RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Randwick Development Assessment Panel Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

Thursday 12 April 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                                                                 12 April 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, First Floor 90 Avoca Street Randwick on Thursday, 12 April 2018 at 1pm

 

 

Chairperson:                               Annalise Tuor

 

Expert Members:                         Julie Savet Ward; Oliver Klein

 

Community Representatives:          Kerri Hamer (Central 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.

Urgent Business

Development Application Reports

D6/18       1B Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra (DA/441/2017)......................................... 1

D7/18       51 Chester Avenue, Maroubra (DA/329/2017)......................................... 53

D8/18       4-6 Grosvenor Street, Kensington (DA/166/2017).................................. 129

D9/18       31 Torrington Road, Maroubra (DA/281/2017)....................................... 243

Miscellaneous Reports

Nil.     

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Kerry Kyriacou

Acting Director City Planning


Randwick Development Assessment Panel                                                                 12 April 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D6/18

 

Subject:             1B Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra (DA/441/2017)

Folder No:                   DA/441/2017

Author:                   Willana Associates, Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                    Alterations and additions to pool area including new deck area, shade structures, broadwalk, retaining walls, associated site and landscaping works, weed management and revegetation works.

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                Eco Design

Owner:                        Ms F Zhu

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=1d363e89-32db-478e-94f2-1b4b5e09361b&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:

 

·           Council has received 10 unique submissions by way of objection.

·           The DA had been called up to a Council Meeting prior to 1 March 2018 and there are no delegations in place for a Council Officer to determine the application and therefore the subject application must be referred to RDAP for determination.

 

Proposal

 

The application proposes a range of works that are ancillary or incidental to the main use of the site as a detached dwelling house. The works include alterations and additions to pool area including new deck area, shade structures, broadwalk, retaining walls, associated site and landscaping works, weed management and revegetation works.  The proposed works encompass the following five key components:

 

Alterations and Additions to Pool Area

·      Proposal to install a deck extending the existing pool surrounds, a new non-reflective glass pool fence is to be installed as required and a shade sail is to be installed on the western side, no higher than the existing tennis court ground level.

·      The existing swimming/spa pool and surrounding paved area to be retained.

·      A new deck is proposed to extend 4m to the south west and 3m to the south east of the exiting paved pool surrounds. The deck will be setback a minimum 900mm from all boundaries, approximately 150mm above the existing pool paved level and approximately 2m above existing ground level at the highest point.

·      Proposed planting to screen the proposed structures from the foreshore area.

·      The proposed deck will be constructed from natural materials with the underside of the deck screened by cladding.

·      A new glass pool fence is proposed on the outer edge of the new deck to meet up with the existing aluminium pool fence. All pool fencing and balustrades associated with the pool area to be installed in accordance with AS 1926.1 – Safety Barriers for Swimming Pools.

·      A 2.7m high shade sail is proposed over the western area of the deck and pool - to be made of a sympathetic colour to future detail.

 

Boardwalk

·      Proposed composite timber boardwalk and matte black aluminium balustrade (where required), to be setback minimum 5,000mm from Lurline Bay boundary and 900mm from all other boundaries.

·      Boardwalk has been designed and sited within the slope of the site to reduce cut & fill and reduce the need for a balustrade along the full length.

·      Boardwalk to be maximum 900mm finished height above existing natural ground level at any point on site.

 

Retaining Walls

·      Proposed retaining walls as required on site to retain soil and prevent potential erosion to be constructed of a local sandstone to a maximum height of 900mm, retaining a maximum 900mm of cut/fill.

·      The retaining wall will also facilitate the establishment of a large expanse of lawn between the swimming pool and the proposed tea house.

 


 

Shade Structures and Deck Areas

·      The tea house has been designed and sited within the slope of the site to reduce cut & fill and visual prominence from the foreshore. Roof structure over tea house deck at maximum height of 3m.

·      The viewing deck and open pergola have been designed and sited within the slope of the site to reduce cut & fill and reduce its visual prominence from the foreshore. Open roof structure at maximum height of 3m.

·      Tea house and viewing deck to be constructed of natural materials.

·      Existing trees numbered 24,25,26,27 and 29 proposed for removal, with replacement trees proposed on site to provide canopy for privacy, wind protection and shade.

 

Weed Management and Native Plant Rehabilitation

·      Weed management and planting of native species and coastal tolerant species to rehabilitate foreshore protection area.

·      A vegetation clearance setback of 5m from foreshore boundary will ensure the existing scenic visual quality to and from the coastal foreshore and act as a wind break and protection for the proposed new planting scheme.

·      The management of the weed removal and ongoing prevention of re-occurrence is critical to future success of the subject site and prevention of contamination to neighbouring Lurline Bay (refer to Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan). Weeds are to be managed in accordance with the requirements of relevant Authorities and the Noxious Weeds Act 1993.

 

Site Description and Locality

 

The site is known as 1B Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra and is legally identified as Lot 212 in DP 809978. The allotment has a total area of 6,154.7m2 and is accessed from Mermaid Avenue via a long right of carriageway, which also serves No. 1 and 1A Mermaid Avenue. The site has irregular boundaries to properties along the southern side of Liguria Street and the northern side of Mermaid Avenue with a significant frontage to Lurline Bay to the east.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

·      35 Liguria Street, Maroubra

Issues

Comments

Potential privacy impact from the viewing deck

The viewing deck is of a sufficient setback so as not to cause an adverse loss of amenity by way of overlooking.

 

·      33 Liguria Street, Maroubra

Issues

Comments

The boardwalk, tea house, viewing deck and open pergola are forward of the Foreshore Building Line and do not comply with the RLEP 2012.

Agreed. Part of the proposed structures are forward of the building line and Council is unable to approve them.

Proposal will have a substantial adverse impact on views and be detrimental to the scenic quality of the foreshore.

Agreed. The proposed works will not have an acceptable level of impact on the foreshore’s scenic qualities.

Proximity of the viewing deck and open pergola will create adverse amenity and privacy impacts.

The viewing deck is of a sufficient setback so as not to cause an adverse loss of amenity by way of overlooking. In fact, the submittor’s property and rear private open space/ pool area is higher than the subject site.

Proposed landscape species and placement will result in a loss of views from outdoor private open space areas and internal rooms over Lurline Bay.

 

As discussed below, the proposed row of New Zealand Christmas Bushes along the northern boundary normally grow to a height in Sydney’s Eastern Suburbs of around 4-6m. Nonetheless the potential for adverse view impacts exists and can easily be avoided through the selection of another species of plant.

The development application documentation incorrectly locates the foreshore building line by a significant margin. As a consequence, numerous elements of the proposal sit forward of the foreshore building line and fail to satisfy the provisions of Clause 6.6 of the RLEP.

The plans do not accurately depict the Foreshore Building Line. As a result, much of the proposed works are located seaward of the Foreshore Building Line and contrary to the provisions of Clause 6.6 of the RLEP 2012. Council cannot consent to these works.

The proposed structures, much of which are elevated and will be highly visible from surrounding properties and the public domain and incompatible with the the natural coastal landscape character.

Agreed. The proposed works are incompatible with the site’s scenic qualities, the objectives and controls associated with the planning controls relating to the Coastal Zone and Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and will have an unacceptable visual impact. 

The entirety of the site is located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area under RLEP 2012. The proposal would create detrimental impacts on the scenic quality, natural setting and character of this area, contravening key RLEP 2012 and Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP 2013) controls established to protect and enhance the natural and aesthetic value of the coastal area.

Agreed. See assessment below.

 

The proposal (in particular the tea house, elevated viewing deck and other elevated structures forward of the foreshore building line) is inconsistent with the RLEP 2012 and RDCP 2013 objectives and provisions on protecting the character of the coastal area as it would introduce structures that are incompatible with the natural values and scenic quality of the foreshore scenic protection area.

Agreed. See assessment below.

 

The proposed tea house and deck in particular would create a significant visual impact for adjoining dwellings on Liguria Street and on the opposing side of the bay by significantly modifying the existing natural landscaped setting of the foreshore.

There will be some adverse visual impact. See assessment below.

 

The proposal would have severe impacts upon the extensive water and land interface views currently enjoyed from the proposed row of trees (New Zealand Christmas Bush), failing the RDCP provisions relating to view sharing and in conflict with the Planning principle developed out of Tenacity Consulting v Waringah [2004] NSWLEC 140.

There will be some adverse visual impact. See assessment below.

The proposal is in conflict with the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 which can provide a remedy in situations where excessively high vegetation results in loss of amenity.

The provisions of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 is not a relevant matter in the consideration of the development application, pursuant to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. This Act also relates to tree causing or likely to cause damage or injury to property or people and does not relate to view loss.

Loss of views would result in a loss of property value.

The loss of property value is not supported and cannot be substantiated.

The application lacks vital information to support it including:

·      a detailed view loss analysis

·      amended plans to accurately located the foreshore building line

·      development on adjacent sites should be more comprehensively shown on the plans to better understand the context of the proposed works.

·      Amended plans should contain better dimensional information.

·      The viewing deck and tea house (as well as other structures) are illustrated in cross section only and do not provide elevations of all four sides as would ordinarily be required for any structure.

·      Inadequate dimensions are provided in plan for the proposed structures.

Agreed. The application does not provide sufficient information as noted in the submission.

 


 

·      31 Liguria Street, Maroubra

Issues

Comments

The boardwalk, Teahouse, viewing deck and open pergola are forward of the Foreshore Building Line and do not comply with Clause 6.6(2) or 6.7 of the RLEP 2012.

As per previous comments.

Proposal will have a substantial adverse impact on views and be detrimental to the scenic quality of the foreshore.

As per previous comments.

Proximity of the viewing deck and open pergola will create adverse acoustic privacy impacts.

The viewing deck is of a sufficient setback so as not to cause an adverse loss of amenity by way of noise impacts. The size and nature of the deck are such that it is unlikely to be used for activities that would result in an adverse acoustic amenity impact.

Proposed landscape species and placement will result in a loss of views from outdoor private open space areas and internal rooms over Lurline Bay.

As per previous comments.

No details on the use of herbicides/ chemicals in gardens for clearing of weeds or on-going maintenance.

There is no statutory requirement to detail the nature and application of herbicides as development consent is not required for weed removal.

No ecological assessment for the proposed weed management.

An ecological assessment is not required as the site is not located within any of the areas designated in the RLEP 2012 maps as having any particular biodiversity or ecological sensitivity. Likewise, weed management activities do not require development consent.

The motive for the works are for excessive development of the site and not bush regeneration.

The applicant’s motive is not a relevant matter for consideration. 

 

·      29 Liguria Street, Maroubra

Issues

Comments

The works come after years of neglect by the overseas-based owner. A 12-month maintenance period will not ensure the property stays maintained.

A 12 month maintenance period is a standard timeframe.

No details provided on the care and protection of existing fauna (lizards, frogs and birds) during works.

An ecological assessment is not required as the site is not located within any of the areas designated in the RLEP 2012 maps as having any particular biodiversity or ecological sensitivity.

No details of how adjoining properties will be protected from the use of chemicals such as Roundup, which are potentially carcinogenic.

As per previous comments.

Weed removal works will likely displace existing vermin onto adjoining properties.

The management of vermin is a separate matter that does not rely on the removal (or retention) of weeds on the site.

The submitted documentation refers to outdated/ incorrect statutory controls – the Noxious Weeds Act has been repealed and replaced by the Biodiversity Act; no mention of the draft Coastal SEPP.

As discussed below, the documentation does contain several inaccuracies and omits vital information to justify the proposed works. The Noxious Weeds Act 1993 was among a number of Acts that were replaced by the Biosecurity Act 2015 in November 2015.

 

At the time of lodgement of the DA, the Coastal Management SEPP was only a draft planning instrument and will commence as a SEPP on 3 April 2018. The applicant has not addressed the provisions of this Instrument. See discussion below.

The proposal should be considered as an Integrated DA given the proximity to the adjoining watercourse, however the applicant has failed to identify the need for an Integrated Application.

Regardless of whether the works trigger the need for a Controlled Activity Approval under the Water Management Act 2000, S.4.47(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 provides that the General terms of Approval are not required to be obtained by the Consent Authority if it determines to refuse consent. It is recommended this DA be refused.

The proposed cost of development is inaccurate and does not identify/ include items such as irrigation for the landscaping, specific construction costs for the Tea House, depriving Council of potential revenue.

The applicant has submitted Council’s Cost Report Form and the cost estimate is considered to be within reasonable limits. The breakdown requested by the objector is beyond the statutory requirements and Council’s policy.

The proposal does not indicate whether water harvesting/ grey water recycling will be used on the site.

There is no statutory requirement for water harvesting etc.

The proposed landscaping includes many non-indigenous/ native species and inconsistent with the character and environmental qualities of the foreshore and severely impact on local flora and fauna communities.

Refer to discussions below regarding landscaping.

The SEE incorrectly states that no trees will be removed, yet the plans show a number of trees to be removed.

The SEE and submitted drawings locate all trees to be retained and removed.

The applicant has not submitted any view loss assessment to support their statements that there will be no adverse impact on adjoining properties in terms of view loss and fails to demonstrate the principles established in Tenacity Consulting vs Warringah Council (2004) NSW LEC [140].

Agreed. The application does not provide sufficient information with regards to view loss impacts, notwithstanding that the nominated trees are unlikely to grow to the height nominated.

The applicant has not submitted any assessment to support their statements that there will be no adverse impact on public domain in terms and fails to demonstrate the planning principle established in Rose Bay Marina P/L vs Woolahra Municipal Council and anor (2013) NSW LEC [1046].

The proposal will not have an acceptable level of impact on the public domain, as discussed below.

The proposal includes a dense vegetative screen along the common boundary to properties in Liguria Street, which will eventually block views.

Refer to discussion in the report below. Although the New Zealand Christmas Bushes are nominated as having a maximum mature height of 10m, in the Eastern Suburbs, this species usually obtains a height of 4-6m.

The DA is not supported by an ecological assessment. The site contains sufficient native vegetation to require bush regeneration strategies rather than re-landscaping.

There is no statutory requirement for an ecological assessment. The site is not classified as bushland under the RLEP 2012.

The site could contain endangered green frogs and other herptofauna (skinks etc) and there has been no consideration of the impact on these.

There is no evidence to suggest Endangered Species exist on the site.

Any clearing of weeds should be done manually and not with herbicides which can cause illness. In the event that weed sprays are used, notice should be given to residents and not during windy periods.

The application proposes a range of weed removal methods in the Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan. There are no relevant or enforceable statutory mechanisms applicable to this proposal that control the use of herbicides.

The proposal does not include any assessment of the potential for birds striking the clear glazing around the pool.

 

There is no statutory requirement relating to potential birdstrikes. Given the existence of glazing on the surrounding dwellings and pool enclosures (including at the submittor’s property) it is not anticipated that the proposal will have any greater potential than the existing properties.

The proposal does not include any assessment of the potential for Aboriginal cultural heritage or artefacts, given the site’s prominent location.

An assessment of the site’s potential for Aboriginal cultural heritage has not been provided by the applicant. Notwithstanding this, the site does not contain any prominent features such as caves, water bodies, headlands and the like. Council’s standard conditions would provide adequate protocols in the event of any unexpected finds.

The ‘Foreshore Preservation Zone’ has not been drawn correctly and most of the proposed structures violate the zone.

Agreed. The documentation submitted by the applicant fails to accurately locate the Foreshore Building Line.

 

·      27 Liguria Street, Maroubra

 

Issues

Comments

Submitted information contains inaccuracies and false statements including the location of the Foreshore Building Line (FBL), existing trees to be removed, level of impacts anticipated (view loss, privacy, overshadowing), changes to ground level.

Refer to previous comments.

 

Majority of the works are forward of the FBL, contrary to the intent of the zone to be free of any structures. Approval will set an undesirable precedent.

Refer to previous comments.

 

The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of Cl. 6.7 of the RLEP 2012.

Refer to previous comments.

The site has the largest frontage to Lurline Bay and the proposed works will result in a significant adverse visual impact on the foreshore and coastline.

Refer to previous comments.

The proposed landscaping includes many non-indigenous/ native species and inconsistent with the character and environmental qualities of the foreshore and severely impact on local flora and fauna communities.

Refer to previous comments.

The extent of vegetation removal could lead to destabilisation of the soil.

The potential for soil destabilisation is addressed in the report below.

The landscape plan includes species along the common boundaries that are capable of growing to a height of 10-15m and blocking existing views and passive surveillance over Lurline Bay and the ocean.

Refer to previous comments.

The proposed landscaping will result in a loss of views that fail the Planning Principles developed out of the Tenacity Vs Warringah Council (2004) case.

Refer to previous comments.

 

·      25 Liguria Street, Maroubra

Issues

Comments

Proposed plantings will grow to a height that blocks neighbouring views of the ocean and shoreline, leading to unrest in the neighbourhood.

Refer to previous comments.

Plantings proposed are non-native/ endemic species.

The applicant states that the species selection satisfies Council’s requirements for at least 50% of the plants be native species.

Loss of views will result in loss of land value.

This claim cannot be substantiated.

Loss of views over Lurline Bay could impact on passive surveillance opportunities and public safety as neighbours have been able to identify and report swimmers and watercraft in distress, leading to their rescue.

Passive surveillance opportunities over Lurline Bay would be compromised somewhat however can be maintained by the careful selection of species.

The proposed works will encroach over public land and prevent any future plans for extending the coastal walkway from Coogee to Maroubra.

The application does not clearly define the proximity of the proposed works to the cliff line and the property boundary and does not demonstrate whether consideration has been given to providing future public access.

The proposed excavations and construction of the boardwalk could destabilise the area, resulting in landslides.

The application does not adequately detail all proposed earthworks or provide any geotechnical or stability assessment.

 

·      23 Liguria Street, Maroubra

Issues

Comments

Proposed landscape species and placement will result in a loss of views from outdoor private open space areas and internal rooms over Lurline Bay.

Refer to previous comments.

The development application documentation incorrectly locates the foreshore building line by a significant margin. As a consequence, numerous elements of the proposal sit forward of the foreshore building line and fail to satisfy the provisions of Clause 6.6 of the RLEP.

Refer to previous comments.

The proposed structures, much of which are elevated and will be highly visible from surrounding properties and the public domain and incompatible with the the natural coastal landscape character.

Refer to previous comments.

The entirety of the site is located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area under RLEP 2012. The proposal would create detrimental impacts on the scenic quality, natural setting and character of this area, contravening key RLEP 2012 and Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP 2013) controls established to protect and enhance the natural and aesthetic value of the coastal area.

Refer to previous comments.

The proposal (in particular the tea house, elevated viewing deck and other elevated structures forward of the foreshore building line) is inconsistent with the RLEP 2012 and RDCP 2013 objectives and provisions on protecting the character of the coastal area as it would introduce structures that are incompatible with the natural values and scenic quality of the foreshore scenic protection area.

Refer to previous comments.

The proposed tea house and deck in particular would create a significant visual impact for adjoining dwellings on Liguria Street and on the opposing side of the bay by significantly modifying the existing natural landscaped setting of the foreshore.

Refer to previous comments.

The proposal would have severe impacts upon the extensive water and land interface views currently enjoyed from the proposed row of trees (New Zealand Christmas Bush), failing the RDCP provisions relating to view sharing and in conflict with the Planning principle developed out of Tenacity Consulting v Waringah [2004] NSWLEC 140.

Refer to previous comments.

The proposal is in conflict with the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 which can provide a remedy in situations where excessively high vegetation results in loss of amenity.

Refer to previous comments.

Loss of views would result in a loss of property value.

Refer to previous comments.

The application lacks vital information to support it including:

·      a detailed view loss analysis

·      amended plans to accurately located the foreshore building line

·      development on adjacent sites should be more comprehensively shown on the plans to better understand the context of the proposed works.

·      Amended plans should contain better dimensional information.

·      The viewing deck and tea house (as well as other structures) are illustrated in cross section only and do not provide elevations of all four sides as would ordinarily be required for any structure.

·      Inadequate dimensions are provided in plan for the proposed structures.

Refer to previous comments.

 

·      17 Liguria Street, Maroubra

Issues

Comments

The proposal is inconsistent with the NSW Coastal Policy.

Refer to previous comments.

The proposal could negatively impact on the Council’s ability to properly implement the proposed upgraded public access on this section of the coastal walkway and is therefore inconsistent with Clause 5.5(2)(a)(ii) of the RLEP 2012.

Refer to previous comments.

 

The size and scale of the proposed structures are inconsistent with the coastal location, proximity to adjoining properties and will obstruct neighbour’s views.

Refer to previous comments.

 

The deliberate planting of tall trees along boundaries to block views is in conflict with the Trees (Disputes between Neighbours) Act 2006.

Refer to previous comments.

 

The proposed works are not of a domestic nature and could result in the property being used for wedding receptions etc, which will have traffic and noise issues.

The application does not propose to use the premises for the purposes of a reception centre. Should a development application be proposed for such a use, it will be assessed on its merits and against the applicable planning controls.

The proposed works are inconsistent with the objectives of the adjoining RE1 Public Recreation zone and extensive clearing of vegetation will adversely affect the coastal environment and on the marine environment of Lurline Bay.

The removal of weeds does not require consent and such activities would be entirely consistent with the objectives of the RE1 Public Recreation zone of the adjoining land. The removal of the trees however has not been supported by adequate documentation.

 

·      15 Liguria Street, Maroubra

Issues

Comments

The proposed landscape tree species will block existing water views.

Refer to previous comments.

No details on the use of herbicides/ chemicals in gardens for clearing of weeds or on-going maintenance.

Refer to previous comments.

 

·      1 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra

Issues

Comments

The proposal does not address how construction vehicles will access the shared driveway or how/ when weed management activities will occur.

The application does not address potential impacts associated with construction activities and access along the long driveway.

 

Refer to previous comments.

 

·      2/273 Malabar Road, Maroubra

Issues

Comments

Concerned at the impact the proposal will have on the area and the current foreshore nature strip that extends across the whole south side of Liguria Street and the bay.

Refer to previous comments.

The DA does not set out with enough detail or adequacy how the use of chemicals, including herbicidal sprays, will be used so as to minimise the harmful impact and health side effects to neighbouring residents and fauna.

Refer to previous comments.

The DA does not accurately locate the Foreshore Building Line (FBL).

Refer to previous comments.

 


 

No address supplied – via email

Issues

Comments

Plantings will result in view loss from adjoining properties.

Refer to previous comments.

The quoted cost of development on Council’s website conflicts with the DA forms ($49,800 as opposed to $498,000).

The DA documentation correctly identified the estimated cost of development as $498,000. This was inadvertently entered into Council’s systems as $49,800 and has since been corrected.

 

Key Issues

 

Completeness of the Application Documentation

The application does not contain sufficient information to clearly document the proposal, describe its intended impacts or justify the conclusions drawn. In this regard, the following matters are noted:

 

·      The submitted plans do not correctly identify the location of the Foreshore Building Line, as shown by the diagram below. This has significant ramifications for the permissibility of the application in respect of Clause 6.6(2)(a) of the Randwick LEP 2012, as discussed below. At present, any structures seaward of the Foreshore Building Line cannot be approved.

 

Mapped Foreshore Building Line

 

·      The submitted plans do not show full and complete details of all earthworks including any batters to the watercourse, temporary soil stabilisation measures or details of the existing and final ground levels across the site.

 

·      The submitted plans do not correctly identify the proposed works in terms of the proximity to adjoining property boundaries or the use of the areas on the adjoining properties in the context of the proposed boardwalk and viewing deck.

 

·      The submitted plans do not show full and complete details of the proposed boardwalks and in particular, the proposed bridges that cross the watercourse along the southwestern boundary.

 

·      An assessment of the hydraulic performance of the watercourse to determine whether any flooding or flows occur that would impact on the bridges or would be impacted by the proposed bridges and boardwalk.

 

·      The submitted plans do not clearly demonstrate the location of the proposed works in the context of the allotment boundaries and existing topographical features such as rock outcrops, clifftops and embankments.

 

·      A geotechnical assessment of site stability has not been provided, given the proximity of the works to the watercourse and clifftops and the extent of excavation proposed.

 

·      The application does not include any assessment by a qualified arborist to justify the removal of the trees across the site and does not provide any quantification to the selection of tree species along the northern boundary which could have the potential to cause a loss of views to adjoining properties.

 

·      The application is not supported by any form of visual impact analysis to demonstrate the proposal will not have an adverse visual impact on the scenic qualities of the coastline in general and specifically on Lurline Bay.

 

·      The application is not supported by any view loss assessment to demonstrate the proposal will not have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of adjoining properties and supports the reasonable sharing of views over Lurline Bay.

 

·      The application has not adequately demonstrated the site’s potential for Aboriginal cultural heritage and that the proposed earthworks will not have an adverse impact in this regard.

 

·      The application documentation refers to legislation that is no longer applicable (the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 was replaced in 2015 by the Biosecurity Act 2015) and fails to address the relevant statutory considerations (the Draft Coastal Management SEPP) or demonstrate that a Controlled Activity Approval is not required for the works adjacent to the watercourse.

 

·      The application fails to demonstrate that access can be achieved by vehicles during construction without significant disruption to adjoining properties, given the long and narrow shared driveway.

 

·      Full details of the proposed shade sails or the roof over the tea house have not been provided. Further, complete details of the proposed colour schemes and materials have not been provided.

 

Permissibility

The site is within 100m of the defined Coastal Waters and accordingly, subject to the Foreshore Building Line pursuant to Clause 6.6 of the Randwick LEP 2012.

 

As shown above, the submitted plans depict the Foreshore Building Line incorrectly and the majority of the works are on the seaward side of the Foreshore Building Line. The provisions of Clause 6.6(2) state that development consent must not be granted for development on land in the foreshore area except for the following purposes:

 

(a) the extension, alteration or rebuilding of an existing building wholly or partly in the foreshore area.

 

(b) the erection of a building in the foreshore area, if the levels, depth or other exceptional features of the site make it appropriate to do so.

 

(c) boat sheds, sea retaining walls, wharves, slipways, jetties, waterway access stairs, swimming pools, fences, cycleways, walking trails, picnic facilities or other recreation facilities (outdoors).

 

The proposal does not qualify for any of the above exceptions for the following reasons:

 

(a) Although the pool is an existing structure and the extension of the deck and provision of a shade sail would be permitted, the remaining works (boardwalk, retaining wall, moongate, arbour, teahouse/ deck) are new works. Council cannot grant an exemption – and therefore consent, for these structures.

 

(b) The proposed tea house/ deck would be elevated up to 2m above the ground surface, have a height of up to 3m above their deck level and located approximately 5m from the top of the cliff-face and 10m from the southeastern allotment boundary. The siting, site features and height of the proposed structures are inappropriate in the site’s context and accordingly, Council cannot grant consent.

 

(c) The semi-elevated boardwalk is not deemed to be a walking trail or ‘other outdoor recreation facility’ in the context of this subclause and accordingly, do not qualify as an exemption.

 

Impacts on the Foreshore

Despite the significant lack of detail, it is evident that the proposed works forward of the Foreshore Building Line and those structures that project above the general topography of the site (the pool decking, shade sails, viewing platform and tea house), as well as the removal of vegetation in the central eastern portion of the site and replacement with lawn, will have a significant adverse impact on the scenic qualities of the foreshore and coastal zone.

 

Despite significant weed infestations on the property, their removal and management does not rely on the proposed structures or landscape features. The proposed works will result in a significant adverse change to the visual appearance of the site when viewed within both the public domain and adjoining properties. At present, Lurline Bay has a somewhat natural vegetated appearance, with the site having the largest frontage to Lurline Bay, as shown in the photos below.

 

Existing HouseExisting PoolProposed Lawn areaExisting Tennis Court 

Photo 1: The site viewed from the roadway of Waterside Avenue

 

 

Existing Tennis CourtProposed 10m high screen plantingsProposed Tea HouseTrees 21-27 to be removedExisting House 

Photo 2: The site viewed from the rock platform adjacent to the Rob Walker Rock Pool

 

Loss of views

Although the site sits generally below the adjoining properties (seen in the photo above), the provision of two rows of tall trees which could adversely intrude upon the views over Lurline Bay is not acceptable. The application has not made any assessment of the potential loss of views or provided justification for tall plantings. Given the number of affected properties, an individual assessment of each property has not been undertaken.

 

Issue

Comment

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

The proposed structures will not, per se, block any existing views from adjoining properties, however they will be visible. Irrespective of the species nominated for the perimeter plantings, any trees capable of growing to 10m would have varying degrees of impact on existing views, depending on the precise location one was standing. Suffice to say, a smaller-growing species could mitigate any potential for view loss.

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

Consideration has been given to the existing views and the potential view loss adjoining properties would experience from living areas and the associated private open space areas (external balconies). The properties along Liguria Street are orientated in a southerly direction over Lurline Bay, with all dwellings having significant indoor and outdoor living spaces facing the Bay.

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.

An inspection of the site and surrounding area did not identify any conflict between the private and public domain views.

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

N/A.

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.

The proposal does not include any blade walls or screens. An alternative plant species can mitigate any potential loss of views.

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

The applicant has not reviewed any mitigative measures.

 

The view-sharing controls contained in Council’s DCP have been based on the planning principle relating to view sharing prepared by the NSW Land and Environment Court, based on the case of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 140. In Tenacity, the Court determined a 4-step process to determine whether the loss or sharing of views is reasonable. In summary, the four steps in the process are outlined as follows:

 

·      Step 1: Assess the views to be affected - water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views.

 

·      Step 2: Assess what part of the property the views are obtained from. Is the view from the side, front or rear boundaries? Is the view enjoyed from a standing or sitting position? Is the expectation to retain the view realistic?

 

·      Step 3: Assess the extent of the impact having regard to the whole of the property, not just for the view that is affected. Views from living areas are more significant than from bedrooms etc. A qualitative assessment is usually more useful (i.e. the view loss is negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating) than comparing percentages.

 

·      Step 4: Assess the reasonableness of the proposal causing the impact. Is the application compliant (and therefore more reasonable) or involve variations to development standards?

 

Having regard to the Planning Principle and the 4-step process outlined above, the following view impact assessment is provided for the proposal, taking into account each of the three properties that have objected on the basis of view loss.

 

Step

View Loss Assessment

Step 1 – the affected views

Significant views over Lurline Bay to the south.

Step 2 – Where are the views are obtained from?

Indoor and outdoor living areas and private open spaces, including pool areas.

Step 3 – Extent of impact to whole of the property and quality of view

Various depending on the property concerned, however Nos 23 to 31 Liguria Avenue will be the most affected.

Step 4 – Is the proposal causing the impact reasonable?

No. Alternative species can be selected which will not have any potential to cause view loss.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

That the application to undertake alterations and additions to pool area including new deck area, shade structures, broadwalk, retaining walls, associated site and landscaping works, weed management and revegetation works be refused for the following reasons:

 

1)       The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant objectives of the 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.

 

2)       The application does not contain sufficient information to clearly document the proposal, describe its intended impacts or justify the conclusions drawn. In this regard, the following necessary information was not submitted to describe or support the proposal: 

 

a)     The submitted plans do not correctly identify the location of the Foreshore Building Line.

 

b)     The submitted plans do not show full and complete details of all earthworks including any batters to the watercourse, temporary soil stabilisation measures or details of the existing and final ground levels across the site.

 

c)     The submitted plans do not correctly identify the proposed works in terms of the proximity to adjoining property boundaries or the use of the areas on the adjoining properties in the context of the proposed boardwalk and viewing deck.

 

d)     The submitted plans do not show full and complete details of the proposed boardwalks and in particular, the proposed bridges that cross the watercourse along the southwestern boundary.

 

e)     An assessment of the hydraulic performance of the watercourse to determine whether any flooding or flows occur that would impact on the bridges or would be impacted by the proposed bridges and boardwalk.

 

f)     The submitted plans do not clearly demonstrate the location of the proposed works in the context of the allotment boundaries and existing topographical features such as rock outcrops, clifftops and embankments.

 

g)     A geotechnical assessment of site stability has not been provided, given the proximity of the works to the watercourse and clifftops and the extent of excavation proposed.

 

h)     The application does not include any assessment by a qualified arborist to justify the removal of the trees across the site and does not provide any quantification to the selection of tree species along the northern boundary which could have the potential to cause a loss of views to adjoining properties.

 

i)      The application is not supported by any form of visual impact analysis to demonstrate the proposal will not have an adverse visual impact on the scenic qualities of the coastline in general and specifically on Lurline Bay.

 

j)     The application is not supported by any view loss assessment to demonstrate the proposal will not have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of adjoining properties and supports the reasonable sharing of views over Lurline Bay.

 

k)     The application has not adequately demonstrated the site’s potential for Aboriginal cultural heritage and that the proposed earthworks will not have an adverse impact in this regard.

 

l)      The Statement of Environmental Effects refers to superseded legislation (the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 was replaced in 2015 by the Biosecurity Act 2015) and fails to address the relevant statutory considerations (the Coastal Management SEPP) or demonstrate that a Controlled Activity Approval under the Water Management Act 2000 is not required for the works adjacent to the waterfront land.

 

m)    The application fails to demonstrate that access can be achieved by vehicles during construction without significant disruption to adjoining properties, given the long and narrow shared driveway.

 

n)     Full details of the proposed shade sails or the roof over the tea house have not been provided.

 

o)     Complete details of the proposed colour schemes and materials have not been provided.

 

3)       The proposal fails to satisfy the Objectives and specific provisions contained in Clauses 14, 15 and 16 of the draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2016.

 

4)       The proposal fails to satisfy the Objectives and specific provisions contained in Clause 8 of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 - Coastal Protection.

 

5)       The proposal fails to satisfy the Objectives and specific provisions contained in Part 3 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas 2017) in that it has not sought a Tree Permit for the removal of the nominated trees.

 

6)       The proposal does not provide sufficient information to demonstrate the proposed earthworks will not have an adverse impact on the environment and cannot satisfy the specific provisions contained in Clause 6.2 - Earthworks of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

7)       The proposal does not satisfy the specific provisions contained in Clause 6.6 – Foreshore Building Line of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in that it proposes works and structures that will not be compatible with the surrounding area; have the potential to cause significant adverse environmental harm and will result in an unacceptable visual impact on the aesthetic appearance of the vegetated foreshore of Lurline Bay, detracting from the scenic qualities of the coast.

 

8)       The proposal does not satisfy the specific provisions contained in Clause 6.7 – Foreshore Scenic Protection Area of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in that it will not protect and enhance the natural, visual and/ or environmental qualities of the scenic areas of the coastline; will result in an unacceptable visual impact through the removal of a number of trees, replacement with inappropriate species; alteration of the appearance of the vegetated foreshore of Lurline Bay and introduce a number of new structures which will penetrate to vegetated coastal zone; will have an adverse visual impact on the views of the coast from both private land and the public domain; and will not result in appropriate development within the coastal zone and will detract from the scenic qualities of the coast.

 

9)       The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant objectives and controls of Section 3.1 - Existing Vegetation and Natural Features under Part B4 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 in that the removal of the significant vegetation from the site will create an adverse visual impact on the scenic qualities of Lurline Bay, which is inconsistent with the coastal zone characteristics.

 

10)     The proposal does not provide adequate provisions for construction vehicles during the construction stage under Part B7, Section 3 – Parking and Service Delivery Requirements of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013.

 

11)     The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant objectives and controls of Part B10 – Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and Section 8.3 in Part C of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 in that the removal of the significant vegetation from the site will create an adverse visual impact on the scenic qualities of Lurline Bay, which is inconsistent with the coastal zone characteristics.

 

12)     The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant objectives and controls of Section 4.1 – General Building Design under Part C of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 in that the proposed structures would be visually intrusive and inconsistent with the surrounding topography.

 

13)     The proposal fails to provide sufficient details to satisfy the following provisions of Part C of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013:

 

·      Section 4.5 – colour schemes

·      Section 4.6 – details of all earthworks

·      Section 5.6 – provision of landscaping which could intrude upon reasonable sharing of views

 

14)     The approval of a development with a significant lack of information and lack of justification for particular aspects of the proposal is not in the public interest and will set an undesirable precedent for other similarly inadequate proposals, resulting in a significant adverse effect on coastal zone, the visual quality of the locality and general residential amenity.

 

15)     The development application is not in the broader public interest having regard to the number and nature of submissions received and providing development that meets minimum levels of design quality and minimises impacts to neighbouring developments. Approval of such a development will establish an undesirable precedent for future development in the locality.


 

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 Residential R2 Low Density under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent. See table below for compliance with development standards.

 

As discussed in the Executive Summary and above, the proposal is inconsistent with the specific objectives of the zone and those for development within the Coastal Zone.

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

At the time of lodgement, the site was subject to the (then) draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2016 (Coastal Management SEPP) as being within both the Coastal Environment Area and the Coastal Use Area. On the 3 April 2018, the SEPP will formally come into effect.

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

The proposal does not satisfy the objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013, as discussed above.

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 not suitable for the proposed development, given the sensitive coastal location, proximity of the works to the foreshore and lack of sufficient information to demonstrate the proposal will not have an adverse impact on the both the physical environment and the residential amenity of adjoining properties.

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 is not an appropriate form of development on a site that is located in a sensitive and visible location. The potential for adverse environmental harm and amenity impacts outweigh any positive aspects from the proposed weed management activities. Additionally, the poor level of documentation and lack of adequate and accurate information further reinforce the poor environmental planning outcomes that would be achieved, should the application be approved. Such a poor application would set an unacceptable precedence for the development of other similar sites in coastal locations, resulting in a significant adverse effect on the wider biophysical and human environments.

 

2.         Integrated Development

 

Given the proximity of the proposed works to “waterfront land” (a small watercourse along the southwestern boundary), it is Council’s view that the proposal requires a Controlled Activity Approval under the Water Management Act 2000, despite the applicant failing to nominate whether the development constitutes ‘Integrated Development’ under Section 91 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Based on the lack of adequate information and payment of the requisite fee, Council has not referred the application to the relevant State Agency for their General Terms of Approval. Section 4.47(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 provides that the General Terms of Approval are not required to be obtained by the Consent Authority if it determines to refuse consent. It is recommended that Development Consent for the proposed works be formally refused.

 

3.         Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

3.1.     State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPS)

 

3.1.1. State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

State Environmental Planning Policy 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. The subject site has been used previously for residential purposes. There are no records of contamination or contaminating activities occurring on or around the subject site. In this regard, the likelihood of contamination at the site is negligible. Accordingly, the site is considered suitable for the continued residential land use.

 

3.1.2. State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 – Coastal Protection (SEPP 71)

At the time of lodgement, State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 was in force. The SEPP aims to protect and preserve all lands within the Coastal Zone. The SEPP contains a number of matters that must be taken into account for any development, such as that which is the subject of this Development Application (DA). These matters, identified in Clause 8, are addressed in the table below:

 

Control

Comment

Satisfactory

(Yes/No/NA)

(a)    the aims of this Policy

The proposal is inconsistent with the aims of the SEPP in that it does not:

 

·      protect the natural attributes of the coast

·      ensure that the visual amenity of the coast is protected

·      protect and preserve native coastal vegetation

·      demonstrate the principles of ecologically sustainable development have been satisfactorily incorporated into the design, siting and carrying out of the proposed works

·      the type, bulk, scale and size of development is not appropriate for the location and does not protect and improve the natural scenic quality of the surrounding area.

No

(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

The site does not affect any existing coastal pathway. Informal access along the foreshore currently exists along the existing rockshelf from stairs and pathways from Waterside Avenue and Marine Parade to a set of stairs up to Liguria Street.

N/A

(c)    opportunities to provide new public access to and along the coastal foreshore for pedestrians or persons with a disability.

No formal proposals for access known.

N/A

(d)    the suitability of development given its type, location and design and its relationship with the surrounding area.

The proposal will disrupt the relatively undeveloped vegetative appearance of the clifftops along Lurline Bay and will be visible due to the modification of the site, removal of trees and replacement with formal landscaped areas. The DA proposes a significant number of works and structures forward of the actual Foreshore Building Line.

No

(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.

The proposed plantings along the northern common boundary are capable of growing to a height where they would cause unreasonable and avoidable view loss.

No

(f)    the scenic qualities of the coast and means to protect and improve these qualities

The proposal is not supported by any form of visual impact assessment. The proposed works will result in a significant adverse visual impact when viewed from other areas within the public domain, altering the current vegetated state to a manicured landscaped setting that is in contrast with the surrounding clifftops around Lurline Bay.

No

(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

The site has not been identified as containing Critical Habitat for any threatened species.

N/A

(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

N/A

N/A

(i)     existing wildlife corridors and the impact of development on these corridors

Although the site does not contain any formal wildlife corridors, the presence of a vegetated watercourse along the western boundary provides a logical corridor for fauna to move between the ocean, rock shelf and the site.

The proposal will result in a significant level of disturbance to the watercourse through the construction of the boardwalk, associated earthworks and revegetation activities.

No

(j)    the likely impact of coastal processes and coastal hazards on development and any likely impacts of development on coastal processes and coastal hazards

Although the proposed works are elevated well above sea level, land slip and destabilisation due to the large-scale land clearing to be undertaken could result in topsoil eroding into Lurline Bay.

No

(k)    measures to reduce the potential for conflict between land-based and water-based coastal activities

N/A

N/A

(l)     measures to protect the cultural places, values, customs, beliefs and traditional knowledge of Aboriginals

Although possible the site could have been used by Aboriginal people, it is not listed as a place of cultural sensitivity. Nonetheless, the DA does not address the potential for Aboriginal cultural heritage or demonstrate there will not be any adverse impacts on the same.

No

(m)   likely impacts of development on the water quality of coastal waterbodies

Exposure of soils without adequate erosion control measures could lead to runoff and sedimentation entering the watercourse on the western side of the site and then into Lurline Bay. The DA does not adequately demonstrate the proposed measures to prevent runoff and soil destabilization.

No

(n)    the conservation and preservation of items of heritage, archaeological or historic significance

The site is not listed as a heritage item. Standard conditions could be imposed to establish a protocol in the event that an unexpected artefact is found.

Yes

(o)    only in cases in which a council prepares a draft LEP that applies to land to which this Policy applies, the means to encourage compact towns and cities

N/A

N/A

(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.

The site represents most of the northern side of Lurline Bay while the western margin of the Bay is fragmented by a number of separate properties and the southern shore is protected by the road reserves of Waterside Avenue and Marine Parade and existing coastal reserves. Any adverse visual and physical impact is therefore significant.

The proposal is deficient in several areas and the cumulative impact of the proposal in terms of view loss, visual impact and physical impact on the coastline are such that the proposal is not acceptable.

Basic details of the proposed irrigation system have been provided also there is an underlying assumption that this will be fed by the site’s existing potable main water supply. No details of any proposed lighting (including whether solar lighting will be used) have been provided.

No

 

3.1.3. State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018 – (Coastal Management SEPP)

The Coastal Management SEPP was a draft SEPP and had not formally commenced at the time the DA was lodged. The Coastal Management SEPP, which came into effect on 3 April 2018, will provide a revised strategic land use planning framework for coastal management and support the implementation of the management objectives set out in the Coastal Management Act 2016. It maps the four coastal management areas (CMA) that comprise the proposed coastal zone under the Coastal Management Act 2016. Under the SEPP, the site is mapped as being within both the Coastal Environment Area and the Coastal Use Area.

 

The relevant matters for development within the Coastal Environment Area and Coastal Use Area are addressed in Clauses 14-16, as discussed within the table below:

 

Control

Comment

Satisfactory

(Yes/No/NA)

Cl 14 – Development on land within the coastal environmental zone

(a)    is not likely to cause adverse impacts on the biophysical, hydrological (surface and groundwater) and ecological environment

The proposal does not provide sufficient information to demonstrate it will not have an adverse impact on the environment.

No

(b)    is not likely to significantly impact on geological and geomorphological coastal processes and features or be significantly impacted by those processes and features

The proposed works are unlikely to have any significant adverse impact in this regard

Yes

(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

The proposed works are unlikely to have any significant adverse impact in this regard or affect any coastal lakes.

Yes

(d)    is not likely to have an adverse impact on native vegetation and fauna and their habitats, undeveloped headlands and rock platforms

The proposal does not provide sufficient information to demonstrate it will not have an adverse impact.

No

(e)    will not adversely impact Aboriginal cultural heritage and places

The proposal does not provide sufficient information to demonstrate it will not have an adverse impact in this regard.

No

(f)    incorporates water sensitive design, including consideration of effluent and stormwater management

The proposal does not provide sufficient information regarding stormwater management to demonstrate it will not have an adverse impact on the environment.

No

(g)    will not adversely impact on the use of the surf zone.

The proposed works are unlikely to have any significant adverse impact in this regard

Yes

Cl 15 – Development on land within the coastal use zone

(a)    Council must be satisfied that the proposed development:

 

(i)     if near a foreshore, beach, headland or rock platform—maintains or, where practicable, improves existing, safe public access to and along the foreshore, beach, headland or rock platform

 

 

 

 

The site does not provide any public access to the foreshore and will not impede the existing access along the rock shelf along this section of Lurline Bay.

 

 

 

 

Yes

(ii)    minimises overshadowing, wind funnelling and the loss of views from public places to foreshores

The proposal will not overshadow adjoining lands, create wind funnelling, or result in any significant loss of views from public places to the foreshore.

Yes

(iii)   will not adversely impact on the visual amenity and scenic qualities of the coast, including coastal headlands

The proposal will have an adverse impact on the visual amenity, scenic qualities of the coast, in particular Lurline Bay by reason of the penetration of the topography by structures that are incompatible with the dominant landform and context and the clearing of vegetation to create a manicured garden environment.

No

(iv)   will not adversely impact on Aboriginal cultural heritage and places

The proposal does not provide sufficient information to demonstrate it will not have an adverse impact in this regard.

No

(v)    will not adversely impact on use of the surf zone

The proposed works are unlikely to have any significant adverse impact in this regard

Yes

(b)    has taken into account the type and location of the proposed development, and the bulk, scale and size of the proposed development.

The proposal has not adequately taken into account the context and location of the site or its coastal context.

No

Cl 16 – Development on in coastal zone generally

Development consent must not be granted to development on land within the coastal zone (other than land to which clause 13 applies) unless the consent authority is satisfied that the proposed development is not likely to cause increased risk of coastal hazards on that land or other land.

The proposal could impact on the stability of adjoining properties if appropriate measures to stabilise exposed areas and manage stormwater.

No

 

3.1.4. State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas 2017) – (SEPP VNRA)

The application proposes to remove a number of trees, shrubs, plants and ‘weeds’ to permit the various proposed landscaping works and structures on the site. Accordingly, consideration of the provisions of the Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas SEPP is required.

 

The SEPP was introduced on 25 August 2017 and aims to:

 

(a)      protect the biodiversity values of trees and other vegetation in non-rural areas of the State, and

(b)      to preserve the amenity of non-rural areas of the State through the preservation of trees and other vegetation.

 

Part 2, Clause 8 notes that the clearing of dead or dying vegetation or vegetation that is not required as the habitat of native animals does not require a permit from Council.

 

Part 3 of the SEPP requires a permit from Council where a DCP declares such vegetation to require a permit by reason of its species, size, location or presence of vegetation in an ecological community or in the habitat of a threatened species. In this regard, Part B5 of the RDCP 2013 notes two types of approval pathways:

 

·      A Development Consent under the RLEP 2012 for tree works to any tree listed on Council’s Register of Significant Trees; or

·      A Tree Permit in certain other circumstances:

 

Information provided on both the Survey plan and the site plan indicate a number of the trees to be removed satisfy the height and/ or width criteria specified in the RDCP 2012 requiring a Tree Permit (i.e. any tree with a height 6m or more or a canopy width 4m or more). The applicant has not submitted any application to Council (other than this DA) at this point in time and has not provided any form of justification (such as an assessment prepared by an arborist) which demonstrates the condition of the tree or provides an assessment of the likely impacts of the removal of the tree.

 

3.2.     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

The subject site is zoned R2 – Low Density Residential under the Randwick LEP 2012. The proposal development is classified as alterations and additions to structures ancillary to a dwelling house and site works, which are permissible in the zone. The zoning objectives are addressed as follows:

 

Objective

Response

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

The proposed works are ancillary to the existing dwelling, which is to be retained and therefore are not in conflict with this objective.

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

The provision of landscaped private open space areas with hard and soft features and minor structures in itself is not in conflict with this objective.

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.

Although the proposed works will not be visible from Mermaid Avenue, they will from other surrounding streets such as Marine Parade, Waterside Avenue and other public domain areas, such as the Coastal Pathway and the rock platforms along the Rob Walker Rock Pool.

 

The proposal will result in a highly modified landform that will be both conspicuous and incompatible with the surrounding vegetation and coastal landforms. The use of inappropriate landscape elements, materials, structures and plantings which are inconsistent with the coastal location and surrounding properties will not make a positive contribution to either the existing or desired future character.

To protect the amenity of residents.

The proposal does not protect the amenity of adjoining residents through the use of inappropriate landscape elements, materials, structures and plantings which are inconsistent with the coastal location, existing view enjoyed by surrounding residents, privacy, solar access and overall amenity.

To encourage housing affordability.

Not applicable

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

Not applicable

 

The RLEP 2013 does not contain any principle development standards relevant to the proposed works such as floor space ratio, building height or allotment size. The primary use of the property will remain for residential purposes with the existing detached dwelling house being retained.

 

Other relevant provisions are contained in the following Clauses:

 

Cl. 3.3 - Environmentally sensitive areas excluded

The site is located within 100m of the defined Coastal Waters and accordingly, the Exempt or Complying Development provisions of the RLEP 2012 do not apply.

 

Cl. 5.5 – Development within the coastal zone

Subclause 1 identifies the objectives of the Clause. Consideration of the proposal in light of these objectives is provided in the table below:

 

Objective

Response

(a)    to provide for the protection of the coastal environment of the State for the benefit of both present and future generations through promoting the principles of ecologically sustainable development,

The proposed works are ancillary to the existing dwelling, which is to be retained and therefore are not in conflict with this objective.

(b)    to implement the principles in the NSW Coastal Policy, and in particular to:

(i)    protect, enhance, maintain and restore the coastal environment, its associated ecosystems, ecological processes and biological diversity and its water quality, and

(ii)   protect and preserve the natural, cultural, recreational and economic attributes of the NSW coast, and

(iii)   provide opportunities for pedestrian public access to and along the coastal foreshore, and

(iv) recognise and accommodate coastal processes and climate change, and

(v)   protect amenity and scenic quality, and

(vi) protect and preserve rock platforms, beach environments and beach amenity, and

(vii) protect and preserve native coastal vegetation, and

(viii) protect and preserve the marine environment, and

(ix) ensure that the type, bulk, scale and size of development is appropriate for the location and protects and improves the natural scenic quality of the surrounding area, and

(x)   ensure that decisions in relation to new development consider the broader and cumulative impacts on the catchment, and

(xi) protect Aboriginal cultural places, values and customs, and

(xii) protect and preserve items of heritage, archaeological or historical significance.

The provision of landscaped private open space areas with hard and soft features and minor structures in itself is not in conflict with this objective. What is in conflict is the actual nature and detail of the proposed works that create a significant adverse impact, hand in hand with a significant lack of meaningful detail that demonstrates the actual extent and impact of the proposed works. Accordingly, the proposal:

(i)     will not protect, enhance, maintain and restore the coastal environment;

(ii)    will not protect and preserve the natural, cultural, recreational and economic attributes of the NSW coast;

(iii)   will not protect the existing amenity and scenic quality;

(iv)   will not protect or preserve the rock platforms or beach environments within Lurline Bay;

(v)    will not protect or preserve native coastal vegetation, notwithstanding the proposed removal of various weed species by virtue of the species proposed; and

(vi)   will not ensure that the type, scale or size of development is appropriate for the location and will protect and improve the natural scenic quality of the surrounding area.

 

Subclauses (2) and (3) require Council to consider a range of matters pertaining to the protection and utilisation of the coastal zone, as discussed in the table below.

 

Control

Comment

Satisfactory

(Yes/No/NA)

2 (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

The proposal will not impeded or diminish any existing or proposed public access to the foreshore. It does propose to maintain the existing private access to the foreshore via the existing stairs in the southern corner of the site.

Yes

(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

 

The details of the proposal are such that while the removal of weeds presents as a desirable outcome, the associated works will result in a significant level of impact on the scenic values of Lurline Bay and the foreshore surrounding the site, with no justification for the structures and works, or demonstration that the actual impacts have been mitigated.

No

(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

 

The proposal will not result in any overshadowing of the foreshore.

 

The proposal will not cause a loss of views from a public place to the foreshore, however the consequences of the works will be visible from the public domain.

Yes

 

(d)    how the visual amenity and scenic qualities of the coast, including coastal headlands, can be protected, and

 

Lurline Bay is, generally speaking, recognisable for its rock platforms and cliffs with vegetated clifftops and residential development beyond. The proposal will result in a significant portion of the central section of the bay having a more manicured appearance containing non-native plant species with some modification of the land surface evident. A number of the trees to be removed between the existing dwelling and the cliffs are in excess of 8m in height and add significantly to a large clump of vegetation visible from the public domain around Lurline Bay

No

(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

 

The applicant has not supplied any documentation regarding the existing ecosystems, vegetation communities or habitats that might exist. The submitted tree survey is incomplete and there is no arboricultural assessment of the trees to be removed, the extent of any weed infestations or extent of vegetation management measures. Additionally, the application does not provide any details of the method of fixing the structures to the ground (e.g. piers, floating slab, excavation etc.) or location of the proposed walkway, retaining walls, any geotechnical assessment or an erosion and sediment control plan to determine whether the proposed physical works will impact on the watercourse along the southwestern boundary or the actual cliff-top itself.

No

(f)    the cumulative impacts of the proposed development and other development on the coastal catchment.

 

The site is one of the few that have direct frontage to the foreshore of Lurline Bay and the opportunity for cumulative impacts in the locality are somewhat limited. On a wider scale such as across the eastern margin of the Local Government Area, approval of similarly unsatisfactory developments could result in the degradation of the land/ ocean interface and the coastal zone in general.

No

(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

The proposal will not impede or diminish any existing or proposed right of access by the public to the foreshore.

Yes

(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

The proposed ancillary and landscaping works will not result in the production of any effluent.

Yes

(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

Although the application is not supported by an erosion and sediment control plan, the proposed works will not create any significant rise in stormwater runoff. Notwithstanding this, the application does not demonstrate the works will not have an adverse effect on the existing watercourse along the southwestern boundary and the waters of Lurline Bay or can be appropriately mitigated.

Yes

(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 application is not supported by any erosion and sediment control plan or bulk earthworks plans to fully describe the extent of cut and fill across the site and accordingly, is unable to demonstrate the potential impact to the Coastal Zone or whether mitigation measures are needed.

No

 

Cl. 6.2 – Earthworks

The site is located within 100m of the defined Coastal Waters and accordingly, development consent is required for all earthworks. The application proposes minor earthworks across the site as part of the proposed retaining wall, parts of the proposed pathway and construction of the various minor structures. The submitted plans are unclear as to the exact location and depth/ height of all earthworks, suggesting they could be between as little as 400mm deep, with the retaining wall ranging from 600mm to 1.1m in height/ depth. The SEE however states the works would be up to 900mm cut/ fill height.

 

The submitted Site Plan also indicates portions of the site that will remain undisturbed with a large portion along the natural watercourse and central southeastern part of the allotment that could be “disturbed”. Cross sections of the site demonstrating existing and proposed ground levels have not been provided.

 

The Consent Authority must also take into account the following matters identified in the table below:

 

Control

Comment

Satisfactory

(Yes/No/NA)

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

Insufficient detail has been provided to demonstrate the proposed works will not have a detrimental impact.

No

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

The use of the site for residential purposes will not be hindered by the proposal.

Yes

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

Insufficient detail has been provided.

No

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

Insufficient detail has been provided to determine the level of impact

No

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

Insufficient detail has been provided.

No

(f)    the likelihood of disturbing relics

The site has been heavily modified however the works have the potential to uncover relics. Management of any finds could be dealt with by way of appropriate management strategies.

Yes

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

Insufficient detail has been provided to demonstrate the proposed works will not have a detrimental impact.

No

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

No mitigation measures have been documented in sufficient detail to demonstrate the proposed works will not have a detrimental impact.

No

 

Cl. 6.6 – Foreshore Building Line

The site is located within 100m of the defined Coastal Waters and accordingly, subject to a Foreshore Building Line, as shown in the excerpt from the RLEP 2012 Foreshore Building Line and Foreshore Scenic Protection Map, below:

 

 

An examination of the submitted Site Plan shows that the plotted Foreshore Building Line is incorrect and the majority of the works are on the seaward side of the Foreshore Building Line. Accordingly, the provisions of Clause 6.6(2) are relevant and development consent must not be granted for development on land in the foreshore area except for the following purposes:

 

(a) the extension, alteration or rebuilding of an existing building wholly or partly in the foreshore area – as the pool is an existing structure the extension of the deck would be permitted, as would be the shade structure. The proposed new works (boardwalk, retaining wall, moongate, arbour, Tea House/ deck) are not permitted and Council cannot grant consent for these structures.

 

(b) the erection of a building in the foreshore area, if the levels, depth or other exceptional features of the site make it appropriate to do so – the proposed Tea House/ deck would be elevated up to 2m above the ground surface and located approximately 5m from the top of the cliff-face and 10m from the southeastern allotment boundary. The siting, site features and height of the proposed structures are inappropriate in the site’s context and accordingly, Council cannot grant consent.

 

(c) boat sheds, sea retaining walls, wharves, slipways, jetties, waterway access stairs, swimming pools, fences, cycleways, walking trails, picnic facilities or other recreation facilities (outdoors) – the semi-elevated boardwalk is not deemed to be a walking trail or ‘other outdoor recreation facility’ in the context of this subclause and accordingly, do not qualify as an exemption.

 

Subclause 3 also requires the consent authority be satisfied of the following matters:

 

Control

Comment

Satisfactory

(Yes/No/NA)

(a)    the development will contribute to achieving the objectives for the zone in which the land is located

As discussed above, the proposal is not consistent with the relevant zone objectives/

No

(b)    the appearance of any proposed structure, from both the waterway and adjacent foreshore areas, will be compatible with the surrounding area

The proposal will not be compatible from adjoining properties or the public domain.

No

(c)    the development will not cause environmental harm such as:

(i) pollution or siltation of the waterway, or

(ii) an adverse effect on surrounding uses, marine habitat, wetland areas, flora or fauna habitats, or

(iii) an adverse effect on drainage patterns

Insufficient detail has been provided to demonstrate the proposed works will not have a detrimental impact.

No

(d)    the development will not cause congestion or generate conflicts between people using open space areas or the waterway

The proposal will not have an adverse impact in this regard.

Yes

(e)    opportunities to provide continuous public access along the foreshore and to the waterway will not be compromised

There are currently no known plans to provide access along the southeastern property boundary, which would be difficult due to the cliff face.

N/A

(f)    any historic, scientific, cultural, social, archaeological, architectural, natural or aesthetic significance of the land on which the development is to be carried out and of surrounding land will be maintained

The proposal will not be compatible from adjoining properties or the public domain in terms of the potential adverse visual impact on the vegetated cliff-tops and foreshore of Lurline Bay.

No

(g)    in the case of development for the alteration or rebuilding of an existing building wholly or partly in the foreshore area, the alteration or rebuilding will not have an adverse impact on the amenity or aesthetic appearance of the foreshore

The visual impact caused by the addition of shade sails over the pool cannot be accurately determined given the lack of adequate detail and supporting information provided in this DA.

No

(h)    sea level rise or change of flooding patterns as a result of climate change has been considered

Not applicable given the elevation of the site

N/A

 

Cl. 6.7 – Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

As shown in the diagram above, the site is located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area. The proposal is considered to be in conflict with the objective of this clause in that it:

a)  will not protect and enhance the natural, visual and/ or environmental qualities of the scenic areas of the coastline.

b)  will result in an unacceptable visual impact through the removal of a number of trees, replacement with inappropriate species, introduce a more manicured appearance to the largely vegetated foreshore of Lurline Bay and introduce a number of new structures which will penetrate to vegetated coastal zone.

c)  Will have an adverse visual impact on the views of the coast from both private land and the public domain.

d)  Will not result in appropriate development within the coastal zone and will detract from the scenic qualities of the coast.

 

Subclause (3) also requires Council consider the location of the development and whether it is designed to minimise the visual impact on public areas of the coastline (including views to and from the coast, foreshore reserves, open space and public areas), and contributes to the scenic quality of the coastal foreshore. As demonstrated above, the proposal is not considered suitable and will not minimise the visual impact or contribute to the scenic quality of the foreshore.

 

4.         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 table below. (Note: a number of control provisions that are not related to the proposal have been deliberately omitted.)

 

PART B4 – Landscaping and Biodiversity

 

DCP Clause

Controls

Proposal

Compliance

2

Landscape Plan

 

Submission of a detailed landscape plan

Detailed Landscape Plan submitted

Yes

3.1

Existing Vegetation and Natural Features

 

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

The proposal seeks to remove a number of trees particularly in the central southeastern portion of the site to create a large lawn area. This will create an adverse visual impact on the scenic qualities of Lurline Bay and result in a significant change from a largely ‘natural’ clifftop landscape to a manicured garden, which is inconsistent with the coastal zone characteristics. The application does not provide any justification for the removal of the trees by way of an arborists’ report

No

 

Retain and incorporate existing natural features, such as cliffs and rock outcrops into the landscape design where possible.

The application lacks critical information such as cross sections to demonstrate the full extent of cut and fill across the site, the location of existing rock outcrops and cliffs or the method in which the walkway will be constructed as it traverses across and through the watercourse along the southwestern boundary.

No

 

Retain and stockpile topsoil for reuse in the landscaped area.

No details provided. It is noted that stockpiling topsoil on the site would be difficult given the topography.

No

 

PART B5 – Preservation of Trees and Vegetation

 

DCP Clause

Controls

Proposal

Compliance

2

Tree Works Requiring Council Approval

 

Tree Permit required where any tree to be removed has a height 6m or more or a canopy width 4m or more.

Information provided on both the Survey plan and the site plan indicate a number of the trees to be removed satisfy the height and/ or width criteria. The applicant has not submitted any application to Council (other than this DA) at this point in time and has not provided any form of justification (such as an assessment prepared by an arborist) which demonstrates the condition of the trees or provides an assessment of the likely impacts of the removal of the tree.

No

3

Requires:

-    Owner’s Consent

-    Justification for the removal of the tree

-    Descriptive/ location details

No justification for the removal of the trees provided and only basic descriptive details

No

 

PART B7 - Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access

 

3.

Parking & Service Delivery Requirements

 

Car parking requirements:

1 space 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

 

No change to existing car parking provision or access.

 

Access will however be difficult for construction vehicles given the long and indirect nature of the driveway. The applicant has not demonstrated that access can be achieved without significant disruption to adjoining properties (having regard to the matters raised in Bay Simmer Investments Pty Ltd v The State of New South Wales [2017] NSWCA 135).

 

Unsatisfactory

 

PART B10 – Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

 

DCP Clause

Controls

Proposal

Compliance

 

The design of buildings must consider their visual presentation to the surrounding public domain, including streets, lanes, parks, reserves, foreshore walkways and coastal areas. All elevations visible from the public domain must be articulated.

The proposed deck and shade sails and Tea House will be visually intrusive and inconsistent with the dominant character of the coastal area. The creation of a large expanse of lawn and a manicured landscape will also have a significant visual impact on the foreshore.

No

 

Outbuildings and ancillary structures must be integrated with the design of the main dwelling in a coherent architectural expression. They must not present as temporary or make-shift structures, nor constructed with non-durable, low quality materials.

The structures are generally sympathetic to the existing dwelling, with the exception of the deck, Tea House and shade sails over the proposed pool deck/ existing pool. These structures have not been fully detailed and would be a visually intrusive element forward of the Foreshore Building Line.

No

 

The exterior colour scheme must complement the natural elements in the coastal areas. The colour palette must predominantly consist of light toned neutral hues.

No details of the proposed colour scheme provided.

No

 

High reflective glass in windows and doors visible from the public domain must not be used.

No glazing proposed, with the exception of around the pool enclosure. Reflectivity details not provided however this is usually conditioned.

Yes – but subject to conditions

 

Finishing materials to buildings must be capable of properly withstanding deterioration and weathering accelerated by the coastal conditions.

No details provided

No

 

Plant species selected for landscaping must be capable of withstanding the exposed and windy coastal environment. Professional landscape advice must be obtained in the selection of species.

Species selected by Landscape Architect

Yes

 

Adequate soil depth must be reserved around buildings for gardens and soft landscaping purposes.

No details of soil depth of existing or proposed landscape areas.

No

 

Any exposed coping structures of swimming and spa pools must be minimised and screened from view from the public domain.

Timber screening of underside of pool and new deck proposed.

Yes

 

Any rock outcrops, shelves and large boulders must be retained on the site and integrated into the landscape design.

No details provided. Significant modification of ground levels adjoining the watercourse and between the existing pool and the proposed Tea House and retaining wall.

No

 

Any retaining walls within the foreshore area (that is, encroaching upon the Foreshore Building Line) must be constructed or clad with sandstone.

Retaining wall encroaches the Foreshore Building Line. To be constructed from sandstone ballast.

Yes

 

PART C – Low Density Residential

 

DCP Clause

Controls

Proposal

Compliance

2.3

Site Coverage

 

601 sqm or above = 45%

Site = 6154.7m2

Existing = 7% (435.75m2)

Proposed = minor increase from pergola/

Yes

2.4

Landscaping and Permeable Surfaces

 

601 sqm or above = 35%

Site = 6154.7m2

Existing = 4265.42m2 (69.3%)

Proposed = 3923.81m2 (63.75%)

Yes

2.5

Private Open Space

 

601 sqm or above = 8m x 8m

No change to existing quantum of open space, however proposed retaining wall and earthworks intend to provide a large, level lawn area.

Yes, however this has adverse impacts in terms of the visual impact.

4

Building design

4.1

General

 

Respond specifically to the site characteristics and the surrounding natural and built context -

·    articulated to enhance streetscape

·    stepping building on sloping site,

·    no side elevation greater than 12m

·    encourage innovative design

Proposed teahouse will be up to 1.7m above ground level with a height of up to 2.78m high and visually intrusive.

No

4.5

Colours, Materials and Finishes

 

i)   Schedule of materials and finishes

ii)   Finishing is durable and non-reflective.

iii)  Minimise expanses of rendered masonry at street frontages (except due to heritage consideration)

iv)  Articulate and create visual interest by using combination of materials and finishes.

v)  Suitable for the local climatic to withstand natural weathering, ageing and deterioration.

vi)  recycled and re-use sandstone

(See also section 8.3 foreshore area.)

No details of proposed colour schemes apart from generic terms such as timber decking.

No

4.6

Earthworks

 

i)   excavation and backfilling limited to 1m, unless gradient too steep

ii)   minimum 900mm side and rear setback

iii)  Step retaining walls

iv)  Site conditions allow for side or rear setback less than 900mm (max 2.2m)

v)  sloping sites down to street level must minimise blank retaining walls (use combination of materials, and landscaping)

vi)  cut and fill for POS is terraced where site has significant slope:

vii) adopt a split-level design

viii) Minimise height and extent of any exposed under-croft areas.

Inadequate details provided with cut/ fill possibly ranging between 200mm and up to 1.1m. No details of land modification along watercourse or between house and tea room. Proximity including dimensions to existing cliffs not provided.

No

5

Amenity

5.4

Acoustic Privacy

 

Noise sources not located adjacent to adjoining dwellings bedroom windows

Noise generated by the normal domestic use of the proposed works will not have an adverse acoustic impact on adjoining properties.

Yes

5.6

View Sharing

 

i)   Reasonably maintain existing view corridors or vistas from the neighbouring dwellings, streets and public open space areas.

ii)   retaining existing views from the living areas are a priority over low use rooms

iii)  retaining views for the public domain takes priority over views for the private properties

iv)  fence design and plant selection must minimise obstruction of views

v)  Adopt a balanced approach to privacy protection and view sharing

vi)  Demonstrate any steps or measures adopted to mitigate potential view loss impacts in the DA.

(certified height poles used).

 

While the bulk of the works proposed will not impede the views from any adjoining property over Lurline Bay, the shade sails over the pool, the Tea House and the deck in the northeastern corner will be visually intrusive, given their projection above the general topography of the site. These structures will be below any reasonable sight lines from the properties along Liguria Street adjoining the common boundary (both inside the dwellings and within the rear yards and private open space areas), however their projection will be quite noticeable above the surrounding backdrop.

 

The two rows of Metrosideros thomasii (New Zealand Christmas Bush) along the driveway and northern boundary adjacent to the rear of Nos. 23, 25, 27, 29 and 31 Liguria Street have the potential to impact on views in a southerly direction over Lurline Bay. This species is listed on the submitted plans as having a mature height of 10m and appear to be planted with overlapping canopies. Generally, in the coastal environment of the Eastern Suburbs this species grows to a height of 4-6m with a spread of 3-5m.

 

The applicant has not provided any justification for the positioning of the trees or assessment of the potential view loss of a dense hedge on the amenity of adjoining properties.

No

6

Car Parking and Access

6.1

Location of Parking Facilities:

 

 

 

i)   Maximum 1 vehicular access

ii)   Locate off rear lanes, or secondary street or

iii)  Locate behind front façade, within the dwelling or positioned to the side of the dwelling.

vi)  Avoid long driveways (impermeable surfaces)

The proposed works will not impede the existing car parking spaces or access to/ from the site.

N/A

7

Fencing and Ancillary Development

7.1

General - Fencing

 

i)   Use durable materials

ii)   Sandstone not to be rendered or painted

iii)  Steel post and chain wire, barbed wire etc not to be used

No new boundary fencing proposed.

N/A

7.4

Outbuildings

 

i)   Locate behind the front building line.

ii)   Locate to optimise backyard space and not over required permeable areas.

iii)  Except for laneway development, only single storey (3.6m max. height and 2.4m max. wall height)

iv)  Nil side and rear setbacks where:

-    finished external walls (not requiring maintenance;

-    no openings facing neighbours lots and

-    maintain adequate solar access to the neighbours dwelling

v)  Must not be used as a separate business premises.

Proposed works satisfy these criteria.

Yes

7.5

Swimming pools and Spas

 

i)   Locate behind the front building line

ii)   Minimise damage to existing tree root systems on subject site and adjoining.

iii)  Located to minimise noise impacts on the adjoining dwellings.

iv)  Pool and coping related to site topography (max 1m over lower side of site).

v)  900mm minimum coping from rear and side boundaries.

vi)  Incorporate screen planting (min. 3m mature height unless view corridors affected) between setbacks.

vii) Position decking to minimise privacy impacts.

viii) Pool pump and filter contained in acoustic enclosure and away from the neighbouring dwellings.

Existing swimming pool with exposed concrete/ stone sides. Proposed decking and shade sails will be located within the Foreshore Building Line however only generic details of the shade sails provided. Deck will be approximately 2m above natural ground level and screened with timber battens. Some screening provided to southeastern elevation of pool.

Satisfactory.

8

Area Specific Controls

8.3

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

 

i)   Consider visual presentation to the surrounding public domain, including streets, lanes, parks, reserves, foreshore walkways and coastal areas. All elevations visible from the public domain must be articulated.

ii)   Integrated outbuildings and ancillary structures with the dwelling design (coherent architecture).

iii)  Colour scheme complement natural elements in the coastal areas (light toned neutral hues).

iv)  Must not use high reflective glass

v)  Use durable materials suited to coast

vi)  Use appropriate plant species

vii) Provide deep soil areas around buildings

viii) Screen coping, swimming and spa pools from view from the public domain.

ix)  Integrate rock outcrops, shelves and large boulders into the landscape design

x)  Any retaining walls within the foreshore area (that is, encroaching upon the Foreshore Building Line) must be constructed or clad with sandstone.

Addressed above under Section B10.

 

No

 

5.         Referral Comments

 

Council's Landscape Officer has not raised any objections to the proposal, advising as follows:

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

Landscape Plans by Eco-Design, sheet L-00 – 11, rev F, dated 14/07/17;

Statement of Environmental Effects by Eco-Design, dated 14/07/17;

Landscape Management & Maintenance Plan by Ec-Design, dated 14/07/17;

Detail & Level Survey by Norton Survey Partners, ref 31402, sheet 1, issue A, dated 14.1216.

 

Landscape & Tree Management Comments

Site inspections revealed a variety of native and exotic shrub and tree species throughout the site, which while none are significant as individuals in anyway, as a group, their co-joined canopies provide a food and habitat source for native fauna along the harsh coastal corridor, whilst also minimizing the visual intrusion of existing man-made structures onto Lurline Bay; however, with is offset by a heavy weed infestation that covers virtually the whole site. 

 

As this site is located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, Council must ensure that any new development successfully integrates into the natural settings of Lurline Bay, with the scope of works including vegetation removal and re-planting, along with hard-works such as an elevated timber boardwalk and viewing decks, retaining walls, weed management and associated works. 

 

As the finished level of the boardwalk is shown as being provided at roughly the same as the existing ground levels, this alone should not be a visually obtrusive element; however, the use of a ‘non-reflective matte black aluminium balustrade’ as shown on Detail C, sheet L-08, over literally hundreds of metres of the site, may result in an unsatisfactory visual outcome, with conditions requiring that options that will alleviate the need for such a barrier be investigated, such as aligning the boardwalk with more favourable ground levels.

 

These works will allow the owners to access areas of their own private property that is currently not even possible due to the overgrown nature of the vegetation, with new areas of level lawn to also be provided, which will increase both the amount and usability of open space that is available to occupants, as well as increase permeability.

 

New sandstone retaining walls are also shown so as to address the natural fall of this site from west to east, with the use of stone cladding seen to be visually superior outcome when compared to a painted render surface, given that these materials will blend in better with the natural settings of Lurline Bay.

The Existing Tree Schedule on Plan L-03 has identified a total of 50 trees within the site, with no objections raised to their removal, including:

 

T6-7, three Cocos Palms, adjacent the existing entry off the driveway, as this species is exempt from Council’s DCP, along with any of the Metrosideros excelsa (Pohutakawa’s) in this same area, against the southern side of the driveway, given their small size, and being an exotic, short-lived species;

 

T14 – Lagunaria patersonii (Norfolk Island Hibiscus) as it is an undesirable species that is exempt from Council’s DCP;

 

The group comprising Pohutakawa’s, a Pittosporum undulatum (Native Daphne) and She Oaks (T21-27), as they are not significant in anyway, and are in direct conflict with the decking platform/Tea House;

 

Another Pohutakawa (T29) to their west, near the house;

 

A Norfolk Island Hibiscus (T40) and an Erythrina x sykesii (Coral Tree, T37) to the west of the tennis court, on higher ground, towards the adjoining site at no.3

 

While the works will cover a large surface area, it is not considered to be major, and as such, standard protection measures can be applied to ensure the retention of those that are nominated for retention on the Existing Tree Schedule on sheet L-03  

 

Recommendation

 

That the Randwick Development Assessment Panel, as the consent authority, refuses development consent under Sections 4.16 and 4.17 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 441/2017 for alterations and additions to pool area including new deck area, shade structures, broadwalk, retaining walls, associated site and landscaping works, weed management and revegetation works. at No. 1B Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra, for the following reasons:

 

Reasons for Refusal

 

1.       The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant objectives of the 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.

 

2.       The application does not contain sufficient information to clearly document the proposal, describe its intended impacts or justify the conclusions drawn. In this regard, the following necessary information was not submitted to describe or support the proposal: 

 

a)     The submitted plans do not correctly identify the location of the Foreshore Building Line.

 

b)     The submitted plans do not show full and complete details of all earthworks including any batters to the watercourse, temporary soil stabilisation measures or details of the existing and final ground levels across the site.

 

c)     The submitted plans do not correctly identify the proposed works in terms of the proximity to adjoining property boundaries or the use of the areas on the adjoining properties in the context of the proposed boardwalk and viewing deck.

 

d)     The submitted plans do not show full and complete details of the proposed boardwalks and in particular, the proposed bridges that cross the watercourse along the southwestern boundary.

 

e)     An assessment of the hydraulic performance of the watercourse to determine whether any flooding or flows occur that would impact on the bridges or would be impacted by the proposed bridges and boardwalk.

 

f)     The submitted plans do not clearly demonstrate the location of the proposed works in the context of the allotment boundaries and existing topographical features such as rock outcrops, clifftops and embankments.

 

g)     A geotechnical assessment of site stability has not been provided, given the proximity of the works to the watercourse and clifftops and the extent of excavation proposed.

 

h)     The application does not include any assessment by a qualified arborist to justify the removal of the trees across the site and does not provide any quantification to the selection of tree species along the northern boundary which could have the potential to cause a loss of views to adjoining properties.

 

i)      The application is not supported by any form of visual impact analysis to demonstrate the proposal will not have an adverse visual impact on the scenic qualities of the coastline in general and specifically on Lurline Bay.

 

j)     The application is not supported by any view loss assessment to demonstrate the proposal will not have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of adjoining properties and supports the reasonable sharing of views over Lurline Bay.

 

k)     The application has not adequately demonstrated the site’s potential for Aboriginal cultural heritage and that the proposed earthworks will not have an adverse impact in this regard.

 

l)      The Statement of Environmental Effects refers to superseded legislation (the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 was replaced in 2015 by the Biosecurity Act 2015) and fails to address the relevant statutory considerations (the Coastal Management SEPP) or demonstrate that a Controlled Activity Approval under the Water Management Act 2000 is not required for the works adjacent to the waterfront land.

 

m)    The application fails to demonstrate that access can be achieved by vehicles during construction without significant disruption to adjoining properties, given the long and narrow shared driveway.

 

n)     Full details of the proposed shade sails or the roof over the tea house have not been provided.

 

o)     Complete details of the proposed colour schemes and materials have not been provided.

 

3.       The proposal fails to satisfy the Objectives and specific provisions contained in Clauses 14, 15 and 16 of the draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018.

 

4.       The proposal fails to satisfy the Objectives and specific provisions contained in Clause 8 of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 - Coastal Protection.

 

5.       The proposal will have a significant adverse impact on the Coastal Zone and does not satisfy the objectives and specific provisions contained in Clause 5.5 – Development within the Coastal Zone of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

6.       The proposal does not provide sufficient information to demonstrate the proposed earthworks will not have an adverse impact on the environment and cannot satisfy the specific provisions contained in Clause 6.2 - Earthworks of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

7.       The proposal does not satisfy the specific provisions contained in Clause 6.6 – Foreshore Building Line of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in that it proposes works and structures that will not be compatible with the surrounding area; have the potential to cause significant adverse environmental harm and will result in an unacceptable visual impact on the aesthetic appearance of the vegetated foreshore of Lurline Bay, detracting from the scenic qualities of the coast.

 

8.       The proposal does not satisfy the specific provisions contained in Clause 6.7 – Foreshore Scenic Protection Area of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in that it will not protect and enhance the natural, visual and/ or environmental qualities of the scenic areas of the coastline; will result in an unacceptable visual impact through the removal of a number of trees, replacement with inappropriate species; alteration of the appearance of the vegetated foreshore of Lurline Bay and introduce a number of new structures which will penetrate to vegetated coastal zone; will have an adverse visual impact on the views of the coast from both private land and the public domain; and will not result in appropriate development within the coastal zone and will detract from the scenic qualities of the coast.

 

9.       The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant objectives and controls of Section 3.1 - Existing Vegetation and Natural Features under Part B4 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 in that the removal of the significant vegetation from the site will create an adverse visual impact on the scenic qualities of Lurline Bay, which is inconsistent with the coastal zone characteristics.

 

10.     The proposal does not provide adequate provisions for construction vehicles during the construction stage under Part B7, Section 3 – Parking and Service Delivery Requirements of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013.

 

11.     The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant objectives and controls of Part B10 – Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and Section 8.3 in Part C of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 in that the removal of the significant vegetation from the site will create an adverse visual impact on the scenic qualities of Lurline Bay, which is inconsistent with the coastal zone characteristics.

 

12.     The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant objectives and controls of Section 4.1 – General Building Design under Part C of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 in that the proposed structures would be visually intrusive and inconsistent with the surrounding topography.

 

13.     The proposal fails to provide sufficient details to satisfy the following provisions of Part C of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013:

 

·      Section 4.5 – colour schemes

·      Section 4.6 – details of all earthworks

·      Section 5.6 – provision of landscaping which could intrude upon reasonable sharing of views

 

14.     The approval of a development with a significant lack of information and lack of justification for particular aspects of the proposal is not in the public interest and will set an undesirable precedent for other similarly inadequate proposals, resulting in a significant adverse effect on coastal zone, the visual quality of the locality and general residential amenity.

 

15.     The development application is not in the broader public interest having regard to the number and nature of submissions received and providing development that meets minimum levels of design quality and minimises impacts to neighbouring developments. Approval of such a development will establish an undesirable precedent for future development in the locality.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Randwick Development Assessment Panel                                                                 12 April 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D7/18

 

Subject:             51 Chester Avenue, Maroubra (DA/329/2017)

Folder No:                   DA/329/2017

Author:                   Planning Ingenuity, Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                    Demolition of existing dwelling, construction of a 3 storey residential flat building containing 11 dwellings, basement car parking for 11 cars, landscaping and associated works.

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                Sgammotta Architects

Owner:                        Fitz Jersey Pty Ltd

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 is subject to SEPP 65.

 

Proposal

 

The development application seeks consent for the demolition of all structures on the site and construction of a three (3) storey residential flat building over basement car parking.  The residential flat building is to contain 11 dwellings with:

 

·      3 studio apartments and 1 x one-bedroom apartment at ground floor level;

·      2 x studio apartments and 2 x one-bedroom apartments at Level 1; and

·      1 x studio apartment and 2 x one-bedroom apartments at Level 2.

 

The basement level will have the parking capacity for 11 vehicles and a waste store room.  Vehicle access for the basement is a single lane width from Chester Avenue.

 

The applicant submitted the amended plans on 27 March 2018 to address Council’s concerns regarding the need to include the breezeway in the GFA calculation. As a result, the following amendments have been implemented to ensure full compliance with the FSR standard:

 

Ground Floor

•    The central stair case has been moved further to the south, into the foyer space. (as suggested by the DEP).

•    The ground floor lobby area has been reduced in size.

•    Units 1 and 2 have been reduced to 35sqm each resulting in an increase in front setback by up to 500mm.

•    Unit 3 has been moved towards the foyer area to maintain the same rear setback as Unit 4 (i.e. 8.6m).

•    Unit 4 has been reduced by 1.2sqm resulting in an increase in rear setback from 8.3m to 8.6m.

•    Provisions of services ducts required for the building.

 

Level 1

•    The central stair case has been moved further to the south.

•    The staircase area has been reduced in size.

•    Unit 5 has been reduced by 1.2sqm resulting in an increase in front setback by 250mm.

•    Unit 6 has been moved towards the foyer area to maintain the same front setback as Unit 5.

•    Unit 8 has been reduced by 1.2sqm resulting in an increase in setback from 8.3 to 8.6m setback.

•    Unit 7 has been moved towards the foyer area to maintain the same rear setback as Unit 8.

•    Provisions of services ducts required for the building.

•    Void area has been removed

 

Level 2

•    The central stair case has been moved further to the south.

•    The staircase area has been reduced in size.

•    Unit 9 has been reduced by 1sqm resulting in an increase in setback by 250mm.

•    Unit 10 has been moved towards the foyer area to maintain the same front setback as Unit 9.

•    Unit 11 has been reduced by 1sqm resulting in an increase in setback from 10.2m to 10.34m.

•    Provisions of services ducts required for the building.

 

As a result of the above amendments, the revised GFA including the breezeway is 479.45sqm, which equates to 0.748:1 and complies with the FSR standard (i.e. 0.75:1).

 

The amended proposal was not required to be renotified as the amendments would not result in any additional impacts upon the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

 

Site Description and Locality

 

The site is located on the eastern side of Chester Avenue and is legally identified as Lot 276 in Deposited Plan 36765. The lot is a rectangular shape with a frontage to Chester Avenue of 15.24m and side boundaries of 42.06m.  The total site area is 641m2.

 

The site currently contains a single storey brick and tile dwelling with a swimming pool in the rear yard.

 

There is a small exotic tree in the front setback and a mature street tree in the Chester Avenue footpath reserve fronting the site.

 

Surrounds

 

Chester Avenue is well into a transitional phase from single storey detached dwellings to a mix of residential apartments of two and three storeys and multi housing developments of two and three storeys.  Basement car parking is typical for all new developments.

 

Adjoining the site to the north is No.49 Chester Avenue which contains a two storey brick and tile dwelling with double garage and attached carport fronting the street.

 

Further north along Chester Avenue is No.47 which is the subject of DA927/2014 for a three storey multi dwelling housing development containing four dwellings plus basement carparking for 9 vehicles.  No.43 Chester Avenue is the subject of Development Consent DA578/2017 for a multi dwelling housing development with 5 x 2 storey dwellings and basement parking for 10 vehicles.

 

To the south of the site is No.53 Chester Avenue which contains a multi dwelling development of two storeys over a basement car park.  The inclined vehicle access to the basement is located adjacent to the boundary shared with the subject site.

 

Further south from the site is No.57-59 Chester Avenue which contains a residential flat building and No.59-65 Chester Avenue which is a three storey residential flat development containing 33 apartments and a basement car park for 35 vehicles.

 

On the western side of Chester Avenue development includes original single detached dwellings and newer medium density development.  Development Consent DA859/2016 was granted for a three storey multi dwelling housing development of 5 dwellings over a basement car park at No.48 Chester Avenue.  Development Consent DA240/2016 applies to 8 Chester Avenue and approved a two storey multi dwelling housing development of three dwellings.

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the original proposal in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. As noted previously, the amended proposal will have a lesser or the same effect as the original application and therefore the re-notification will not be required and submissions on the original application will be considered in the assessment. The following submissions were received as a result of the notification process:

 

•   1/53 Chester Avenue

•   4/53 Chester Avenue

•   10-14 Chicago Avenue

 

Issue

Comment

Non-compliance with the height control & visual bulk

The proposal exceeds the building height standard under Clause 4.3 of the LEP by up to 700mm on the northern side of the building.  An assessment of the potential impacts of the building height is contained in the Detailed Assessment section of this report.

Loss of privacy

Windows on the southern elevation at Level 1 are limited to two kitchen windows and two bedroom windows with the setbacks of 2.5m and 3m from the adjacent boundary.  The windows on the southern elevation at Level 2 are limited to one kitchen window and two bedroom windows with the setbacks of 2.5m, 3m and 4m respectively. It is noted that these windows (other than the kitchen window at Level 1) are provided with obscured glazing up to approximately 1m above the floor level, which is considered to be insufficient to maintain adequate level of privacy for the adjoining neighbours. As such, it is considered appropriate that a suitable condition to be included in the recommendation of the report that requires the habitable room windows on both side elevations to incorporate additional privacy measures. 

Overshadowing

The applicant has provided additional shadow diagrams to illustrate the potential shadows to be cast by the original proposal in comparison to a schematic building envelope which complied with the building height standard at a central roof ridge, external wall heights and DCP boundary setbacks.  The shadow diagrams indicate that the shadow cast by a compliant building envelope would have similar impacts to the neighbouring building to the south than the original proposal. Whilst the applicant did not provide additional shadow diagrams for the amended proposal, it is anticipated that the shadow impact would be reduced by the amended proposal as the building will be setback further from the front and rear boundaries.    

Loss of views to the north from bedroom

The site and immediate surrounds are not in a locality noted for significant views and outlooks.  As discussed above, the proposed built form has been stepped down with the slope of the site; has a minimal roof profile; and the southeastern corner of the building is recessed beyond the DCP setback controls to increase separation from the southern neighbour.  The external dimensions of the proposed building are considered appropriate in the context and setting and there are no iconic or significant views and view corridors facilitated by the subdivision pattern or street network or arrangements of public open space that are required to be protected.

Unit sizes not appropriate for locality

Recent development consents for residential flat buildings and multi dwelling housing in Chester Avenue are listed above in this report and demonstrate that a variety of medium density dwellings exist and are being constructed in the locality.  The proposed dwelling sizes are considered appropriate and will contribute to a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment.

Lack of on-street parking due to overdevelopment in the locality

The proposal provides adequate on-site parking within the basement.  Parking and vehicle access arrangements are considered satisfactory by Council’s Development Engineer.

Loss of privacy – request canopy screening planting in rear setback

The landscape plan submitted with the development application indicates deciduous canopy trees to be planted adjacent to the rear (eastern) boundary.  Conditions are recommended that species selection be amended to provide at least three (3) evergreen, locally endemic canopy trees along the rear boundary to achieve year-round foliage which will enhance the quality of the separation space between the new building and the eastern neighbour.

 

Key Issues

 

The key issues for the assessment of this application are:

 

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

The proposed development has a maximum building height of 10.2m, 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

9.5m

Proposal

Up to approximately 10.2m

Excess above RLEP Standard

7.4% (approximately 700mm variance)

 

The Applicant has submitted a Clause 4.6 exception 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 considered to be accepted on the following grounds:

 

·           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.

 

2.         External wall height

The site is subject to a maximum external wall height control of 8m. The proposed development adopts a flat roof design, with external wall heights of up to 10.2m.

 

Figure 1: North elevation demonstrating 8 wall height variation

 

The proposed variation is considered satisfactory given the extent of articulation and the setbacks provided to both sides of the building. The proposed external wall heights do not result in adverse visual impact or excessive overshadowing, and the proposed external wall height is also compatible with other recently approved and constructed residential flat buildings in the vicinity of the site. Further, it should be noted that the proposal complies with the floor space ratio standard and is considered to be an appropriate built form in the locality.

 

3.         Overshadowing

Shadow diagrams have been provided by the applicant which compare the potential shadows to be cast by the proposed building in comparison to a schematic building envelope which complied with the LEP height at a central roof ridge, external wall heights and DCP boundary setbacks.  The shadow diagrams indicate that the shadow cast by a compliant building envelope would have similar impacts to the neighbouring residential flats to the south than the proposal.

 

Notwithstanding, the proposal is considered to be an improvement upon a compliant built form in the following ways:

 

-   The non-compliance with the maximum building height standard occurs predominantly on the northern edge of the built form and the flat roof design ensures the non-compliance on the southern edge of the building is kept minimal.  The proposal will cast a smaller shadow at any time in comparison to a pitched roof design with a central roof ridge to 9.5m;

-   The southern façade of Unit 11 is stepped in further than the minimum DCP setback requirement and the central recess adjacent to the common stair enables the building to be set further back from the southern boundary than a compliant DCP envelope.  The proposed setbacks to the southern boundary reduce the size of the shadow and the overall shadow impacts compared to a building form which complies with the minimum 2.5m side setback;

-   The flat roof form eliminates eaves and parapets which would otherwise contribute to overshadowing;

-   The basement floor level has been stepped down towards the rear of the site to match the natural topography and the rear of the building has been similarly stepped down to ensure the height of the building overall responds to the natural slope and minimises overall building bulk and scale.

-   The front and rear setbacks have been further increased to ensure full compliance with the FSR standard and will therefore reduce the overshadowing impact on the neighbouring properties.

 

Due to the dimensions and orientation of the lot, overshadowing of the neighbouring apartments and private open space areas at No.53 Chester Avenue is unavoidable.  The building has been designed to have regard to the specific slope and dimensions of the site.  The building footprint has been adjusted beyond the DCP controls to minimise shadow.  The building height is compliant with the anticipated scale of development of three storeys above a basement.  The roof design does not contribute to shadow.  The resultant impacts of shadow during midwinter have been appropriately minimised given the constraints of orientation and dimensions of the site. The development has been further amended with increased front and rear setbacks, which will also reduce the overshadowing to the neighbouring properties.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

That the application to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a 3 storey residential flat building containing 11 dwellings, basement car parking for 11 cars, landscaping and associated works be approved (subject to conditions) for the following reasons:

 

·      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

 

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

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Consolidation).

The site is zoned Residential R3 Medium Density under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent. See table below for compliance with development standards.

 

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

 

The site is in an area undergoing transition from low density to medium density residential redevelopment and the proposed three storey residential flat building with basement carparking is consistent with the scale and density of development being established.

 

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 evolving medium density residential character in the locality. The proposal will not result in detrimental social or economic impacts on the locality.

 

Conditions are recommended for replacement street trees and new canopy trees within the rear setback area.

 

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 relevant objectives of the zone for medium density housing and will not result in any significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality or to neighbours subject to recommended conditions. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be in the public interest.

 

2.         Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

2.1      State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPS)

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX)

A BASIX Certificate has been submitted with the development application and demonstrates that the proposal will achieve the required water efficiencies and thermal comfort requirements.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 (Remediation of Land)

The site has a long history of use for residential purposes and the proposal will continue the residential use of the site.  There are no historic uses which would indicate the site is likely to be contaminated.  The proposed works will not increase the likely risk of exposure of humans or the environment to contamination risks.  A condition is recommended for an audit of building materials to be completed with the Construction Certificate to identify the natural of building material to be disturbed and removed during the works and any specific management strategies for their treatment and removal.  The requirements of SEPP 55 have been satisfied.

 


 

State Environmental Planning Policy No.65 (Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development) and the Apartment Design Guide

SEPP No. 65 seeks to improve the design quality of residential flat buildings.  There are nine design principles which must be incorporated into new, or substantially altered, residential flat buildings. The original proposal has been considered by Council’s Design Excellence Panel. An extract of the Panel’s comments is provided below:

 

PANEL COMMENTS

This is the third time the panel has reviewed a proposal for this address. The two previous reports related to Pre-DA applications. Since the last report in December 2016 the site has been secured by a new owner, who has appointed a new architect. The registered architect for this Development Application is Sgammotta Architects.

 

Panel members are familiar with the site and surrounding area.

 

Principle 1: Context and Neighbourhood Context

The site is located within the Coral Sea Estate, which features a large concentration of social housing and has been the subject of on-going urban renewal, as evidenced by a number of recently completed developments along Chester Avenue, most notably number 59-65.

 

The surrounding neighbourhood context is characterised by a mixture of building types, architectural styles and orientations to the street frontage. Despite this variation, there is a predominance of brick construction and mature trees, which provide a common feature throughout the local streetscape.

 

The properties immediately surrounding 51 Chester Avenue feature a combination of brick single-detached housing, two-storey multi-dwelling housing (town houses) and more recent apartment developments. No. 47 Chester Avenue is currently under construction and appears to be a town house development.

 

The property to the south (No. 53) features a row of town houses that align perpendicular to the primary street frontage, with their private amenity space orientated to the north, along the southern boundary of the subject site. This is a key consideration for the impact arising from the proposal.

 

Chester Avenue features a number of mature trees and is well serviced with public transport.  Beaches and parks are in close proximity.

 

Principle 2: Scale and Built Form

The proposal exceeds the height controls of 9.5m, however, the three-storey built form is generally in keeping with the emerging character of Chester Avenue – best reflected in the recent three-storey development to the south at 59-65 Chester Avenue.

 

The panel has noted the efforts made by the architect to respond to the previous comments by splitting the building footprint into a front (west) and rear (east) component. A central element provides vertical circulation (stairs only, no lift) and access to the front and rear buildings. Some effort has been made to differentiate this central block, however, the panel feels that greater effort to improve the articulation by reducing the width, which may be achieved by pulling the northernmost stair further to the south – this stair doesn’t provide access to the basement.

 

The galley kitchens for Units 5 and 9 appear to cantilever over the drive-way access, however, no information is provided for how this is going to be achieved, or whether there is adequate clearance for cars accessing the basement.

 

Its assumed the layout of Unit 11, which features an increased rear and side (south) setback is to reduce the overshadowing of the properties to the south. The panel would also like further clarification as to whether the private open spaces for No. 53 Chester receive two hours in mid-winter – this is not clear from the shadow studies provided (DA001).

 

Comments:

The applicant has submitted amended plans showing the relocation of the central staircase further south of the lobby/corridor area. The cantilevered portion of Units 5 and 9 are located at Levels 1 and 2, which are significantly above the driveway level and will provide sufficient clearance for cars accessing the basement. The applicant has also submitted additional shadow diagrams which demonstrated that the proposal would not result in any additional shadow impact when compared with a fully compliant development. 

 

Principle 3: Density

The proposal complies with the FSR control for the site (0.75:1) to deliver 11 dwellings, 6 x studios and 5 x 1-bedroom units, which is appropriate given the local context and access to schools, open space and public transport. The appropriate of this scale of development on a relatively small and constrained site is subject to the satisfactory impact on the private open space of No. 53.

 

Principle 4: Sustainability

Given the orientation of the site the majority of the units rely on the eastern and western elevations for their primary source of sunlight. The northern windows are likely to be obscured by privacy screens, to ensure appropriate amenity is provide to No. 49.

 

The orientation of the building and the extent of roof surface, further thought should be given to utilising the fullest extent to provide solar energy for hot water, heating and electricity.  Similarly, rainwater should be collected, treated and re-used, across the site and within the building.

 

Further considerations:

-     The method of window operation and their fire treatment on each elevation should indicated on the drawings

-     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

Air-conditioning is not shown and this passive approach is supported by the panel.

-     Photovoltaics should be included and shown on the roof to mitigate energy usage. A solar photovoltaic system (10 kilowatts) could power common areas with any excess energy feeding into the grid.  The array also shades the roof.

-     Window types and operation should be shown 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. Larger details are required.

-     Outdoor clothes drying areas to be shown, should a communal open space be provided.

 

Comments:

The proposed development generally achieves cross flow ventilation and solar access requirements and has been assessed to meet the relevant targets required by BASIX. The outdoor clothes drying areas are not applicable as the proposal does not provide communal open space. An appropriate condition is recommended for details of air conditioning system to be submitted for approval by Council prior to the issue of Construction Certificate. 

 

Principle 5: Landscape

A Landscape Plan by Taylor Brammer has been provided, which indicates proposed planting and species selection, and the proposed retention of the Banksia, which is located at the Chester Avenue frontage and provides a valuable contribution to the quality of the streetscape.

 

Typical details of the landscaping above the basement car park have been provided, including the ‘turf on slab’, planter drainage, and drainage for the paving on slab.

The SEE states that the landscape and deep soil requirements are satisfied, though no diagram illustrating this point has been included. Similarly, the communal open space requirement (25%) also appears to be satisfied, despite most the ground plane being assigned to the 4 ground floor units as private open space.

 

On narrow sites of this nature the boundary conditions are critical to addressing privacy, limiting over-shadowing and creating a positive contribution to the character of the neighbourhood – where possible, allowing mature trees to be established. In this instance the opportunities for mature trees are limited to the front and rear extents of the site, given the basement stretches boundary to boundary through the centre of the site. The panel would prefer to see more generous landscaping along both the northern and southern boundaries through this middle portion of the site, which may require a slight realignment of the stair access to the basement.

 

Comments:

Suitable landscaping is provided along the southern side of the staircase to basement car park.

 

Principle 6: Amenity

The key amenity considerations relating to this proposal, some of which have been raised by previous reports, include;

 

·      Clearly illustrate the private open spaces at No. 53 Chester, to the south of the site

·      Parking configuration – the split basement configuration features a 400mm step between parking spaces 4-6 and the spaced 1-3 to the west. How this step is treated to avoid a car or pedestrian falling down the step should be indicated on the plan, ad shown in section.  It is not clear how B1a falls from 23.7 down to 23.4 in cross section and if 1:33 complies with a parking ramp. Section lines should be shown on the plans.

·      Pedestrian access from Chester Avenue is gained along the southern side of the building and does not provide a good relationship to the street or unit 2. Improvements to this layout can be made by providing a more generous or landscaped walkway with a more visible entry from the street. Similarly, the stair access from the basement arrives at a paved area on the ground level – its unclear whether this is covered, secure or directly visible from the street

 

The proposal has demonstrated ADG compliance with both sunlight access and natural ventilation requirements to apartments.

 


 

Principle 7: Safety

·      Appropriate fire separations need to be provided between the parking area and the vertical circulation elements.

·      The pedestrian entrance to the building needs to have a stronger relationship to the street allowing for better surveillance.

·      Security of the basement stair access is unclear, given its relationship to the pedestrian access off Chester Ave, and entrance to the building’s lobby.

 

Principle 8: Housing Diversity and Social Interaction

·      The proposal provides additional residential opportunities in the area, with a range of studio and 1-bedroom units.

·      No lift access limits the appropriateness of the development for residents with mobility challenges

·      The absence of communal open space and limited lobby limits the opportunities for social interaction

 

Principle 9: Aesthetics

The Pre-DA package includes limited information on the materials proposed. The elevations are schematic and have not been illustrated. One rendered photomontage has been provided.

 

The bulk and massing of the proposal is generally supported by the panel, taking into the consideration the comments made above. The primary elevation to Chester Avenue (western) would benefit from a more restrained colour and material palette. It is unclear why the red treatment to the ground and first floor balconies is proposed, given there is no design cues within the streetscape. The building would be more successful with a simpler approach, where the horizontal was expressed with exposed concrete, which sits in contrast to the dark brick, and timber was limited to screening.

 

As expressed by the panel at the meeting in August, the form of the building is strong enough without having to rely on colour and unnecessary forms and flourishes to achieve design excellence.

 

Comments:

Appropriate condition has been incorporated that requires the colour, material and finishes to be submitted to Council for approval.

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

Subject to the comments above being addressed, in particular the overshadowing analysis of the impact to No. 53 Chester, then the panel no longer needs to review the proposal.

 

Apartment Design Guide

In conjunction with SEPP 65, the requirements of the Apartment Design Guide should be met to demonstrate that the development will provide a high quality design, a high standard of accommodation for future occupants as well as protecting the amenity of adjoining properties.  The following table is a summary of the assessment of the proposal in terms of compliance with the ADG.

 


TABLE 2: SEPP No. 65 Apartment Design Guide – Compliance Table

ADG - Design Criteria

Proposal

Complies

Communal and Public Open Space

Communal open space has a minimum area equal to 25% of the site (125.42m2).

 

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).

 

No communal open space is proposed.

 

 

The applicant has requested a variation to this requirement on the following grounds:

 

·      Part 3D-1to the ADG notes COS on small sites may not be necessary where sites are in close proximity to public recreation facilities and dwellings are provided with appropriate private open space;

·      The site is within 400m of Coral Sea Park which includes formal playgrounds, passive and active spaces and BBQ facilities;

·      Each apartment is provided with private open space which meets or exceeds the minimum dimensions of the ADG;

·      Due to the slope and width of the site, the rear setback area is more suited to private courtyard space than an accessible communal open space area.

 

It is considered that the lack of communal open space within the site will not be unreasonably detrimental to the amenity of future residents.  Ground floor courtyards and ground floor apartments benefit from generous courtyard spaces and deep soil landscaping and the provision of communal open space at ground level would be difficult to achieve at the same time.  The local public open space areas will provide sufficient passive and active recreational facilities for future residents where activities require large consolidated areas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variation considered satisfactory.

Deep Soil Zones

Deep soil zones are to meet the following minimum requirements:

Site Area

Minimum Dimension

Deep Soil Zone (% of site area)

Less than 650m2

-

7% (44.87m2)

 

 

The provision of deep soil is approximately 166m2 (26%). Noting no minimum dimension applies

 

 

P

 

Visual Privacy

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

 

Building Height

Habitable Rooms and Balconies

Non-habitable rooms

Up to 12m (4 storeys)

6m

3m

 

 

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP 2013) applies reduced setbacks for residential flat buildings.

 

See the DCP compliance table below for further details.

 

Conditions have been recommended for the treatment of limited windows in the side facades to protect the visual privacy of future residents and neighbours by preventing direct lines of sight.

No – See DCP Compliance table where compliance is achieved.

Solar Access and Daylight

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.

 

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

 

All apartments have living room windows and private open space areas which received at least 2 hours of direct sunlight in midwinter.

 

 

 

 

No apartments are without sunlight.

 

P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P

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

 

Overall depth of a cross-over or cross-through apartment does not exceed 18m, measured glass line to glass line

 

All apartments (100%) can be naturally cross ventilated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No cross over or cross through apartments.

 

P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

Ceiling Height

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

·      Habitable Rooms – 2.7m

·      Non-habitable rooms – 2.4m

 

 

Floor to ceiling heights to Ground Floor to Level 2 = 2.7m minimum

 

 

ü

 

Apartment 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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

·           3.6m for studio and 1 bedroom apartments

 

The width of cross-over or cross-through apartments are at least 4m internally to avoid deep narrow apartment layouts

 

All apartments meet the minimum floor area requirements.

 

 

 

 

No additional bathrooms are provided.

 

 

 

All rooms have windows that comply with the requirements of the ADG.

All rooms comply with minimum area and dimension requirements of the ADG.

 

All bedrooms have a minimum dimension of 3m.

 

Each apartment has a minimum width of living rooms which exceeds 3.6m.

 

Each apartment has a width exceeding 4m.

 

ü

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

ü

 

 

ü

 

 

 

ü

 

 

 

ü

 

 

ü

 

 

 

 

Environmental Performance

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

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

 

Proposed apartments have open plan layouts combining living, dining and kitchen. The maximum living room depth is less than 8m from a window.

 

ü

Open Space

All apartments are required to have primary balconies as follows:

·      Studio - 4m2

 

 

·      1 Bedroom - 8m2 (Minimum depth of 2m)

 

 

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.

 

Each studio apartment has a balcony with an area of at least 6m2.

One bedroom apartments have a balcony of at least 10m2.

 

All ground floor apartments have courtyard spaces which exceed minimum requirements.

 

ü

 

 

ü

 

 

ü

 

Common Circulation Space

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

 

For buildings of 10 storeys and over, the maximum number of apartments sharing a single lift is 40

 

There is a maximum of 11 apartments sharing a circulation core and a maximum of four apartments at ground and Level 1.

 

The building is less than 10 storeys.

 

ü

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

Storage

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

·      Studio - 4m³

·      1 Bedroom - 6m³

·      2 Bedroom - 8m³

·      3 Bedroom - 10m³

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

 

Each apartment is provided with storage and a detailed schedule is to be provided with the Construction Certificate.

 

ü

 

In summary, the proposal is compliant with the relevant requirements of the ADG.

 

2.2      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 is a matter for consideration in the assessment of the subject development application under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended).

 

The subject site is zoned R3 Low Density Residential under Randwick LEP 2012. The proposal development is a residential flat building and is permissible with consent.

 

The objectives for development in Zone R3 are as follows:

 

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

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

•    To 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 a medium density residential development consistent in character, scale and density to the newer medium density developments established, under construction and recently approved in the immediate locality.  The proposal includes a variety of studio and one-bedroom dwellings which will add to the mix of dwelling types and sizes in the street which range from studio apartments to three and four bedroom multi-dwelling houses.

 

The building design will contribute to the variety and interest of the streetscape with a built form that respects the consistency of side, front and rear setbacks, provides deep soil planting within the front and rear setback areas, adds new street tree planting and presents as a three storey residential flat building with basement parking of similar dimensions to existing and approved medium density developments on single lots in Chester Avenue.

 

The building envelope has been designed to minimise overshadowing throughout the year with increased setbacks particularly to the south east corner of the site and a flat roof profile.  Windows to side facades have been minimised to achieve natural ventilation and natural light to new apartments.  Conditions are recommended to further protect visual amenity across side boundaries through specific window treatments that will prevent direct lines of sight.

 

The layout and orientation of living rooms and private open space areas optimises the use of the larger front and rear setback areas and adds to casual surveillance opportunities of Chester Avenue.

 

For these reasons the proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant objectives for development in Zone R3.

 

The following Clauses of RLEP 2012 apply to the proposal:

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

0.75:1

0.748:1 (including breezeway)

Yes

Height of Building (Maximum)

9.5m

10.2m

No (variation 7.4%)

 

The applicant submitted a written request for variation to the building height development standard as is required by Clause 4.6 to RLEP 2012.  The request for variation applies to the maximum building height of 10.2m which is equivalent to a variation of 7.4%. 

 

Clause 4.6 Assessment – Exceptions to Development Standards

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Council Officer’s assessment of the Clause 4.6 exception:

In summary, the applicant presents the following reasons as to why numeric compliance with the building height standards is unreasonable or unnecessary:

 

·       “The bulk and scale of 2-3 storeys is consistent with the desired future character generated by the suite of controls.  Given that the height is consistent with that scale, the proposal is considered to be appropriate for the subject site”;

·       “The 3-storey scale for a portion of the built form is consistent with the scale of development along Chester Avenue”;

·       “The additional height is not responsible for any unreasonable shadow impacts noting that the proposal complies with the front, side and rear setbacks, whilst the height is well below that permitted at the rear of the site”;

·       “The height is associated with a complying FSR which demonstrates that it is appropriate for the subject site”;

·       “The height is not responsible for any view impacts”;

·       “The built form is well articulated, landscaping is compliant and softens the appearance of the built form”;

·       “The extent of height variation is far less than that permitted on the site to the south at 59-65 Chester Avenue”.

 

The objectives for the height of building control are listed in Clause 4.3 to 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 request for variation submitted with the development application makes reference to the relevant objectives and makes a case, reflecting the reasons in point for quoted above, that the proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives of Clause 4.3 to RLEP 2012.  The reasons presented in the applicant’s request are supported.

 

It is considered that the size and scale of the development is compatible with the desired and anticipated future character of medium density residential development in the immediate locality.  The proposal is a three storey residential flat building with basement car parking that sits within setbacks from site boundaries that comply with or exceed to DCP requirements.  The front and rear setback areas will accommodate deep soil planting consistent with the streetscape and setout of other building envelopes in the neighbourhood.

 

The proposal will have no detrimental impacts to the amenity of neighbouring properties as a result of the bulk, scale, privacy and shadowing as explained elsewhere in this report.  There are no iconic or identified views to be protected.

 

Objective (b) is not applicable to the proposal.

 

The proposal therefore satisfies the requirements of Clause 4.6(3)(a) and the first part of the test set out in Wehbe v Pittwater Council (2007) NSW LEC 827.

 

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

 

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

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

 

Pursuant to Clause 4.6(4)(a)(i), the applicant’s written request has adequately responded to and addressed the matters required by Clause 4.6(3).

 

The merit assessment of the matters specific to the site and the proposal concludes that the variation to the development standard for building height is warranted in this specific case.

 

The variation is in the public interest as the proposal achieves the relevant objectives despite the numeric non-compliance and therefore does not undermine the intent of the height of buildings control.  Furthermore the variation does not raise matters of State or regional environmental planning relevance and is specific to the development as proposed only.

 

The applicant’s request states that the variation will enable a better planning outcome for the following reasons:

 

·       the apartments have a high degree of internal amenity;

·       the building height is consistent with the streetscape character;

·       the environmental performance of the development exceeds the ADG requirements with all apartments achieving solar access and natural cross ventilation requirements;

·       unit sizes and private open space areas exceed minimum ADG requirements; and

·       there are no adverse impacts in terms of unreasonable overshadowing, visual privacy and bulk.

 

The reasons presented by the applicant to demonstrate that the proposal has merit in the public interest and shall achieve a better planning outcome are supported.

 

As discussed above in consideration of, and response to, submissions, the proposed building envelope is an appropriate response to the dimensions and slope of the site and its orientation.  Specifically, the following design attributes are supported:

 

-    The non-compliance with the maximum building height control occurs predominantly on the northern edge of the built form and the flat roof design ensures than non-compliance on the southern edge of the building is minimal.  As a result, the proposal will cast a smaller shadow at any time in comparison to a pitched roof design with a central roof ridge to 9.5m;

-    The southern façade of Unit 11 is stepped in further than the minimum DCP setback requirement and the central recess adjacent to the common stair enables the building to be set further back from the southern boundary than a compliant DCP envelope.  The proposed setbacks to the southern boundary reduce the size of the shadow and the overall shadow impacts in comparison to a building form which complies with the minimum 2.5m side setback;

-    The flat roof design eliminates eaves and parapets which would otherwise contribute to overshadowing;

-    The basement floor level has been stepped down towards the rear of the site to match the natural topography.  The rear of the building has been similarly stepped down to ensure the height of the building overall responds to the natural slope and minimises overall building bulk and scale.

 

The overall built form is a three storey development with basement parking which will be compatible with the emerging medium density streetscape.

 

Due to the dimensions and orientation of the lot, overshadowing of the neighbouring apartments and private open space areas at No.53 Chester Avenue is unavoidable.  The building has been designed to have regard to the specific slope and dimensions of the site.  The building footprint has been adjusted beyond the DCP controls to minimise shadow.  The building height is compliant with the anticipated scale of development of three storeys above a basement.  The roof design does not contribute to shadow.  The resultant impacts of shadow during midwinter have been appropriately minimised given the constraints of orientation and dimensions of the site.

 

To insist on strict compliance would reduce the floor to ceiling heights within the proposed building to 2.4m which is contrary to the requirements of SEPP 65 and the ADG and would reduce the internal amenity of the proposed apartments.  Reducing the building height to a compliant form and maintaining the proposed setbacks would have minimal impact on overshadowing in midwinter and negligible impact on shadows throughout the year as the southern edge of the building and the southern façade would have minimal change.

 

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

 

Applying the flexibility granted under Clause 4.6 in this instance, the variation to the height of buildings control is consistent with the objectives of Clause 4.6 as it will represent an appropriate degree of flexibility to allow a better outcome for and from the development in the circumstances which are limited by site slope and site dimensions. The merit assessment of the matters specific to the site and the proposal concludes that the variation to the development standard for building height is warranted in this case.

 

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 below.

 

3.1      Section C2 Medium Density Residential

 

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

 

 

0.5 x 6 = 3 spaces

 

1 x 5 = 5 spaces

 

 

 

0.25 x 11 = 3 spaces

 

Total 11 spaces required.

 

11 spaces provided.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

Motor cycle requirements:

5% of car parking requirement

 

Council’s Development Engineer considers the basement capacity to be satisfactory.

Satisfactory

4.

Bicycles

 

Residents:

1 bike space per 2 units

Visitors:

1 per 10 units

 Secured bicycle parking is positioned east of the common ground floor building entry and close to the southern side boundary and accommodates for sufficient spaces.

 

Conditions are recommended for details of the design of the secured spaces to be submitted with the Construction Certificate.

Complies.

C2

Medium Density Residential

2

Site Planning

2.1

Site Layout Options

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

·      Two block / courtyard example

·      T-shape example

·      U-shape example

·      Conventional example

 

The site layout is consistent with pre-lodgement and post-lodgement recommendations of the Joint Randwick / Waverley Design Review Panel with the central access core recessed from the side boundaries, east and west building modules and recessed building footprint at the upper levels in the south east corner.

 

Satisfactory for the site and its context.

2.2

Landscaped open space and deep soil area

2.2.1

Landscaped open space

 

A minimum of 50% of the site area (320.5m2) is to be landscaped open space.

 

54%

Complies

2.2.2

Deep soil area

 

(i)   A minimum of 25% of the site area (165m2) should incorporate deep soil areas sufficient in size and dimensions to accommodate trees and significant planting.

26% of the site is deep soil zone.  Deep soil areas in the front and rear setbacks have sufficient dimensions to support canopy trees.

Complies

 

(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.

Complies.  Conditions are recommended for the landscape plan to be submitted with the Construction Certificate to show details of the soil depths and dimension of all planted areas to ensure adequate soil dimensions to support high quality planting within the side setbacks areas.

Complies

 

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

Complies.  Conditions are recommended for appropriate species selection for evergreen canopy trees along the rear boundary and for street trees as recommended by Council’s Landscape Architect.

Complies

 

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

See above regarding conditions for soil depths to be indicated on plans submitted with the Construction Certificate.

Can comply

 

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

Complies

Complies

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.

All private open space areas are directly adjacent to and accessible from open plan living rooms and will receive direct solar access either in the morning or afternoon.

Each private open space area is well separated from the site boundaries and perimeter landscaping enhances the separation.

Privacy screens are also to be provided on balconies to assist with privacy at the discretion of future residents.

Complies.

 

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.

Every apartment has an area of private open space.

 

Private open space areas are a minimum of 8m2, a minimum dimension of 2m and exceed the requirement of the ADG.

Complies

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.

 N/A

N/A – See ADG Compliance table

3

Building Envelope

3.1

Floor space ratio

 

0.75:1 required by the LEP

0.748:1 proposed

Complies

3.2

Building height

 

 

9.5m required by the LEP

 

 

 

Maximum 10.2m proposed.

 

See Clause 4.6 Variation request assessment 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.

 

Building depth to each module does not exceed 14m.

Complies

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.

 Front setback to balconies is aligned with the setback established between the two neighbouring dwellings and the front façade of the building is recesses behind the edge of the balconies.

Complies

3.4.2

Side setback

 

Residential flat building

 

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

-    14m≤site frontage width<16m: 2.5m

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

-    Create articulations to the building facades.

-    Reserve open space areas and provide opportunities for landscaping.

-    Provide building separation.

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

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

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

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

 

 

Minimum southern side setbacks 2.5m increasing to the central access core and at Level 2 for Unit 11.

 

Minimum northern side setbacks 3m.

 

Appropriate articulation to side facades with variable setbacks, window treatments and changes in materials, colours and finishes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conditions are recommended for a fire protection statement to be submitted with the Construction Certificate.

 

 

Complies

3.4.3

Rear setback

 

For residential flat buildings, provide a minimum rear setback of 15% (6.3m) of allotment depth or 5m, whichever is the greater.

6.3m to edge of terraces and 8.3m to rear façade of building.

Complies

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.

 

West-facing units all address Chester Avenue.

Front façade is parallel to the Chester Street boundary.

 

 

Front façade is well articulated with balconies treated with a variety of hoods, balustrades and screens.

No large areas of blank walls.

 

 

 

 

 

All services concealed.

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

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.

Roof form is flat and has minimal visual contribution to the overall building appearance.

 

Roof form is appropriate to minimise overall building height and bulk.

There is no consistency in the design and pitch of roofs for new development in Chester Avenue

 

 

 

 

Skylights appropriately included.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.  Details to be submitted with the Construction Certificate.

 

 

 

 

 

No use of roof space.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

Satisfactory

 

 

 

 

 

Satisfactory

 

 

 

 

Satisfactory

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

4.3

Habitable roof space

 

Habitable roof space may be considered, provided it meets the following:

-    Optimises dwelling mix and layout, and assists to achieve dual aspect or cross over units with good natural ventilation.

-    Has a maximum floor space of 65% of the storey immediately below.

-    Wholly contain habitable areas within the roof space.

-    When viewed from the surrounding public and private domain, the roof form has the appearance of a roof. A continuous flat roof with habitable space within it will not satisfy this requirement.

-    Design windows to habitable roof space as an integrated element of the roof.

-    Submit computer generated perspectives or photomontages showing the front and rear elevations of the development.

N/A

N/A

4.4

External wall height and ceiling height

 

(ii)  Where the site is subject to a 9.5m building height limit under the LEP, a maximum external wall height of 8m applies.

External wall height exceeds 8m however is offset by side and rear setbacks which exceed the DCP controls.  External wall heights have been determined satisfactory by the Joint Randwick / Waverley Design Review Panel and subject to the provision of high quality planting on the podium along both side setbacks as per recommended conditions.

Satisfactory

 

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

Complies

Complies

4.5

Pedestrian Entry

 

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

 The common pedestrian pathway is located in the south west corner of the site and clearly links the common ground floor entry lobby with a secured access gate at the Chester Road boundary.

Complies

 

(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.

Building entry linked by a clear, straight pathway from the street.

 

Building entry clearly identifiable as the recessed central circulation core that separates the east and west building modules.

 

Direct entry from Chester Avenue for the front ground floor apartments is not encouraged as multiple gates to the street front fencing may detract from the visual prominence of the common entry gate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The common ground floor lobby and central access core is roofed and protected by side louvres.

 

Standard conditions will require the provision of appropriate mail boxes.

Complies

 

 

 

 

Satisfactory

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Satisfactory

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Satisfactory

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

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.

Common circulation spaces will have appropriate natural light and ventilation with louvred external treatments.  Corridor spaces are generous and have clear lines of sight.

Complies

 

(ii)     Use multiple access cores to:

-    Maximise the number of pedestrian entries along a street for sites with wide frontages or corner sites.

-    Articulate the building façade.

-    Limit the number of dwelling units accessible off a single circulation core on a single level to 6 units.

Not required.

Complies

 

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

N/A

N/A

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 apartments achieve natural cross ventilation as all apartments have at least dual aspects with openable windows in both facades.

Complies

 

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

All apartments have simple room layouts which can accommodate a range of set outs.

Complies

 

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

All apartments have private open space.

Complies

 

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

Kitchens appropriately located within the open plan living room areas.

Complies

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.

 

Complies

Complies

 

(i)       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.

 

All ground floor apartments have terraces within the courtyard space directly adjacent to and accessible from the open plan living room

Complies

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 light weight 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.

A revised scheme of colours, materials and finishes are required to be submitted with the Construction Certificate based on more natural and muted colours and tones.

Satisfactory

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 exceeding 1m is required for the basement car parking area.  Council’s Development Engineer has recommended appropriate conditions of consent for excavation.

Satisfactory

 

Retaining walls

(iv)    Setback the outer edge of any excavation, piling or sub-surface walls a minimum of 900mm from the side and rear boundaries.

(v)    Step retaining walls in response to the natural landform to avoid creating monolithic structures visible from the neighbouring properties and the public domain.

(vi)    Where it is necessary to construct retaining walls at less than 900mm from the side or rear boundary due to site conditions, retaining walls must be stepped with each section not exceeding a maximum height of 2200mm, as measured from the ground level (existing).

 

Council’s Development Engineer has recommended appropriate conditions of consent for retaining walls.

 

Satisfactory

5

Amenity

5.1

Solar access and overshadowing

 

Solar access for proposed development

 

(i)     Dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours sunlight in living areas and to at least 50% of the private open space between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

All apartments will receive direct solar access compliant with the requirements of the ADG (which override the DCP provisions in this regard).

See ADG compliance table.

 

(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.

See above.

See above.

 

(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 single aspect apartments.

Complies

 

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

N/A

N/A

 

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 to a part of a window 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.

Neighbouring apartments to the south at No.53 Chester Avenue will be impacted by overshadowing and the impacts of this have been examined in the consideration of, and response to, submissions earlier in this report.

Satisfactory

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.

 All rooms have a window to an external wall.

Complies

 

(ii)  Sun shading devices appropriate to the orientation should be provided for the windows and glazed doors of the building.

All screens are to be louvered to allow for solar access.

Complies

 

(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.

Complies

Complies

 

(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.

All apartments have at least dual aspects and can achieve natural cross ventilation.

Complies

 

(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.

Complies

Complies

 

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

 

All kitchens have an external window.

Complies

 

(vii) Developments, which seek to vary from the minimum standards, must demonstrate how natural ventilation can be satisfactorily achieved, particularly in relation to habitable rooms.

N/A

N/A

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

 

Visual privacy has been examined in consideration of, and response to, issues raised in submissions earlier in this report.

 

Subject to recommended conditions for window treatments to both side facades the level of visual amenity to be achieved for future residents and neighbours is considered to be satisfactory.

Satisfactory

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

 

Acoustic privacy will be achieved through orienting living room windows and private open space areas to the street setback and the rear setback areas.

Complies

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.

 N/A

N/A

5.6

Safety and security

 

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

 Entry points to the building can be appropriately secured and will have clear lines of site from exterior and interior locations within the development site.

Complies

 

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

Provided.

Complies

 

(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.

Can be achieved with secured private open space areas and openable windows that cannot be accessed from common areas.

Complies

 

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

No obstruction to lines of sight.

Complies

 

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

Security door to basement access.

Complies

 

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

Can be installed.

Complies

 

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

Can be installed to appropriate standards.

Complies

 

(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.

Casual surveillance can be achieved from living rooms and private open spaces oriented to the street.

Complies

 

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

Can comply.  Details to be submitted with the Construction Certificate.

Satisfactory

 

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

See above

Satisfactory

6.1

Location

 

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

N/A

N/A

 

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

Complies

Complies

 

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

Council’s Development Engineer has recommended appropriate conditions of consent to address this matter.

Can comply

 

(iv) Entry to parking facilities off the rear lane must be setback a minimum of 1m from the lane boundary.

N/A

N/A

 

(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.

(c)   Where rear lane or secondary street access is not available, the car park entry must be recessed behind the front façade alignment. In addition, the entry and driveway must be located towards the side and not centrally positioned across the street frontage.

Council’s Development Engineer has recommended appropriate conditions of consent to address these matters.

Can comply

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.

 Council’s Development Engineer has recommended appropriate conditions of consent to address this matter.

Can comply

 

(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.

Council’s Development Engineer has recommended appropriate conditions of consent to address this matter

Can comply

 

(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. 

 

Council’s Development Engineer has recommended appropriate conditions of consent to address this matter.

 

Edges of basement are incorporated into the landscape design.

Can comply

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

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

 

Details of all fencing are to be provided with the Construction Certificate.

Can comply

7.2

Front Fencing

 

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

Details of all fencing are to be provided with the Construction Certificate.

Can comply

 

(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.

Details of all fencing are to be provided with the Construction Certificate.

Can comply

 

(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.

Details of all fencing are to be provided with the Construction Certificate.

Can comply

 

(iv) Solid front fence of up to 1800mm in height may be permitted in the following scenarios:

- Front fence for sites facing arterial roads.

- Fence on the secondary street frontage of corner allotments, which is behind the alignment of the primary street façade.

      Such solid fences must be articulated through a combination of materials, finishes and details, and/or incorporate landscaping, so as to avoid continuous blank walls.

Details of all fencing are to be provided with the Construction Certificate.

Can comply

 

(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.

Details of all fencing are to be provided with the Construction Certificate.

Can comply

 

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

Details of all fencing are to be provided with the Construction Certificate.

Can comply

 

(vii) Gates must not open over public land.

Details of all fencing are to be provided with the Construction Certificate.

Can comply

 

(viii) The fence adjacent to the driveway may be required to be splayed to ensure adequate sightlines for drivers and pedestrians.

Council’s Development engineer has recommended appropriate conditions for the submission of information that demonstrated compliance to be submitted with the Construction Certificate.

Can comply

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.

Details of all fencing are to be provided with the Construction Certificate.

Can comply

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

(a)    1-bedroom apartments – 6m3

(b)    2-bedroom apartments – 8m3

(c)    3 plus bedroom apartments – 10m3

Adequate storage spaces provided for each dwelling

Satisfactory

7.7

Laundry facilities

 

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

Internal laundry provided.

Acceptable

 

(ii)     Provide internal laundry for each dwelling unit.

Provided

Complies

 

(iii)    Provide a separate service balcony for clothes drying for dwelling units where possible. Where this is not feasible, reserve a space for clothes drying within the sole balcony and use suitable balustrades to screen it to avoid visual clutter.

N/A

N/A

7.8

Air conditioning units:

 

·      Avoid installing within window frames. If installed in balconies, screen by suitable balustrades.

·      Air conditioning units must not be installed within window frames.

Conditions are recommended for details to be submitted with the Construction Certificate which demonstrate compliance.

Can comply

 

4.         Referral Comments

 

Comments from Council’s Development Engineer

 

Drainage Comments

On site stormwater detention is required for this development.

 

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.

 

Parking Comments

Parking Requirements for the development have been assessed as per the rates specified in Randwick Council’s Development Control Plan 2013 Part B7.

 

Vehicle Parking

Vehicle Parking for multi-unit housing has been calculated at the following rates:

1 space per 2 studio units = 0.5 spaces x 6 = 3 spaces

1 space per 1 bedroom unit = 1 car space x 5 = 5 spaces

1 visitor space per 4 units = 0.25 x 11 = 2.75 spaces

 

Total required is 11 spaces

 

Total provided is 11 spaces

 

Undergrounding of site feed power lines

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.

 

Landscape Comments

On Council’s verge, hard up against the western edge of the existing vehicle crossing, there is a mature, 5-6m tall Metrosideros excelsa (Pohutakawa) which is covered by the DCP, of fair health and condition due to dieback and lopping of its western aspect away from the overhead wires.

 

The plans show that the existing crossing immediately to its east will be removed and replaced with a new basement entry ramp on the opposite, western side of the site, but as its root plate would have developed with a reliance on this existing concrete structure for support, attempting retention of this tree (as has been shown), may affect its future stability, which poses a safety issue for Council in regards to its long-term management in the public domain. 

 

Further, the Development Engineer has also required that a new public footpath be constructed across the full width of this site, just to the east of its trunk, so as to link up with the recently built footpath to the east, with the required excavations to result in damage to roots on its eastern aspect, and on this basis, conditions require its removal, wholly at the applicant’s cost.

 

This will also have the benefit of allowing a more desirable, native coastal species to be provided in its place, so as to achieve consistency with the rest of the streetscape.

 

The similarly sized Mango and small Frangipani in the front setback are not significant in anyway, and as they will be in direct conflict with the new front courtyards, landscaping and associated works in this same area, conditions allow their removal.

 

There is no other significant vegetation within this site that would pose a constraint to the works, so can also be removed where necessary, subject to full implementation of the approved landscaping.

 

 

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 Clause 4.3 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to the height of buildings, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning & 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. 329/2017 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a 3 storey residential flat building containing 6 x studio apartments and 5 x one-bedroom apartments with basement parking for 11 cars at No. 51 Chester Avenue, Maroubra, subject to the development consent conditions attached to this report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

51 Chester Ave Maroubra Development Consent Conditions (medium density residential) (DA/329/2017)

 

 

 

 


51 Chester Ave Maroubra Development Consent Conditions (medium density residential) (DA/329/2017)

Attachment 1

 

 


Randwick Development Assessment Panel                                                                 12 April 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D8/18

 

Subject:             4-6 Grosvenor Street, Kensington (DA/166/2017)

Folder No:                   DA/166/2017

Author:                   Roger Quinton, Coordinator Development Assessment      

 

Proposal:                    Demolition of existing structures, construction of a 3 storey residential flat building containing 9 dwellings, basement parking for 13 vehicles, landscaping and associated works

Ward:                     West Ward

Applicant:                New Oriental Development Pty Ltd

Owner:                        New Oriental Development Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=aa4ff88c-3435-4ff6-a54d-8988715dde33&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

 

Introduction

 

In accordance with the Minister’s direction under Section 9.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended), if Council had not delegated the determining of a Development Application (DA) to an officer of Council prior to March 2018, then the DA must be referred to the Local Planning Panel for determination. As the DA had been called up to a Council meeting there is no delegation in place and therefore must be referred to the Randwick Development Assessment Panel (RDAP) for determination.

 

In addition, the development is subject to SEPP 65.

 

Development application DA/166/2017 for the demolition of existing structures, construction of a three storey residential flat building containing nine dwellings, basement parking for 13 cars, landscaping and associated works, was considered at the Planning Committee Meeting (PCM) on 14 November 2017. The Development Application Report and Compliance Report from the PCM meeting are appended to this report. The PCM resolved as follows:

 

“(Bowen/Luxford) that the application be deferred for mediation.”

 

Mediation occurred on 1 February 2018, where it was agreed:

 

The parties have reached and executed this mediation outcome as follows:

 

·      Revised pans to be submitted to reduce the height of the roof at the rear facing No. 2 Grosvenor Street, to ensure unit 3/2 Grosvenor Street has no overshadowing solar impact by 9.45 am at midwinter.

·      Revised plan to show height reduction compared to previous plan.

·      The objectors will withdraw their objection.

 

Amended plans were submitted on 13 February 2018 reducing the height of the rear portion of the development as indicated in the diagrams below:

        

 

 

The amended plans have resulted in a reduction in shadow impacts to Unit 3, No. 2 Grosvenor Street. The windows for this dwelling are located at first floor level in the centre portion of the façade reproduced below:

 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 


 

Conclusion

 

That the application to demolish existing structures, construct a three storey residential flat building containing nine dwellings be approved (subject to conditions) for the reasons detailed in the attached Development Application Report.

 

 

 

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 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan, relating to floor space ratio, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clause, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of planning 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/166/2017 for demolition of existing structures, construction of a 3 storey residential flat building containing 9 dwellings, basement parking for 13 vehicles, landscaping and associated works.  

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Conditions Consent - 4-6 Grosvenor Street, Kensington (DA/166/2017)

 

2.

Council report 14/11/2017 - 4-6 Grosvenor Street, Kensington (DA 166 2017)

 

3.

DA Compliance Report - DA 166 2017 - 4-6 Grosvenor Street, KENSINGTON

 

 

 

 


Conditions Consent - 4-6 Grosvenor Street, Kensington (DA/166/2017)

Attachment 1

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council report 14/11/2017 - 4-6 Grosvenor Street, Kensington (DA 166 2017)

Attachment 2

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DA Compliance Report - DA 166 2017 - 4-6 Grosvenor Street, KENSINGTON

Attachment 3

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Randwick Development Assessment Panel                                                                 12 April 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D9/18

 

Subject:             31 Torrington Road, Maroubra (DA/281/2017)

Folder No:                   DA/281/2017

Author:                   Roger Quinton, Coordinator Development Assessment      

 

Proposal:                    Construction of double garage and two storey secondary dwelling fronting The Corso

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                Santos Architecture

Owner:                        Mr T Premetis & Mrs H Premetis

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=2876aba0-d07f-46fd-91e0-fc8172c96bfd&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction

 

In accordance with the Minister’s direction under Section 9.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended), if Council had not delegated the determining of a Development Application (DA) to an officer of Council prior to March 2018, then the DA must be referred to the Local Planning Panel for determination. As the DA had been called up to a Council meeting there is no delegation in place and therefore must be referred to the Randwick Development Assessment Panel (RDAP) for determination.

 

Development Application DA/281/2017 was considered at the Planning Committee Meeting on 14 November 2017. The Development Application and Compliance Reports from that meeting are appended to this report. At the meeting it was resolved:

 

“(Andrews/Seng) that the application be deferred for mediation.”

 

Mediation occurred on 21 March, 2018. The outcome of the mediation was:

 

During the mediation number of issue raised by the objectors present although some were addressed in Councils report.

 

Owners of No 29 Torrington Rd expressed concern regarding loss of privacy from the proposed development upper level 2 North facing windows, the applicant has agreed to replace them with 2 sky lights mounted on the roof.

 

Owners of No 33 Torrington Rd expressed concern regarding the common garage wall and requested copy of the Engineering report prior to commencement of work.

 

Objectors present agreed to withdraw their objection as per Mediation outcome.

Mediation concluded in amicable manner.

 

OUTCOME

The parties have reached and executed this mediation outcome as follows:

 

1.     The applicant is prepared to amend the plans to remove he northern top level windows and replace with skylight windows in the pitched roof.

 

2.     Copy of the engineering Report as per condition 36 of Council Report to be provided to the objectors prior to commencement.

 

3.     Subject to the above conditions being satisfied, the objectors will withdraw their objection.

 

An additional Condition 2(d) be added requiring deletion of the first floor north-facing windows in the secondary dwelling be deleted and replaced with roof mounted skylights and Condition 36 be amended to require a copy of the engineering report be provided to the objectors prior to commencement of building works.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 


 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

That the application to construct a double garage and two story secondary dwelling fronting The Corso be approved (subject to conditions) for the reasons detailed in the attached Development Application Report.

 

 

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. DA/281/2017 for construction of a double garage and two storey secondary dwelling fronting The Corso at No. 31 Torrington Road, Maroubra, subject to the development consent conditions attached to this report for the reasons contained in the attached Executive Summary report.  

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Conditions consent - 31 Torrington Road  Maroubar DA/281/2017

 

2.

31 Torrington Road, Maroubra (DA 281 2017) Report on 11 November, 2017

 

3.

DA Compliance Report - 31 Torrington Road, MAROUBRA 

 

 

 

 


Conditions consent - 31 Torrington Road  Maroubar DA/281/2017

Attachment 1

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


31 Torrington Road, Maroubra (DA 281 2017) Report on 11 November, 2017

Attachment 2

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


DA Compliance Report - 31 Torrington Road, MAROUBRA

Attachment 3