 

The site has been inspected and the application has been assessed having regard to Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended.

 

Section 4.15 ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

Section 4.15 (1)(a)(i) – Provisions of any environmental planning instrument

See assessment contained below.

Section 4.15(1)(a)(ii) – Provisions of any draft environmental planning instrument

Nil.

Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) – Provisions of any development control plan

See assessment contained below.

Section 4.15(1)(a)(iiia) – Provisions of any Planning Agreement or draft Planning Agreement

Not applicable.

Section 4.15(1)(a)(iv) – Provisions of the regulations

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

Section 4.15(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 and the proposal is considered to have unacceptable impacts on the residential amenity of the future occupants and the biophysical environment.

Section 4.15(1)(c) – The suitability of the site for the development

See assessment contained below. The Site is not deemed to be suitable for the proposal.

Section 4.15(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 4.15(1)(e) – The public interest

Approval will not be in the wider public interest, for the reasons detailed in this report.

 

2.         Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

2.1      State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPS)

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 55—Remediation of Land

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) applies to all land and aims to provide for a State-wide planning approach to the remediation of contaminated land.

 

Clause 7 of SEPP 55 requires the consent authority to consider whether land is contaminated prior to granting consent to the carrying out of any development on that land. If the land is contaminated, the consent authority must be satisfied that the land is suitable in its current state or will be suitable after remediation for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out. 

 

There is no evident risk to human health or the environment in this case to warrant a more detailed investigation given the following:

 

§ The immediate surrounds have been used for residential purposes for a considerable number of years. 

§ There is no evidence to suggest that potential land contaminating activities, such as those listed in Table 1 and Appendix A of the Contaminated Land Planning Guidelines of SEPP 55, have been carried out on the subject site or adjoining properties.

§ The Site is not identified under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012) as constituting contaminated land or land that must be subject to a site audit statement. 

§ The Site is not subject to a notice, order, management proposal or site audit statement under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997.

§ Standard conditions are recommended to be included in the event of approval being issued to require all necessary legislative and policy requirements (in particular Australian Standard 2601 (2001) Demolition of Structures) be adhered to with respect to demolition works and the removal of any asbestos containing materials from the site. This will avoid any surface contamination, subject to conditions.

 

Accordingly, nothing restricts Council, under SEPP 55, from consenting to the carrying out of the development. 

 

2.2    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

 

The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the RLEP 2012. The proposed development is classified as an attached dual occupancy, which is permissible in the zone. The zoning objectives are addressed as follows:

 

§ To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

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

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

§ To protect the amenity of residents.

§ To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

The proposal is inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the zone as the proposed density is not commensurate with a low-density residential area and the resultant amenity impacts are unacceptable by way of inadequate privacy and solar access.

 

The following Clauses of RLEP 2012 apply to the proposal:

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

0.5:1

0.89:1.

This issue has been addressed in the Executive Summary

No. See Clause 4.6 below.

Height of Building (Maximum)

9.5m

The height of the building does not change despite the use of the subfloor as habitable space. The existing maximum height remains at 15.36m

No but existing

Lot Size (Minimum)

450m2 for the purpose of an attached dual occupancy.

768.82m2

Yes

 

Floor Space Ratio – Clause 4.6 Exception

The proposal seeks to vary a development standard contained within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012). A Clause 4.6 exception was submitted to Council addressing the non-compliance sought on the original plans. The applicant has not provided an amended Clause 4.6 submission that addresses the amended plans.

 

Pursuant to Clause 4.4 of the RLEP 2012, the floor space ratio of the building must not be more than 0.5:1 on the site. A floor space ratio of 0.89:1 is proposed, increasing from 0.78:1 at present.

 

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

 

Floor Space Ratio

Development Standard

0.5:1 (GFA of 393.3 m2)

Existing

Proposed – Original Plans

                   – Amended Plans

0.78:1 (GFA of 613.55 m2)

0.98:1 (GFA of 770.87 m2)

0.89:1 (GFA of 700.07 m2)

Excess above the standard (amended plans)

77.99% (of which 57% already exists)

 

The applicant has not submitted a written request with the amended plans that justifies the departure from the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012: Exception to a Development Standard.

 

Clause 4.6 RLEP 2012 Request to Vary a Development Standard

 

Clause 4.6 of the RLEP provides a mechanism to seek a variation to a development standard in certain circumstances.

 

Assessment of 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. The applicant has not submitted a written request to the amendment of the development standard now sought.

 

Planning Circular PS 17–006 (dated 15 December 2017) issued by the Department of Planning and Environment states that “…applications for variations to development standards cannot be considered without a written application objecting to the applicable development standard and addressing the matters required to be addressed in the relevant instrument.”

 

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 variation by demonstrating:

 

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

 

2)  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

 

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.

 

As noted above, the applicant has not submitted a revised Clause 4.6 submission to support the amended proposal, notwithstanding, the applicant’s original Clause 4.6 submission is provided as follows for reference:

 

 


 

     

 

Assessment Officer’s comments:

 

The assessment of the original Clause 4.6 submission did not support the variation of the floor space ratio development standard, noting as follows:

 

·      The applicant’s written request does not adequately demonstrate that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

·      The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone as:

 

-    the proposal is not in the context of a low density residential environment. A density in the order of that proposed reflects a higher density area and does not ensure an appropriate level of amenity, notwithstanding the majority of works are within the existing building envelope.

-    The proposal will not ensure that the amenity of residents is protected due to overlooking and lack of mitigative measures to maintain adequate privacy.

 

·      The applicant’s argument that the “conversion of one large single dwelling into a dual occupancy reduces the saleable floor area of each dwelling and subsequently increases housing affordability” is not supported.

 

·      The argument that a substantial breach of the FSR control is acceptable because you cannot readily see the additional density because it is contained within the existing building is simplistic, ignores the significant amenity issues present and does not demonstrate the proposal and variation of the FSR development standard, results in a better planning outcome.

 

·      Council had not abandoned or destroyed the development standard.

 

·      Approval of the proposal will create an undesirable precedence.

 

·      The applicant’s written request does not demonstrate to the satisfaction of Council that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the variation.

 

·      The scale of the proposal is not compatible with the desired future character of the locality with an FSR almost double that which is deemed appropriate for the R2 – Low Density Residential zone.

 

·      The proposal fails to ensure an adequate level of amenity for an additional dwelling on the subject site and sets an undesirable precedent for further infill development of a similar nature where residential amenity is significantly compromised.

 

·      The applicant’s contention that a higher density on the Site is appropriate for failed to address the significant non-compliances relating to poor internal and external privacy, inadequate solar access and natural ventilation, excessive site coverage, lack of sufficient landscaping and deep soil areas, poor internal layout and design, inadequate pedestrian access to Unit 2 and lack of adequate laundry and clothes drying facilities.

 

·      The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal will result in a better planning outcome in the context of the provisions of Section 79C(1)(a)(iii), (b) and (c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, with respect to the provisions the RDCP 2013, the amenity impacts and the suitability of the site for the proposal.

 

·      The proposed development is not in the public interest as it is not consistent with the objectives of the floor space ratio standard of the RLEP 2012 or the relevant objectives for development within the R2 – Low Density Residential zone.

 

The applicant has provided a separate submission detailing the justifications for the support of the amended proposal as follows:

 

While the applicant has submitted an amended plan proposing a much smaller gross floor area, the proposal still represents a significant variation to the floor space ratio development standard that is not supported by a Clause 4.6 submission addressing the proposal as amended. In addition, Council can no longer assume the Secretary’s concurrence where the variation sought exceeds 10% of the development standard unless the proposal has first been considered by the ‘full council’.

 

The internal functioning of Unit 2 has also been improved however basic aspects, adequate privacy and a direct connection with useable private open space areas containing deep soil areas and landscaping remain an area of concern. The applicant’s statement that solar access to internal areas has been maximised cannot be supported given the relative level, orientation of habitable rooms and the open space areas and lack of any windows facing a northerly aspect. Internal amenity will remain significantly compromised for proposed Unit 2 and shadow diagrams demonstrating the actual level of solar access or overshadowing of the private open space areas have not been provided.

 

In terms of privacy, the private open space to Unit 2 will still be easily overlooked from the kitchen and existing balcony to Unit 1, with the privacy screen on the balcony being relatively ineffective. The privacy screen would need to extend at least to the slight angle in the balcony to be effective, rendering any outlook from the southern living room window of Unit 1 to be of poor quality. Further, the simple removal of the balustrade without any remedial works to the windows/ doors from the dining and living rooms of Unit 1 does not provide a permanent or effective solution to mitigating privacy issues.

 

Additionally, the applicant has not provided any details of the proposed landscaping or the treatment of each private open space area. The filling of the existing pool represents a significant opportunity to provide some deep soil landscaping/ turf, yet this has been ignored.

 

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

 

No. The applicant has not submitted a revised written request for the amended proposal and the applicant’s original Clause 4.6 written request does not adequately demonstrate that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case..  

 

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

 

No. The applicant has not submitted a revised written request for the amended proposal and the original Clause 4.6 request does not demonstrate to the satisfaction of Council that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the variation.

 

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?

 

No, the proposed development is not in the public interest as it is not consistent with the objectives of the floor space ratio standard of the RLEP 2012 or the relevant objectives for development within the R2 – Low Density Residential zone.

 

The proposal’s failure to achieve the objectives of the FSR development standard or the objectives of the R2 – Low Density Residential zone have been discussed previously. Having regard to the unusual nature and design of the proposal, the following additional observations are made insofar as the development is not in the public interest:

 

·      the need for additional low-density housing choices is reflected in development that provides adequate setbacks, internal and external amenity, adequate private open spaces and landscaped areas;

·      the internal layout of the development is both inefficient and is not conducive to functioning as intended. This will lead to substandard residential accommodation and impact on the health and well-being of the wider community, as well as the occupants;

·      The proposed density and scale of development is not compatible with the desired future character of the locality by virtue of the FSR being more appropriate for a higher density in a town centre.

·      The proposal does not result in a development that provides a suitable level of amenity vis natural ventilation, privacy, solar access or a layout/ internal design that promotes an efficient and liveable residential environment.

·      The density and number of people the proposal can accommodate will result in an intensity that will exacerbate existing poor-amenity outcomes caused by overlooking of adjacent properties.

 

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

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

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

 

Pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 18–003 (dated 21 February 2018)) 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. The proposed development and variation from the standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning.

 

At face value, the application seeks to undertake largely internal modifications to an existing dwelling to create an attached dual occupancy development within the footprint of the building. While the proposal might appear to be innocuous, it belies the recent history of alleged unauthorised use and works at the property to convert the subfloor area into additional habitable space. Notwithstanding this, the departure from the maximum FSR standard on this occasion is not considered to be of benefit to the orderly use of the site and there is no public benefit in varying the development standard in this instance.

 

3.       Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013

 

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

 

The relevant provisions of Part C1 – Low Density Residential of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP 2013) are addressed in the table below. (Note: a number of control provisions that are not related to the proposal have been deliberately omitted.)

 

DCP Clause

Controls

Proposal

Compliance

 

Classification

Zoning = R2

Yes

2

Site planning

 

 

2.1

Minimum lot size and frontage

 

Minimum lot size (RLEP):

·    R2 = 400sqm

768.82m2

Yes

 

Minimum frontage

 

 

 

i)   Minimum frontage for attached dual occupancy in R2 = 15m

Min = 15m

Existing = 15.5m

Yes

2.3

Site Coverage

 

For sites greater than 601 m2, maximum site coverage = 45% of site area

Approx.80%

No

2.4

Landscaping and Permeable Surfaces

 

For sites greater than 601 m2, minimum deep soil areas = 35% of site area

Approx. 10% deep soil

No

2.5

Private open space (POS) for Dual Occupancies

 

601 m2 or above = 6m x 6m each

ii) POS satisfy the following criteria:

·      Situated at ground level (except for duplex

·      No open space on podiums or roofs

·      Adjacent to the living room

·      Oriented to maximise solar access

·      Located to the rear behind dwelling

·      Has minimal change in gradient

Unit 1 relies on roof top POS and a courtyard on the level below the dwelling, as well as a small deck at the rear (southern) elevation which will overlook the POS for Unit 2. The balcony does not achieve the minimum depth of 6m.

Unit 2 POS will largely consist of the existing timber/ concrete deck and a filled in swimming pool. While this satisfies the access and area requirements, it contains little to no landscaping, will not receive adequate solar access and is significantly compromised in terms of privacy due to direct overlooking from Unit 1. The proposal does not include any landscaping to any of the POS areas and fails to capitalise on the potential deep soil zone in the filling of the pool.

No

3

Building envelope

3.1

Floor space ratio LEP 2012 = 0.5:1

Site area = 768.82m2

Existing FSR = 0.78:1

Proposed FSR = 0.89:1

No, issue is discussed in the Executive Summary

3.2

Height LEP 2012 = 9.5m

The height of the building does not change despite the use of the subfloor as habitable space. The existing maximum height remains at 15.36m. This is a numerical noncompliance and does not have any material change to the existing building.

No, this is an existing non-compliance.

3.3

Setbacks

No change to the existing setbacks, which were deemed to be acceptable when the dwelling was originally approved and constructed. The standards for a dual occupancy are somewhat higher than for a dwelling and the proposal fails to achieve adequate side and rear setbacks.

The RDCP 2013 requires a minimum of 8m from the rear boundary (4.5m proposed to the new bedrooms on level 1) and 1.8m for the side setbacks for 2 storeys and above (1.4m from the western boundary and 0.8m to the stairs on the eastern elevation).

No. While the non-compliance is largely numerical, it has a direct impact on the availability of solar access and natural ventilation for Unit 2, which is largely constructed on the southern side of the dwelling, partly underground within the subfloor area and partly below an existing rear deck. The numerical con-compliance further highlights the poor amenity outcomes often faced by this type of retrofitted development and should not be endorsed simply because the new dwelling will not be visible to the streetscape.

4

Building design

4.3

Additional Provisions for Attached Dual Occupancies

 

Present similar bulk as single dwellings and street;

i)   Parking single garage width

ii)   Articulate and soften garage entry

iii)  Minimise driveway width

iv)  Maximum 2m setback of front entry from front façade

v)  Maximise landscape planting at front

The proposal largely includes internal alterations and additions and minor works at the rear of the property. No change to the existing driveway width is proposed however a turntable is to be added to the existing large garage to facilitate improved vehicular maneuvering.

 

The main pedestrian access to Unit 2 is down a steep and pathway along the eastern boundary, which compromises the privacy of the adjoining dwelling and private open space at 301 Storey Street. The pedestrian access is not easily seen from the street and is not afforded with an adequate level of casual surveillance. The doorway is not connected to any living areas and access to these rooms is circuitous and inefficient. The alternative pedestrian access is via the shared garage and behind a parking space allocated to Unit 2 and leads directly into the kitchen.

Vehicular access matters are largely satisfactory.

 

Pedestrian access is not acceptable and does not comply.

4.4

Roof Design and Features

 

Terraces, decks or trafficable outdoor spaces may be provided in stepped buildings, but must not be provided on the uppermost or main roof of the building (including the principal dwelling and any outbuilding).

Existing non-compliance. The rooftop is not improved and does not provide any opportunities for landscaping and is the only area of POS for Unit 1 which achieves the minimum depth and width criteria.

Significant vistas are available from the rooftop however this also results in extensive overlooking of the POS for Unit 2 and adjoining properties.

No.

5

Amenity

5.1

Solar access and overshadowing

 

Solar access to proposed development:

 

 

 

i)   Portion of north-facing living room windows must receive a minimum of 3 hrs direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June

ii)   POS (passive recreational activities) receive a minimum of 3 hrs of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

While the level of solar access to the living rooms of Unit 1 (the existing dwelling) will remain essentially unchanged, Unit 2 will not receive any solar access. The application is not supported by any shadow diagrams however the location of the POS for Unit 2 and proximity of adjoining buildings means that it will not receive adequate solar access.

No. Unit 1, while not ideal, is acceptable as this was largely the existing dwelling. Unit 2 does not comply.

 

Solar access to neighbouring development:

 

 

 

i)   Portion of the north-facing living room windows must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

iv)  POS (passive recreational activities) receive a minimum of 3 hrs of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

v)  solar panels on neighbouring dwellings, which are situated not less than 6m above ground level (existing), must retain a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. If no panels, direct sunlight must be retained to the northern, eastern and/or western roof planes (not <6m above ground) of neighbouring dwellings.

No change

NA

5.2

Energy Efficiency and Natural Ventilation

 

i)   Provide day light to internalised areas within the dwelling (for example, hallway, stairwell, walk-in-wardrobe and the like) and any poorly lit habitable rooms via measures such as:

·      Skylights (ventilated)

·      Clerestory windows

·      Fanlights above doorways

·      Highlight windows in internal partition walls

·      living rooms contain windows and doors opening to outdoor areas

Note: The sole reliance on skylight or clerestory window for natural lighting and ventilation is not acceptable

While the existing dwelling that is incorporated into Unit 1 is satisfactory, the layout of Unit 2 and the lack of overall poor window design and orientation for this dwelling mean that internal amenity is quite poor. The floor plan, orientation and window design of Unit 2 also means that opportunities for natural ventilation are restricted and the proposed dwelling will not have an acceptable level of internal amenity.

No

5.3

Visual Privacy