Randwick Development Assessment Panel Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

Thursday 14 June 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                                                                 14 June 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Randwick Development Assessment Panel Meeting

 

Notice is hereby given that a Randwick Development Assessment Panel Meeting of the Council of the City of Randwick will be held in the Council Chamber, 1st Floor, 90 Avoca St Randwick on Thursday, 14 June 2018 at 1pm

 

 

Chairperson:                                Annelise Tuor

 

Expert Members:                         Julie Savet Ward; Deborah Laidlaw

 

Community Representatives:          Peter Ryan (South Ward)

 

Quorum:                                  Three (3) members

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of RDAP by Councillors and members of the public

Privacy warning;

In respect to Privacy & Personal Information Protection Act, members of the public are advised that the proceedings of this meeting will be recorded.

Development Application Reports

D48/18      9 Willis Street, Kingsford (DA/598/2017).................................................. 1

D49/18      15 Seaside Parade, South Coogee (DA/6/2018)....................................... 39

D50/18      60 Holmes Street, Maroubra (DA/233/2018).......................................... 101

D51/18      15 Marcel Avenue Coogee (DA/366/2017)............................................. 131

D52/18      251 Fitzgerald Avenue, Maroubra (DA/89/2018)..................................... 187

D53/18      25 Liguria Street, Maroubra (DA/768/2017)........................................... 269

Miscellaneous Reports

Nil     

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Kerry Kyriacou

Acting Director City Planning


Randwick Development Assessment Panel                                                                 14 June 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D48/18

 

Subject:             9 Willis Street, Kingsford (DA/598/2017)

Folder No:                   DA/598/2017

Author:                   Jonathan Blackmore, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Alterations and additions to to the existing dwelling house including new first floor addition.

 

Ward:                     West Ward

Applicant:                Herbert Dharmawan

Owner:                        Herbert Dharmawan

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 


 

Executive Summary

 

The application is referred to the Randwick Development Assessment Panel (RDAP) as the development contravenes the building height development standard by more than 10%.

 

The proposal is for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including a new first floor addition.

 

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant planning requirements contained within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012 and the Randwick Development Control Plan (RDCP) 2013.  In summary, the development seeks to continue the dwelling house use of the land which is permissible in the R2 zone, the proposal complies with FSR, but seeks to vary the building height standard in Clause 4.3 of the RLEP 2012. The building height variation is supported primarily on the grounds that the proposed height is not a departure from the pattern of development along the street and will result in no significant adverse impacts in terms of streetscape character or residential amenity. The proposal is generally consistent with the controls and objectives of the RDCP 2013.

 

Subject to the recommended non-standard conditions of consent, the proposal is considered to be generally consistent with the applicable planning controls and as such is recommended for approval.

 

Proposal

 

The applicant proposes alterations and additions to to the existing dwelling house including a new first floor addition.

 

Revisions

Post-lodgement it was identified that the proposal exceeds the building height standard of the RELP 2012 as the existing ground level should be taken from the underside of the existing garage slab rather than the existing ground levels adjacent to the side walls. The applicant provided revised plans showing the correct maximum building height line based on existing ground levels and submitted a Clause 4.6 exception for Council’s consideration.

 

These revisions do not change the built form of the proposal as notified. Therefore, re-notification was not required.  

 

Site Description and Locality

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Willis Street in the section between Norton Street and Oval Lane, opposite the University of New South Wales campus. This section of Willis Street features one, two and three storey single dwellings. The subject site, like those on either side, slopes glently up from its front boundary. The front of the site contains low fencing/retaining, a driveway to basement level garaging and entrance an entry patio. The rear of the site is generally grassed.     

 

Figure 1. Photograph of the frontage of the subject site (central dwelling).

 

Submissions

 

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

 

11 Willis Street

Issue

Comment

1.   Concerned about increase in shadowing, particularly to the northern side of their roof, where solar panels might be installed in the future. Estimate a sunlight reduction of about 45%. Request the southern wall be stepped back to reduce the shadowing impact. 

1.   Most of the northern side of the objector’s roof will not be shadowed. The proposal will comply with the RDCP’s 2013 solar access requirement for roof planes.

 

 

 

 

Key Issues

 

Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to Development Standard

Pursuant to Clauses 4.3 of the RLEP, the maximum height for the site is 9.5m. The proposal contravenes the standard as contained in Clause 4.3 of the RLEP 2012. The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

Standard

9.5m

Proposal

11.15m

Variation

17.4%

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Wall Height – Sub-Section 3.2

Due to a modified ground level for the existing garage/driveway, the proposal results in a wall height of up to 8.55m at the front of the dwelling above the garage. The RCDP 2013 sets maximum wall heights for sloping sites at 8m.

 

The proposal is not inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the RDCP 2013 and will result in no significant adverse impacts in terms of streetscape character or the residential amenity of neighbouring sites. The non-compliance relates only to the existing modified external ground level at the front of the garage. The non-compliance is, in part, unavoidable and the majority of the walls, including those along the side of the dwelling, will be well under the 8m maximum wall height requirement.  The area of non-compliance will be well articulated with window openings, balconies and other architectural features.  The non-compliance does not impact the visual privacy of neighbouring sites. The building will comply with the RLEP’s floor space ratio requirements.

 

The proposed wall height is not a departure from the pattern of development along the street and the overall height of the dwelling is a suitable transition within the line of existing dwellings as Willies Street slopes down in a north to south direction.

 

Side Setback – Sub-Section 3.3.2

A portion of the southern side wall over the garage is considered to be a 2nd floor level due to the protrusion of the garage over 1.2m above the ground level at its side. A side setback of 1.72m is proposed for this portion of the wall above the garage that is labelled as the 1st floor level but is considered to be the 2nd floor level. The RDCP 2013 requires a side setback of 1.8m for this portion of wall.

 

The proposed non-compliance will not be inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the RDCP 2013 and will result in no significant adverse impacts in terms of streetscape character or residential amenity. The extent and length of the non-compliance is not significant and will not generally be observable to the casual observer. The non-compliant portion of the wall will feature balcony and window openings which articulate its form and minimise its bulk. The setback pattern will be comparable to existing dwellings within the street. Lower levels of the dwelling significantly exceed the minimum side setback requirements of the RDCP 2013. The non-compliant setback will not contribute to a reduction in visual privacy or solar access for the site to the south.   

 

Building Design – Sub-Section 4.1

The proposal involves a 14m long unarticulated wall section to the southern side of upper-level.  The RDCP 2013 sets unarticulated wall lengths at 12m.

 

The proposed non-compliance will not be inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the RDCP 2013 and will result in no significant adverse impacts in terms of streetscape character or residential amenity. The unarticulated length is not uncommon within the immediate context, and similar wall lengths are present on neighbouring dwellings to the north and south. The wall length differences between ground and first floor levels and the provision of balcony and window openings on side elevations will provide articulation to soften the visual bulk of the building.

 

Solar Access – Sub-Section 5.1

The proposal will be non-compliant with the solar access to neighbouring development control of the RCDCP 2013 in relation to two northern living room windows of the site to the south. In particular, the two northern windows of the dwelling to the south will receive very minimal sunlight within the late afternoon hours of 21 June.

 

The proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant objectives of the RCDCP 2013 and will not generate significant adverse environmental impacts in terms of the residential amenity of the site to the south. The shadowing generally results due to the site’s east-west alignment and is, in part, unavoidable. An additional level of the dwelling to the south would shadow the dwelling to its south to a similar extent. The overall height is also consistent with other two storey dwelling houses in the vicinity of the site.

 

Direct sunlight will still enter the windows at other times of year and indirect light will still enter the dwelling. The private open space and roof planes of the site to the south will retain a compliant amount of solar access on 21 June.      

 

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 alteration and additions to to the existing dwelling house, including new first floor addition, be approved (subject to conditions) for the following reasons:

 

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

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

·       The proposed development is consistent with the dominant residential character in the locality. The proposal will not result in detrimental environmental, social or economic impacts on 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

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

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

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.

 

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.

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

Nil.

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

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

 

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

Section 4.15(1)(b) – The likely impacts of the development, including environmental impacts on the natural and built environment and social and economic impacts in the locality

The environmental impacts of the proposed development on the natural and built environment have been addressed in this report.

 

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

Section 4.15(1)(c) – The suitability of the site for the development

The site is located in close proximity to local services and public transport. The site has sufficient area to accommodate the proposed land use and associated structures. Therefore, the site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

Section 4.15(1)(d) – Any submissions made in accordance with the EP&A Act or EP&A Regulation

The issues raised in the submission have been addressed in this report.

Section 4.15(1)(e) – The public interest

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

 

2.         Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

2.1      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

The following development standards contained in the RLEP 2012 apply to the proposal:

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

0.75:1

0.65:1

Yes

Height of Building (Maximum)

9.5m

11.15m

No – 17.4% exceedance

 

Clause 4.6 – Building Height

Pursuant to Clauses 4.3 of the RLEP, the maximum height for the site is 9.5m. The proposal contravenes the standard as contained in Clause 4.2 of the RLEP 2012. The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

Standard

9.5m

Proposal

11.15m

Variation

17.4%

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

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

 

The concurrence of the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment must also be obtained for development that contravenes a development standard. However, pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Secretary under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 18-003 (dated 21 February 2018) the concurrence of the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment under clause 4.6(4) (b) of the RLEP 2012 may be assumed in certain cases.

 

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

 

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

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

 

The objectives of the maximum building height standard are set out in clause 4.3 of the RLEP 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.

 

In addition, the objectives of Zone R2 are relevant to the proposed development and read as follows:

 

Objectives of Zone R2:

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

·       To enable other land uses that provides 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 aims of the RLEP are also relevant and read as follows:

(2)    The particular aims of this Plan are as follows:

(a)     to foster a liveable city that is accessible, safe and healthy with quality public spaces and attractive neighbourhoods and centres,

(b)     to support a diverse local economy and business and employment opportunities for the community,

(c)      to support efficient use of land, vibrant centres, integration of land use and transport, and an appropriate mix of uses,

(d)     to achieve a high standard of design in the private and public domain that enhances the quality of life of the community,

(e)     to promote sustainable transport, public transport use, walking and cycling,

(f)       to facilitate sustainable population and housing growth,

(g)      to encourage the provision of housing mix and tenure choice, including affordable and adaptable housing, that meets the needs of people of different ages and abilities in Randwick,

(h)     to promote the importance of ecological sustainability in the planning and development process,

(i)      to protect, enhance and promote the environmental qualities of Randwick,

(j)      to ensure the conservation of the environmental heritage, aesthetic and coastal character of Randwick,

(k)     to acknowledge and recognise the connection of Aboriginal people to the area and to protect, promote and facilitate the Aboriginal culture and heritage of Randwick,

(l)      to promote an equitable and inclusive social environment,

(m)    to promote opportunities for social, cultural and community activities.

 

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

Council’s Assessment Officer’s Clause 4.6 Assessment:

In assessing the proposed variation against the objectives of building height standard, the objectives of the zone R2 and aims of the RLEP, it is considered that the submitted justification substantiates that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

The relevant objectives of the clause for building height are to ensure that the size and scale of the development is compatible with the desired future character of the locality and that development does not adversely impact on the amenity of neighbouring land. The non-compliance with the height standard of the RLEP 2012 results from the need to take the measurement of the height from the ground level below the garage slab and is not a result of poor design. Excluding a section relating the garage, the proposal mostly complies with the wall height control of the RDCP 2013 which further indicates that the proposed height is consistent with the desired future character. The proposal complies the visual privacy controls (subject to condition) of the RDCP 2013. Wall line articulation is compatible the immediate context and the wall length differences between ground and first floor levels will provide articulation. The shadowing of the southern neighbour’s living room windows generally results due to the site’s east-west alignment and is, in part, unavoidable. An additional level of the dwelling to the south would shadow the dwelling to its south to a similar extent.

 

The proposed height is not a departure from the pattern of development along the street and the height is a suitable transition within the line of existing dwellings as Willies Street slopes down in a north to south direction.

 

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

 

The applicant’s written request has successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. As discussed above, the proposal achieves the planning objectives for the locality; the proposed height is not a departure from the pattern of development along the street and the height is a suitable transition within the line of existing dwellings. The non-compliance with the height standard does not result from poor design.

 

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

 

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is not inconsistent with the objectives of the building height standard and the R2 zone objectives. The relevant objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (Zone R2 - Low Density Residential) are:

 

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

·      To 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 not inconsistent with the relevant zone objectives in that:

 

·      The amenity of residents both in the vicinity and in the broader context of the R2 zone will not be significantly adversely affected by the development associated with the height exceedance.

 

·      The proposal provides for the housing needs of the community.

 

·      The proposal is compatible with the streetscape character as the proposed height is not a departure from the pattern of development along the street and the height is a suitable transition within the line of existing dwellings. The non-compliance with the height standard does not result from poor design.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Comments:

Pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Secretary under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 18-003 (dated 21 February 2018) the concurrence of the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed to the approval of development consent for a  development that contravenes the development standard for building height in clause 4.3 of the RLEP 2012.

 

Variation from the adherence to the building height standard on this occasion is considered to be of benefit to the orderly use of the site and there is no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance.

 

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

 

3.       Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013

 

C1 Table:  Low Density Residential

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.)

 

DCP Clause

Controls

Proposal

Compliance

 

Classification

Zoning = R2

 

2

Site Planning

 

 

2.3

Site Coverage

 

Up to 300 sqm = 60%

301 to 450 sqm = 55%

451 to 600 sqm = 50%

601 sqm or above = 45%

Site = 392m2

Proposed = 38.5%

Complies

2.4

Landscaping and Permeable Surfaces

 

i)     Up to 300 sqm = 20%

ii)    301 to 450 sqm = 25%

iii)   451 to 600 sqm = 30%

iv)   601 sqm or above = 35%

v)    Deep soil minimum width 900mm.

vi)   Maximise permeable surfaces to front

vii)  Retain existing or replace mature native trees

viii)  Minimum 1 canopy tree (8m mature). Smaller (4m mature) If site restrictions apply.

ix)   Locating paved areas, underground services away from root zones.

Proposed = 25.2%

Complies

2.5

Private Open Space (POS)

 

Dwelling & Semi-Detached POS

 

 

 

Up to 300 sqm = 5m x 5m

301 to 450 sqm = 6m x 6m

451 to 600 sqm = 7m x 7m

601 sqm or above = 8m x 8m

Proposed = Unchanged.

N/A

3

Building Envelope

3.1

Floor Space Ratio LEP 2012 = 0.65:1

Proposed FSR = 0.75:1

Complies

3.2

Building Height

 

 

 

Maximum Overall Height LEP 2012  = 9.5m

Existing = 8.5m

Proposed = 11.15m

Non-compliant – refer clause 4.6 discussion

 

i)   Maximum external wall height = 7m (Minimum floor to ceiling height = 2.7m)

ii)   Sloping sites = 8m

iii)  Merit assessment if exceeded

Proposed = 8.55m

Non-compliant – refer discussion above.

3.3

Setbacks

3.3.1

Front Setbacks:

i)   Average setbacks of adjoining (if none then no less than 6m) Transition area then merit assessment.

ii)   Corner allotments: Secondary street frontage:

-    900mm for allotments with primary frontage width of less than 7m

-    1500mm for all other sites

iii)  do not locate swimming pools, above-ground rainwater tanks and outbuildings in front

Proposed = Consistent with existing and neighbouring

Complies

3.3.2

Side Setbacks:

Semi-Detached Dwellings:

·      Frontage less than 6m = merit

·      Frontage b/w 6m and 8m = 900mm for all levels

Dwellings:

·      Frontage less than 9m = 900mm

·      Frontage b/w 9m and 12m = 900mm (Gnd & 1st floor) 1500mm above

·      Frontage over 12m = 1200mm (Gnd & 1st floor), 1800mm above.

Refer to 6.3 and 7.4 for parking facilities and outbuildings

Proposed = 1.72m and 1.67m – all levels.

 

A portion of the southern side over the garage is considered to be a 2nd floor level due to the protrusion of the garage over 1.2m above the ground level at its side.

Non-compliant – refer discussion above.

3.3.3

Rear setbacks

i)   Minimum 25% of allotment depth or 8m, whichever lesser. Note: control does not apply to corner allotments.

ii)   Provide greater than aforementioned or demonstrate not required, having regard to:

-    Existing predominant rear setback line - reasonable view sharing (public and private)

-    protect the privacy and solar access

iii)  Garages, carports, outbuildings, swimming or spa pools, above-ground water tanks, and unroofed decks and terraces attached to the dwelling may encroach upon the required rear setback, in so far as they comply with other relevant provisions of this DCP.

iv)  For irregularly shaped lots = merit assessment on basis of:-

-    Compatibility

-    POS dimensions comply

-    minimise solar access, privacy and view sharing impacts

Refer to 6.3  and 7.4 for parking facilities and  outbuildings

Minimum = 7.32m

Existing = 5.85m to 7.24m

Proposed = 7.24m (top floor), no change to ground floor.

Complies on merit as first floor matches main existing rear wall line of ground floor.

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

14m unarticulated section to southern side of upper-level. 

Non-compliant – refer key issues discussion.

4.4

Roof Design and Features

 

 

 

i)   Rooftop terraces on dwelling (not roof)

ii)   Roof terraces above garages (low side)

Dormers

iii)  Dormer windows don’t dominate

iv)  Maximum 1500mm height, top is below roof ridge; 500mm setback from side of roof, face behind side elevation, above gutter of roof.

v)  Multiple dormers consistent

vi)  Suitable for existing

·      Celestial windows and skylights

vii) Sympathetic to design of dwelling

Mechanical equipment

viii) Contained within roof form and not visible from street and surrounding properties.

No such features proposed.

N/A

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.)

Standard condition for compliance.

N/A

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.

Limited excavations proposed. Compliant setbacks and depths.

Complies

5

Amenity

5.1

Solar access and overshadowing

 

Solar access to proposed development:

 

 

 

i)   Portion of north-facing living room windows must receive a minimum of 3 hrs direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June

ii)   POS (passive recreational activities) receive a minimum of 3 hrs of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

Unaltered to windows of living areas. Eastern POS to receive adequate direct sunlight.

Complies

 

Solar access to neighbouring development:

 

 

 

i)   Portion of the north-facing living room windows must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

iv)  POS (passive recreational activities) receive a minimum of 3 hrs of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

v)  solar panels on neighbouring dwellings, which are situated not less than 6m above ground level (existing), must retain a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. If no panels, direct sunlight must be retained to the northern, eastern and/or western roof planes (not <6m above ground) of neighbouring dwellings.

vi)  Variations may acceptable be subject to:

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

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

·      Topography of the subject and adjoining allotments.

·      Location and level of the windows in question.

·      Shadows cast by existing buildings on the neighbouring allotments.

The two north facing living room windows on the site to the south will not receive the required 3hrs of direct sunlight on 21 June.

 

Northern, eastern and western roof planes on the site to the south will receive over 3hrs of direct sunlight on 21 June.

 

The rear POS of the site to the south will receive over 3hrs of direct sunlight within the morning of 21 June.

Non-compliant in relation to living room windows – see key issues discussion.

5.2

Energy Efficiency and Natural Ventilation

 

i)   Provide day light to internalised areas within the dwelling (for example, hallway, stairwell, walk-in-wardrobe and the like) and any poorly lit habitable rooms via measures such as:

·      Skylights (ventilated)

·      Clerestory windows

·      Fanlights above doorways

·      Highlight windows in internal partition walls

·      living rooms contain windows and doors opening to outdoor areas

Note: The sole reliance on skylight or clerestory window for natural lighting and ventilation is not acceptable

Windows and openings suitably positioned for daylight and ventilation to interior.

Complies

5.3

Visual Privacy

 

Windows

 

 

 

i)   minimise any direct viewing habitable of proposed and neighbours habitable room windows by one or more of the following measures:

-    windows are offset or staggered

-    minimum 1600mm window sills

-    Install fixed and translucent glazing up 1600mm minimum effective sill.

-    Install fixed privacy screens to windows.

-    Creating a recessed courtyard (minimum 3m x 2m).

ii)   orientate living and dining windows away from similar opposite (that is front or rear or side courtyard

Southern side elevation -1.6m sill heights.

 

Some frosted glass proposed to bedroom windows on northern elevations – condition for 1.6m effective sill heights. 

Condition for compliance.

 

Balcony

 

 

 

i)   Upper floor balconies to street or rear yard of the site. (wrap around balcony to have a narrow width at side)

ii)   Privacy screens

iii)  minimise overlooking of POS via privacy screens (fixed, minimum of 1600mm high and achieve  minimum of 70% opaqueness (glass, timber or metal slats and louvers)

iv)  Supplementary privacy devices:  Screen planting and planter boxes Not sole privacy protection measure)

v)  vi) For sloping sites, step down and avoid large areas of ground floor decks or terraces.

Elevated balcony proposed to the front elevation. Screen shown on elevation. Viewing angles restrict views from the balcony to windows on the site to the south.

Complies

5.4

Acoustic Privacy

 

i)   noise sources not located adjacent to adjoining dwellings bedroom windows.

Achieved.

Complies

5.5

Safety and Security

 

i)   dwellings main entry on front elevation (unless narrow site)

ii)   Street numbering at front near entry.

iii)  1 habitable room window (glazed area min 2 square metres) overlooking the street or a public place.

iv)  Front fences, parking facilities and landscaping does not to obstruct casual surveillance (maintain safe access).

Unchanged.

Complies

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)

No view corridors impeded.

N/A

 

4.         Referral Comments

 

Development Engineering Referral Comments

 

Landscape Comments

The inspection of 28 September 2017 confirmed that the large and mature Tallowood on the verge, past the southern site boundary, in front of the adjoining property at no.11, would not be affected given its distance from all works, with the Murraya also on the verge, in front of the subject site, to the north of the existing vehicle crossing, having been planted by a resident rather than Council, and as there are no new external works, will not be affected.

 

Despite being heavily and poorly lopped in the past, the 5m x 5m Ulmus parvifolia (Chinese Weeping Elm) in the front yard, growing in an existing raised planter in the northwest corner of the site, was still observed to provide partial amenity from the busy roadway, and as there are no works shown for this area, can remain as an existing site feature.

 

The shrubs in the rear yard of the subject site, across the rear boundary, are all insignificant, so can be removed as needed as part of works associated with the extended courtyard/terrace area, and while there are established trees located in the adjoining private property to the east, near the common boundary, including from south to north, a Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda), a Eucalyptus microcorys (Tallowood) and an Araucaria columnaris (Cooks Pine), whose western aspects overhang into the subject site, they are at such a distance from the works that no impact will result on their root plates, with pruning not required either as their canopies are at such a height that no conflict will result, with the first floor well clear of their crowns.

 

 

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 Building Height, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality.

 

B.     That the RDAP 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/598/2017 for alterations and additions to to the existing dwelling house, including new first floor addition, at No. 9 Willis Street, Kingsford, subject to the development consent conditions attached to this report.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Conditions

 

  


DA Conditions

Attachment 1

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Randwick Development Assessment Panel                                                                 14 June 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D49/18

 

Subject:             15 Seaside Parade, South Coogee (DA/6/2018)

Folder No:                   DA/6/2018

Author:                   Planning Ingenuity, Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                    Demolition of all structures on site and construction of a new part one to part four storey dwelling house with double garage, rear swimming pool, associated site and landscaping works (variation to building height control).

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                Mr R Ockert

Owner:                        Mr J P G M Coelho & Mrs J Coelho

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=b9bea53d-fa5f-4b88-9b31-1ff90838ddc7&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 


 

Executive summary

 

The application is referred to the Randwick Development Assessment Panel (RDAP) as the development contravenes the development standard for building height by more than 10%

 

The proposal is for a new dwelling on the coastal foreshore. The site is significantly constrained by a steep rocky ravine which traverses the northern half of the site. Due to this ravine, the proposal significantly breaches the building height control at the easternmost portion of the dwelling. The proposal demonstrates that it is consistent with the objectives of the building height control, and the R2 zone objectives. The dwelling will not result in any significant view impacts on adjoining sites. The proposal represents an orderly and economic redevelopment of the site, without any unreasonable impacts on adjoining sites, and is therefore recommended for approval.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves the demolition of all structures on site and construction of a new part one to part four storey dwelling house with double garage, rear swimming pool, associated site and landscaping works.

 

Site Description and Locality

 

The site is located on the eastern side of Seaside Parade and is legally identified as Lot 7, Section 3 in DP9452. The lot is an irregular shape with a frontage to Seaside Parade of 15.77m, a northern side boundary of 40.54m and a southern side boundary of 43.555m. The site’s eastern boundary is defined by the mean high water mark.

 

The site is characterised by a steep rocky ravine which traverses the northern half of the site and extends under the existing building. The site currently contains a three storey rendered and tile dwelling with a large deck above disused swimming pool at the south-eastern corner of the site.

 

Located within the nature strip fronting the site are two mature Coastal Banksia’s and a Cottonwood.

 

Surrounds

 

Seaside Parade is characterised by large dwelling houses oriented towards the east to capture panoramic ocean views.

 

Adjoining the site to the north is No. 13 Seaside Parade which contains a rendered dwelling presenting as two storeys to Seaside Parade, and four storeys at the rear towards the ocean.

 

Adjoining the site to the south is No. 19 Seaside Parade which also contains a rendered dwelling presenting as two storeys to Seaside Parade, and four storeys at the rear towards the ocean.

 

Opposite the site, on the western side of Seaside Parade lies No. 14 Seaside Parade containing a three-storey rendered dwelling with tiled roof.


 

 

Relevant history

 

The applicant was requested to provide additional information on 14 February 2018 to address:

·      Height blanket diagram and Height Clause 4.6 Variation Statement

·      Site coverage calculation plan

·      Provide habitable room windows overlooking street

·      GFA calculation plans

·      Rear alignment diagram at each level compared with neighbours

·      Schedule of colours and materials

 

The applicant was requested to provide further additional information on 7 March 2018 to address:

·      Revised Height Clause 4.6 Statement

·      Composite rear elevation

·      View assessment

 

The applicant was requested to provide further additional information on 9 April to address:

·      Section indicating max. height non-compliance

·      Further strengthen Height Clause 4.6 Statement

·      Section indicating basement storage

 

Additional information has been submitted and has been addressed in this assessment report.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Key Issues

 

The key issues for the assessment of this application are:

·      Non-compliance with the height of buildings control in Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012). Due to the steep topography of the eastern portion of the site, the dwelling is located 19.9m above the ravine below. The height non-compliance is consistent with the scale of surrounding development, and does not result in any unreasonable impacts.

·      View impacts. The proposal is located in a locality with significant ocean views to the east. View analysis diagrams prepared by the architect demonstrate that the proposal has no significant impacts on the views of neighbouring sites.

 

Building height is examined in detail in the assessment of the Clause 4.6 variation request below. View impacts have been addressed in the report 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 all structures and construct a new part one to part four storey dwelling house with double garage, rear swimming pool, associated site and landscaping works (variation to building height control) be approved (subject to conditions) for the following reasons:

 

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

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

 

The proposal complies with the relevant controls and objectives of the LEP with the exception of a variation to the height of buildings control. The request for variation to the height of buildings control pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LEP is well founded and demonstrates that numeric compliance with the height control is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances as the built form will be consistent with the character, scale and proportions of existing waterfront development established in the locality and the proposed flat roof ameliorates potential impacts of building height specific to the context and setting of the site. The variation to the height control represents an appropriate degree of flexibility in the circumstances of the case. The variation will not compromise streetscape, amenity, privacy or reasonable solar access. The design and setout of the proposal will result in a new dwelling with a high degree of internal amenity.


 

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

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

The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under Randwick LEP 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

Part of the pool is located forward of the Foreshore building line. Clause 6.6 (2)(c) allows development for the purposes of swimming pools within the foreshore area. The pool is compatible with surrounding development, which displays numerous pools on adjoining sites. The pool will not cause environmental harm. Clause 6.7 (3)(a) requires development within the foreshore scenic protection area to be located and designed to minimise visual impacts. The pool is located in a similar location to the existing disused pool and deck, and will therefore have no additional impacts above the existing development on site.

 

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

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 Development Control Plan 2013. See table in Section 3 of this report.

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

Section 4.15(1)(b) – The likely impacts of the development, including environmental impacts on the natural and built environment and social and economic impacts in the locality

The environmental impacts of the proposed development on the natural and built environment have been addressed in this report.

 

The proposal will not result in detrimental social or economic impacts on the locality.

Section 4.15(1)(c) – The suitability of the site for the development

The site is located in close proximity to local services and public transport. The site has sufficient area to accommodate the proposed land use and associated structures. Therefore, the site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

Section 4.15(1)(d) – Any submissions made in accordance with the EP&A Act or EP&A Regulation

No submissions were received as a result of notification.

Section 4.15(1)(e) – The public interest

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

 

2.         Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

2.1      State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPS)

SEPP - BASIX

The applicant has submitted a BASIX certificate. The plans have been checked with regard to the certificate and they are consistent with the requirements indicated for DA stage. Standard conditions of consent requiring the continued compliance of the development with the BASIX certificate are recommended.

 

SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land

Aerial images from SIX maps indicate the site was vacant in 1943. Beyond that the site has been in residential use. There is no reason to suspect land contamination, therefore no further action is required.

 

SEPP (Coastal Management) 2018

State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018 commenced on 3 April 2018 and consolidates previous coastal SEPPs into one integrated policy. The site is located within the coastal environment area and the coastal use area, and therefore the SEPP applies.

 

Clause 13 (Development on land within the coastal environment area) of the SEPP provides:

 

(1)   Development consent must not be granted to development on land that is within the coastal environment area unless the consent authority has considered whether the proposed development is likely to cause an adverse impact on the following:

(a)     the integrity and resilience of the biophysical, hydrological (surface and groundwater) and ecological environment,

(b)     coastal environmental values and natural coastal processes,

(c)      the water quality of the marine estate (within the meaning of the Marine Estate Management Act 2014), in particular, the cumulative impacts of the proposed development on any of the sensitive coastal lakes identified in Schedule 1,

(d)     marine vegetation, native vegetation and fauna and their habitats, undeveloped headlands and rock platforms,

(e)     existing public open space and safe access to and along the foreshore, beach, headland or rock platform for members of the public, including persons with a disability,

(f)      Aboriginal cultural heritage, practices and places,

(g)     the use of the surf zone.

(2)   Development consent must not be granted to development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that:

(a)     the development is designed, sited and will be managed to avoid an adverse impact referred to in subclause (1), or

(b)     if that impact cannot be reasonably avoided—the development is designed, sited and will be managed to minimise that impact, or

(c)      if that impact cannot be minimised—the development will be managed to mitigate that impact.

 

The proposed development is consistent with Clause 13 as the proposal will not change access opportunities to the foreshore and will not affect recreational use of the coast. Since balconies of the proposal are cantilevered only slightly over the ravine, they will not impact on natural features or processes of the coastline.

 

Clause 14 (Development on land within the coastal use area) provides:

 

(1)   Development consent must not be granted to development on land that is within the coastal use area unless the consent authority:

(a)   has considered whether the proposed development is likely to cause an adverse impact on the following:

(i)    existing, safe access to and along the foreshore, beach, headland or rock platform for members of the public, including persons with a disability,

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

(iii)  the visual amenity and scenic qualities of the coast, including coastal headlands,

(iv)  Aboriginal cultural heritage, practices and places,

(v)   cultural and built environment heritage, and

(b)     is satisfied that:

(i)    the development is designed, sited and will be managed to avoid an adverse impact referred to in paragraph (a), or

(ii)   if that impact cannot be reasonably avoided—the development is designed, sited and will be managed to minimise that impact, or

(iii)  if that impact cannot be minimised—the development will be managed to mitigate that impact, and

(c)     has taken into account the surrounding coastal and built environment, and the bulk, scale and size of the proposed development.

 

The proposal will not change access opportunities to the foreshore and will not affect recreational use of the coast. The proposal does not affect any known Aboriginal cultural heritage or Aboriginal place and will not impact on natural features of the coastline. The proposal therefore satisfies the requirements of the Coastal Management SEPP.

 

2.2      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent. The proposed development is classified as a dwelling house and is permissible in the zone.

 

The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will complement the existing surrounding development and streetscape, while protecting the amenity of adjoining neighbours. The dwelling is stepped and designed to respond to the slope and difficult topography of the site, and distributes building mass in a manner reasonably consistent with the provisions of Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (see below).

 

The following development standards contained in the RLEP 2012 apply to the proposal:

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

0.6:1

0.6:1

Yes

Height of Building (Maximum)

9.5m

19.9m

No

 

Clause 4.6: Variation to development standard – Building Height

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

 

Proposed maximum height

19.9m

Maximum permissible building height

9.5m

Height exceeding control

10.4m (109%)

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

 

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

 

The concurrence of the Department of Planning and Environment must also be obtained for development that contravenes a development standard. However, pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 18–003 (dated 21 February 2018) the concurrence of the Department of Planning and Environment under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed in certain cases.

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The proposal seeks to provide a new dwelling within the foreshore area, which is above an existing ravine. With respect to the ground level within the site surrounding the subject dwelling, the proposal will provide a maximum height of 9.95 metres above existing ground level.

 

Based on the ground level of the ravine of approximately RL 6.00 to RL 14.00 directly under the proposed dwelling with rock outcrops, the proposal will provide a maximum height at 19.9 metres for the roof above the lowest relevant spot in the ravine and a range from 11.3 metres to a maximum of 17.9 metres above the lowest relevant spot in the ravine for the balustrade to the bedroom level to the rear of the proposed dwelling.

 

This provides a non-compliance with the statutory height control of 9.5 metres for the subject site.

 

Both neighbouring dwelling houses also exceed the height by a similar extent as the proposal over the general surrounding ground.

 

This Clause 4.6 variation provides an assessment of the proposal against the four tests set that have recently been re-emphasised by in Micaul Holdings Pty Limited v Randwick City Council [2015] NSWLEC 1386 by Commissioner Morris. This judgment summarised the requirements of cl4.6 as follows:

 

58. This imposes a number of tests, the first that compliance with the development standard must be unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, the second that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard, the third that the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3) and the fourth, that the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out. In addition, satisfaction of those matters that must be considered by the Secretary in determining whether concurrence should be granted is required.

 

Clause 4.6 - Exceptions to Development Standards

Clause 4.3 and the associated map prescribe a building height of 9.5 metres above existing ground level for this site.

 

The existing site varies significantly in terms of its topography. There is an existing ravine to the rear of the site and this has the effect of providing an existing ground level significantly below the main ground level of the site for the central portion of the site (see survey and long section 2.05 d1) on the ocean side of the property.

 

The maximum height of the building at 19.9 metres occurs only at one spot due to the rugged topography of the site but exceeds this control by 10.4 metres (109%), as this section is located directly above a sheer drop within the ravine (refer to survey information).

 

The height of the building above ground level surrounding the site is 9.95 metres exceeding this control by 450mm (4.73%).

 

Clause 4.6 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 allows for exceptions of Development Standards. The objectives of this Clause 4.6 are:

 

(a)    to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development, and

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

(4)    Consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

 

(a)    the consent authority is satisfied that:

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

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

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

 

This document constitutes the written request referred to in Clause 4.6(3) in relation to the proposal’s breach of the height of building development standard.

 

The NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I) provides guidance on how to prepare Clause 4.6 variations; ‘Varying development standards: A Guide’ (August 2011). This written request to vary the standards is based on the DP&I’s Guide.

 

Clause 4.3 - Height of buildings

Clause 4.3 and the associated map prescribe a height limit of 9.5 metres for this site. The proposed dwelling will have a maximum height of 11.3 to 19.9 metres having regard to the ground level of the existing ravine and 9.95 metres having regard to the ground level of the site surrounding the ravine.

 

The questions contained in the DP&I’s Guide are addressed below.

 

1. What is the name of the environmental planning instrument that applies to the land?

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (the LEP).

 

2. What is the zoning of the land?

The zoning of the land is R2 – Low Density.

 

3. What are the objectives of the zone?

The objectives of the R2 zone are:

·      To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low 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 will comply with these objectives as it seeks to provide a dwelling in keeping with the desired elements of the existing streetscape and built form and will protect the amenity of residents.

 

4. What is the development standard being varied?

The development standard being varied is the height development standard.

 

5. Under what Clause is the development standard listed in the environmental planning instrument?

The development standard is listed under clause 4.3 of the LEP.

 

6. What are the objectives of the development standard?

The objectives of Clause 4.3 are as follows:

 

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

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

(c)  to minimise the loss of solar access to existing buildings and open space,

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

 

7. What is the numeric value of the development standard in the environmental planning instrument?

The numeric value of the development standard is 9.5 metres.

 

8. What is the proposed numeric value of the development standard in your development application?

The maximum numeric value proposed is 9.95 metres above general ground level and ranges from 11.3 metres to 19.9 metres above the ravine.

 

9. What is the percentage variation (between your proposal and the environmental planning instrument)?

The maximum percentage variation is 4.73% above general ground level and between 18.9% and 109% over the ravine.

 

10. How is strict compliance with the development standard unreasonable or unnecessary in this particular case?

In order to assess whether strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in this particular case, the proposal is considered against the five ways of demonstrating that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary, as set out by Preston CJ in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827.

 

These five ways have recently been re-emphasised by Commission Morris in Mecone Pty Limited v Waverley Council [2015] NSWLEC 1312. It is noted that each ‘test’ offers a potential way of demonstrating that compliance is unnecessary or unreasonable in a particular circumstance. All tests are separate and not all tests may be applicable in each case. Therefore, not all tests need to be met.

 

1. Compliance with the development standard must be unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case:

In terms of the desired future character objectives for the locality, compliance with the height development standard is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of this case as the proposal will provide a dwelling, which is in keeping with the existing bulk and scale of surrounding development. The height blanket visualisation prepared by the architect illustrates the scale of surrounding development and confirms that the proposal is not out of character in terms of scale with adjoining properties.

 

The underlying objective or purpose in terms of compatibility with surrounding development would be thwarted, if compliance was required in this case with the consequence that compliance is unreasonable in the circumstances of this case. In addition, compliance with the height control would have the effect of relocating the building towards the front of the site, which would have a greater impact on the streetscape and potentially on views.

 

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

The height breach would still allow for a dwelling which is consistent with the zone objectives and height objectives (see point 4 below), will not result in the loss of views from surrounding properties, will protect the privacy of adjoining properties and will allow for sufficient solar access to adjoining properties. Therefore, there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

3. The applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3):

This has been provided above in Points 1 and 2 and Point 4 below.

 

4. 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:

Objective (a) seeks to ensure that the size and scale of development is compatible with the desired future character of the locality. The character of the locality is established and consists of dwellings of similar heights, which comply at street frontage with the rear section above the height control as the land falls away to the ocean.

 

Therefore, the proposal, although it breaches the height control, is not in direct conflict with this objective.

 

Objective (b) refers to development being compatible with the scale and character of contributory buildings in a conservation area or near a heritage item. This does not apply to the subject proposal, as the site is not in a conservation area or near a heritage item.

 

Objective (c) seeks to ensure that the proposal will not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining properties in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views.

 

The visual bulk as proposed is in keeping with the prevailing bulk and scale of surrounding properties and will retain the visual amenity of the locality.

 

The height as proposed will not affect the privacy of adjoining properties. Although a balcony is proposed to the rear with the balustrade exceeding the height control, the proposal will provide elevated open space, which is similar in nature to that on surrounding sites and overall improves the amenity of the proposed dwelling.

 

The shadow plans submitted with the application confirm that the shadow cast by the part of the proposal that exceeds the height control will not have any shadow impact on any areas other than the roof of #19.

 

The breach in height occurs to the rear of the site and will not affect views from immediately adjoining properties to the north and south, as these properties enjoy views across the rear boundaries of their respective sites.

 

In terms of properties on the opposite side of Seaside Parade, these properties are elevated above the street and will enjoy improved ocean views across the subject site despite the breach in the height development standard as the existing ridge height, across the site, is higher than the proposed height.

 

11. How would strict compliance hinder the attainment of the objects specified in Section 1.3 of the Act?

Compliance with the standard would hinder the attainment of the objects of section 1.3 of the Act, which are to encourage development that promotes the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment, and to promote and coordinate orderly and economic use and development of land.

 

The site has a very steep and varying topography. The presence of the ravine within the site has the effect of providing an existing ground level for part of the site which is significantly below the main ground level of the site and also significantly below that on adjoining properties. Having regard to the existing ravine, compliance with the height control would represent a significant disadvantage for the development of the site and would result in an unsuitable location for a dwelling within the site in terms of the streetscape.

 

The proposal satisfies the zone and development standard objectives and therefore strict compliance with the standard is not required in order to achieve compliance with the objectives.

 

Strict compliance would result in an inflexible application of policy. It does not serve any purpose that should outweigh the positive outcomes of the development and reduce the ability to provide a dwelling similar to the bulk and scale of adjoining buildings and in terms of location within the site. Compliance would not allow for a better planning outcome overall as such a proposal would impact on the streetscape and potentially on views from adjoining properties.

 

The proposed development is consistent with the provisions of orderly and economic development of land, in that it proposes to provide new housing with a high level of design and amenity, in a manner, which meets the objectives of applicable controls. This new residential accommodation over its economic life is consistent with the promotion and coordination of the orderly use and development of land.

 

12. Is the development standard a performance based control? Give Details.

The height of buildings development standard is a performance based control as the control contains objectives to which compliance with the standard is targeted to achieve.

 

13. Would strict compliance with the standard, in your particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary? Why?

As discussed above it is considered that strict compliance, in this particular case, would result in an inflexible application of policy given the capacity of the site to provide new high standard of residential accommodation in an appropriate location.

 

Strict compliance, in this particular case, does not serve any purpose that should outweigh the positive outcomes of the development with respect to urban design, visual amenity and internal amenity, having regard to the varying topography of the site and in particular, the ravine which is located within the site and alters the existing ground level significantly for a portion of the site.

 

The proposed development is consistent with the provisions of orderly and economic development.

 

14. Are there sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard? Give details:

In the circumstances of the case, the provision of strict numerical compliance would be unreasonable for the reasons advanced below.

 

The height can be achieved without adverse impacts. The development as proposed fits contextually with the site and streetscape and as viewed from the foreshore. In the circumstances of the case, there are sufficient planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard including:

 

·      The scale of the development is appropriate and acceptable, having regard to existing adjoining and adjacent development and the breach in height is as a result of the steep and varying topography of the site and the presence of a ravine directly below the proposed dwelling;

·      Non-compliance with the standard does not contribute to adverse environmental impacts and the appearance of the development when viewed from the public domain and the foreshore will be positive;

·      The proposed development provides an articulated building form that minimises perceived bulk and scale impacts when viewed from the surrounds of the site;

·      The proposed development achieves compliance with the relevant underlying objectives of the standard and the objectives of the zone.

 

The above is considered to represent sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard and as such compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of this case. The resultant development will therefore be in the public interest.

 

When considered alongside the lack of adverse environmental impacts arising from the additional height, overall a variation to the control would result in a better outcome in accordance with Clause 4.6(b) of the LEP.

 

As such the proposal meets the assessment criteria set out in Clause 4.6(3) (a) and (b) and (4)(a)(ii).

 

Conclusion

Pursuant to clause 4.6(2), Council has the power to permit a variation to the building height standard provided that:

 

1. Council has considered a written request that demonstrates that:

 

1.1. Compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case (cl 4.6(3)(a));

1.2. There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard (cl 4.6(3)(b)).

 

2. Council is satisfied that the written request has adequately addressed those matters (cl 4.6(4)(a)(i)).

 

3. Council is satisfied that the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with:

 

3.1. The objectives of the standard in question; and

3.2. The objectives of the zone (cl 4.6(4)(a)(ii)).

 

4. The Council may assume the required Director-General’s concurrence (cl 4.6(4)(b)) provided that the Council has considered:

 

4.1. whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, (cl 4.6(5)(a)) and

4.2. the public benefit of maintaining the development standard, (cl 4.6(5)(b)) and

4.3. any other matters required to be taken into consideration by the Director-General before granting concurrence. (cl 4.6(5)(c)).

 

All of the provisions of clause 4.6(2) have been satisfied as follows noting that this is a written request for the purposes of cl4.6(3):

 

Compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case (cl 4.6(3)(a)):

The proposal is considered to be reasonable for the following reasons:

 

·      The scale of the development is appropriate and acceptable, having regard to existing adjoining and adjacent development and the breach in height is minor above the general ground level and elsewhere as a result of the steep and varying topography of the site and having regard to the presence of a ravine below the proposed dwelling;

·      Non-compliance with the standard does not contribute to adverse environmental impacts and the appearance of the development when viewed from the public domain and the foreshore will be positive;

·      The proposed development provides an articulated building form that minimises perceived bulk and scale impacts when viewed from the surrounds of the site;

·      The proposed development achieves compliance with the relevant underlying objectives of the standard and the objectives of the zone.

 

There are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard (cl 4.6(3)(b)):

This document has considered that there are more than sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the variation on the basis that the proposal is satisfactory in terms of visual amenity, solar access and preservation of privacy and views and will provide a dwelling in keeping with the bulk and scale of adjoining and adjacent properties and the character of the locality.

 

Council is satisfied that the written request has adequately addressed those matters (cl 4.6(4)(a)(i)):

The written request adequately addresses the matters referred to above by Clause 4.6(3).

 

Council is satisfied that the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the standard in question and the objectives of the zone (cl 4.6(4)(a)(ii)):

As demonstrated above, the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the height of buildings standard and the objectives of the R2 zone.

 

Contravention of the development standard does not raise any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, (cl 4.6(5)(a)):

 

No matters of State or regional planning significance are raised by the proposed development.

 

There is not a public benefit in maintaining the development standard, (cl 4.6(5)(b)):

There would be no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in terms of solar access provision, visual and acoustic privacy, preservation of views or visual amenity. The area of non-compliance is not easily discernible from the streetscape as it is limited to the rear of the building and is a direct result of the steep and varying topography of the site and the presence of a ravine below the proposed dwelling. Compliance with the height standard would not alter the appearance of the dwelling as it appears within the streetscape and would not allow for the site to be developed for the purpose of a dwelling as intended by the zoning.

 

Any other matters required to be taken into consideration by the Director-General before granting concurrence. (cl 4.6(5)(c)):

There are no applicable additional matters.

 

This written request is considered to adequately address the matters required by Clause 4.6 and demonstrates that compliance with the development standard would be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of this case and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

Planner’s Assessment:

 

The following section (over page) identifies the height non-compliance at its greatest extent, i.e. where the dwelling overhangs the ravine below, in the northern half of the site. The red line indicates the 9.5m height limit. The red highlighted area indicates the building bulk which is above the height control.

 

The proposal complies with the objectives of Clause 4.3 for the following reasons:

 

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

 

The anticipated and desired future character of the locality is to achieve development consistent with the objectives for Zone R2 (see below). The desired future character can also be gleaned from the various built form controls that apply to the site and surrounding development, height being only one of those. It is considered that the size and scale of the proposed dwelling house is appropriate for the site and its setting. The building bulk is reasonably distributed across the site, within the significant site constraints. Due to the significant amenity opportunities, dwellings in the locality are oriented towards the ocean views to the east. The proposal, and adjoining dwellings, present as compliant two storey dwellings to the street. The proposal does not generate a size and scale that would be incompatible with the R2 Zone and adjoining development when viewed from the street.

 

The scale of the dwelling when viewed from the water is much more significant however this is due to the unique topographical features of the site, which are common to adjoining land. The proposal will be consistent with the scale of adjoining dwellings when viewed from the water, noting that height non-compliance is common due to the severe slope at the eastern part of these properties.

 

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

 

The site is not within a conservation area or in the vicinity of a heritage item.

 

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

 

The proposed height breach will not result in any adverse impacts above and beyond that which would occur within a compliant height. Aspects of visual bulk are dealt with above in the context of objective (a), loss of privacy has been addressed in this report and is found to be acceptable and overshadowing and view impacts have been interrogated during the assessment process, having led to requests for additional information to allow a rigorous assessment (and comparison with a compliant scheme). The impact of balconies and the height non-compliance on views of adjoining sites is addressed at pages 35-37 of this report.

 

The proposed bulk and scale of the development is compatible and consistent with adjoining development at Nos. 13 & 19 Seaside Parade, and will therefore not have a negative impact on adjoining neighbours, since the proposal will sit in line with existing neighbouring development. The development, and the height breach, will result in no loss of privacy to neighbouring sites compared to the existing levels of privacy between sites.

 

The proposal results in only a minor increase in shadows cast over the southern neighbour, compared to a compliant scheme. Those shadows which form as a result of the height breach fall predominantly on the roof of No. 19 Seaside Parade, as indicated on submitted shadow diagrams.

 

Due to the flat roof design, the views of neighbours on the opposite side of Seaside Parade are improved, since the highest point of the dwelling is reduced compared with the existing dwelling. This is confirmed by View Simulations prepared by the architect reproduced below. The purple line indicates the outline of the existing roof at the subject site and is compared to the green line of the proposed roof.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


The proposal complies with the objectives of the R2 Zone for the following reasons:

 

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

 

The proposal provides for the housing needs of the community through the development of a 4 bedroom dwelling house. The development does not propose any additional dwellings on the site, and therefore maintains the low density residential environment of the site.

 

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

 

Not applicable.

 

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.

 

The proposal maintains the general character of existing development on the site and on surrounding sites. The proposed street fronting elevation is largely consistent with the existing development on the site, and is consistent with the general character of the streetscape.

 

Objective: To protect the amenity of residents.

 

The proposal will have no significant negative amenity impacts on residents in terms of privacy, views, overshadowing or noise, as demonstrated above. The height non-compliance does not result in substantive impacts beyond a compliant scheme.

 

Objective: To encourage housing affordability.

 

Not applicable.

 

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

 

Not applicable.

 

Strict compliance with the building height development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case for the following reasons:

·      Reducing the height of the north-eastern corner of the site would not generate any beneficial outcomes for neighbouring sites, and would create an inferior outcome for the proposed dwelling.

·      The non-compliance results from a site specific constraint being the rocky ravine that enters the north-eastern end of the site, where the land drops suddenly at the point of non-compliance. The site conditions and topography are complex and unique. In these circumstances, and in the absence of any unacceptable amenity impacts, it is considered that strict compliance is unreasonable and unnecessary and the height control should be flexibly applied.

 

Sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard are outlined below:

·      Primarily, the “sufficient environmental planning ground” is the unique site conditions and topography of the land. The unique site conditions can be distinguished from most other allotments to which the height standard applies.

·      The proposal results in a better outcome than a dwelling that steps several times to achieve closer compliance with the height control. Such an approach would not benefit occupant amenity or the character of the locality.

·      The proposal allows improved panoramic views from the subject site towards the ocean, while improving the views of sites to the west, by lowering the level of the proposed flat roof below the existing dwelling roof ridgeline.

·      The proposal represents an orderly and economic redevelopment of the site. Strict compliance with the height control would result in a dwelling which was inconsistent with the character of adjoining development, and may create a building form that would have greater impacts than the proposal.

 

Since the proposal achieves the zone and building height standard objectives, despite the non-compliance, and it has been demonstrated that strict compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary, and there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention, the building height standard variation is supported.

 

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 C1: Low Density Residential

 

DCP Clause

Controls

Proposal

Compliance

 

Classification

Zoning = R2 Low Density Residential

 

2

Site planning

 

 

2.3

Site coverage

 

Up to 300 sqm = 60%

301 to 450 sqm = 55%

451 to 600 sqm = 50%

601 sqm or above = 45%

Site = 654m2

Proposed = 43%

Yes

2.4

Landscaping and permeable surfaces

 

i) Up to 300 sqm = 20%

ii) 301 to 450 sqm = 25%

iii)   451 to 600 sqm = 30%

iv)   601 sqm or above = 35%

v) Deep soil minimum width 900mm.

vi)   Maximise permeable surfaces to front

vii)  Retain existing or replace mature native trees

 

 

 

 

 

viii)  Minimum 1 canopy tree (8m mature). Smaller (4m mature) If site restrictions apply.

ix)   Locating paved areas, underground services away from root zones.

Site = 654m2

Proposed = 40%

 

 

Minimum width 1.1m.

Not proposed.

 

The existing mature trees within the council nature strip will be retained in accordance with landscaping conditions of this report.

Due to site constraints the site is incapable of accommodating canopy trees.

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

No

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

2.5

Private open space (POS)

 

Dwelling & Semi-Detached POS

 

 

 

601 sqm or above = 8m x 8m

Site = 654m2

Proposal does not meet dimension requirements however provides large areas dedicated to private open space at the pool level

Yes, on merit

3

Building envelope

3.1

Floor space ratio LEP 2012 = 0.6:1

Site area = 654m2

Proposed FSR = 0.6:1

Yes

3.2

Building height

 

 

 

Maximum overall height LEP 2012  = 9.5m

Proposed = 19.9m

No

 

i)   Maximum external wall height = 7m (Minimum floor to ceiling height = 2.7m)

ii)   Sloping sites = 8m

iii)  Merit assessment if exceeded

Proposed = 8.9m

No

3.3

Setbacks

3.3.1

Front setbacks

i)   Average setbacks of adjoining (if none then no less than 6m) Transition area then merit assessment.

 

 

iii)  do not locate swimming pools, above-ground rainwater tanks and outbuildings in front

0m setback proposed in line with existing dwelling on site, forms good transition between adjoining dwellings.

 

Not proposed.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

3.3.2

Side setbacks:

Dwellings:

·      Frontage less than 9m = 900mm

·      Frontage b/w 9m and 12m = 900mm (Gnd & 1st floor) 1500mm above

·      Frontage over 12m = 1200mm (Gnd & 1st floor), 1500mm above.

Minimum = 1200mm

Proposed = minimum of 0mm to 1200mm for the two storey portion and at least 1,800mm for the three storey portion of the dwelling.

No

3.3.3

Rear setbacks

i)   Minimum 25% of allotment depth or 8m, whichever lesser. Note: control does not apply to corner allotments.

ii)   Provide greater than aforementioned or demonstrate not required, having regard to:

-    Existing predominant rear setback line - reasonable view sharing (public and private)

-    protect the privacy and solar access

iii)  Garages, carports, outbuildings, swimming or spa pools, above-ground water tanks, and unroofed decks and terraces attached to the dwelling may encroach upon the required rear setback, in so far as they comply with other relevant provisions of this DCP.

iv)  For irregularly shaped lots = merit assessment on basis of:-

-    Compatibility

-    POS dimensions comply

-    minimise solar access, privacy and view sharing impacts

 

Refer to 6.3  and 7.4 for parking facilities and  outbuildings

Minimum = 8m

Proposed = 17m

Yes

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

Dwelling responds to slope of site, being concentrated upon the developable portion of the site away from the ravine.

Yes

4.4

Roof Design and Features

 

 

 

i)   Rooftop terraces on dwelling (not roof)

ii)   Roof terraces above garages (low side)

·      Celestial windows and skylights

vii) Sympathetic to design of dwelling

 

Mechanical equipment

viii) Contained within roof form and not visible from street and surrounding properties.

None proposed.

 

None proposed.

 

 

Yes

 

 

Conditioned

N/A

 

N/A

 

 

Yes

 

 

See conditions of consent

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.)

Indicated on Plans

 

Yes

 

Rendered masonry minimised at street frontage.

Materials provide articulation and visual interest.

Materials are suitable.

 

 

N/A

Yes

 

Yes

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

N/A

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.

Gradient too steep to limit to 1m

Some excavation is proposed within 900mm of side setbacks.

 

Retaining walls are stepped.

Retaining walls and stairs are stepped to follow land.

N/A

 

 

 

POS is level

 

Building is split level

No exposed undercroft areas

Yes

 

Yes (see below)

 

 

 

Yes

 

Yes

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

Yes

 

Yes

Yes

5

Amenity

5.1

Solar access and overshadowing

 

Solar access to proposed development:

 

 

 

i)   Portion of north-facing living room windows must receive a minimum of 3 hrs direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June

ii)   POS (passive recreational activities) receive a minimum of 3 hrs of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

 

No north-facing living room windows, therefore N/A

 

POS receives 3 hours of solar access between 8am-11am.

N/A

 

 

 

Yes

 

Solar access to neighbouring development:

 

 

 

i) Portion of the north-facing living room windows must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

iv)  POS (passive recreational activities) receive a minimum of 3 hrs of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

 

v)  solar panels on neighbouring dwellings, which are situated not less than 6m above ground level (existing), must retain a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. If no panels, direct sunlight must be retained to the northern, eastern and/or western roof planes (not <6m above ground) of neighbouring dwellings.

vi)  Variations may acceptable be subject to:

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

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

·      Topography of the subject and adjoining allotments.

·      Location and level of the windows in question.

·      Shadows cast by existing buildings on the neighbouring allotments.

No north-facing living room windows, therefore N/A

 

POS of neighbour receives 4 hours of solar access between 8am-12pm.

 

Southern neighbours’ roof retains solar access.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No variations proposed.

N/A

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

5.2

Energy Efficiency and Natural Ventilation

 

i)   Provide day light to internalised areas within the dwelling (for example, hallway, stairwell, walk-in-wardrobe and the like) and any poorly lit habitable rooms via measures such as:

·      Skylights (ventilated)

·      Clerestory windows

·      Fanlights above doorways

·      Highlight windows in internal partition walls

·      living rooms contain windows and doors opening to outdoor areas

Note: The sole reliance on skylight or clerestory window for natural lighting and ventilation is not acceptable

All habitable rooms achieve reasonable levels of daylight.

Yes

5.3

Visual Privacy

 

Windows

 

 

 

i)   minimise any direct viewing habitable of proposed and neighbours habitable room windows by one or more of the following measures:

-    windows are offset or staggered

-    minimum 1600mm window sills

-    Install fixed and translucent glazing up 1600mm minimum effective sill.

-    Install fixed privacy screens to windows.

-    Creating a recessed courtyard (minimum 3m x 2m).

ii)   orientate living and dining windows away from similar opposite (that is front or rear or side courtyard

No windows look directly towards adjoining dwellings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Living and dining areas oriented to the east.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

Balcony

 

 

 

i) Upper floor balconies to street or rear yard of the site. (wrap around balcony to have a narrow width at side)

ii) Privacy screens

iii)  minimise overlooking of POS via privacy screens (fixed, minimum of 1600mm high and achieve  minimum of 70% opaqueness (glass, timber or metal slats and louvers)

iv)  Supplementary privacy devices:  Screen planting and planter boxes Not sole privacy protection measure)

v) For sloping sites, step down and avoid large areas of ground floor decks or terraces.

All balconies oriented to east.

 

 

No privacy screens proposed.

Yes

 

 

 

No

5.4

Acoustic Privacy

 

i)   noise sources not located adjacent to adjoining dwellings bedroom windows

Noise sources within the proposed dwelling are adequately located to minimise impacts on neighbours.

Yes

5.5

Safety and Security

 

i)   dwellings main entry on front elevation (unless narrow site)

ii)   Street numbering at front near entry.

iii)  1 habitable room window (glazed area min 2 square metres) overlooking the street or a public place.

iv)  Front fences, parking facilities and landscaping does not to obstruct casual surveillance (maintain safe access)

Main entry on front elevation.

Yes

Window of Bedroom 3 overlooks street.

 

 

No obstruction (casual surveillance from first floor)

Yes

 

Yes

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

5.6

View Sharing (View impacts discussed in further detail below)

 

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

 

vi)  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)

Similar footprint to existing dwelling ensures adequate view sharing

-

 

 

-

 

 

Balcony and pool glazing minimises obstruction

View sharing is maximised for neighbours

Design demonstrates this.

Yes

 

 

 

-

 

 

-

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

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.

Note: See 6.2 parking facilities forward of the front façade alignment may be considered.

iv)  Single width garage/carport if frontage <12m;

Double width if:

-    Frontage >12m,

-    Consistent with pattern in the street;

-    Landscaping provided in the front yard.

v)  Minimise excavation for basement garages and scale of the front elevation

 

 

vi)  Avoid long driveways (impermeable surfaces)

New driveway

N/A

 

Not located behind front façade, however positioned to side (justified by streetscape)

 

Double width proposed, consistent with streetscape, landscaping provided on council strip

 

 

 

No excavation required for parking and building front elevation.

 

Short driveway

Yes

N/A

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

6.3

Setbacks of Parking Facilities

 

i)   Garages and carports comply with Sub-Section 3.3 Setbacks.

ii)   1m rear lane setback

iii)  Nil side setback where:

-    nil side setback on adjoining property;

-    streetscape compatibility;

-    safe for drivers and pedestrians; and

-    Amalgamated driveway crossing

 

No

 

N/A

The nil side setback of the garage proposed is consistent with existing development on the site, and the surrounding streetscape character.

No

 

N/A

Yes

6.4

Driveway Configuration

 

Maximum driveway width:

-    Single driveway – 3m

-    Double driveway – 5m

Must taper driveway width at street boundary and at property boundary

 

5m width, no taper

No

6.5

Garage Configuration

 

i)   recessed behind front of dwelling

ii)   The maximum garage width (door and piers or columns):

-    Single garage – 3m

-    Double garage – 6m

iii)  5.4m minimum length of a garage

iv)  2.6m max wall height of detached garages

v)  recess garage door 200mm to 300mm behind walls (articulation)

vi)  600mm max. parapet wall or bulkhead

vii) minimum clearance 2.2m AS2890.1

No

5.665m

 

 

 

6.4m

N/A

 

Recessed 300mm

 

300mm

 

2.4m

No

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

N/A

 

Yes

 

Yes

 

Yes

7

Fencing and Ancillary Development

7.1

General - Fencing

 

i)   Use durable materials

ii)   sandstone not rendered or painted

iii)  don’t use steel post and chain wire, barbed wire or dangerous materials

iv)  Avoid expansive surfaces of blank rendered masonry to street

Yes

N/A

N/A

 

Yes

Yes

N/A

N/A

 

Yes

7.2

Front Fencing

 

i)   1200mm max. (Solid portion not exceeding 600mm), except for piers.

     -  1800mm max. provided upper two-thirds partially open (30% min), except for piers.

ii)   light weight materials used for open design and evenly distributed

iii)  1800mm max solid front fence permitted in the following scenarios:

-    Site faces arterial road

-    Secondary street frontage (corner allotments) and fence is behind the alignment of the primary street façade (tapered down to fence height at front alignment).

-    avoid continuous blank walls (using a combination of materials, finishes and details, and/or incorporate landscaping (such as cascading plants))

iv)  150mm allowance (above 1800mm) for stepped sites

v)  Natural stone, face bricks and timber are preferred. Cast or wrought iron pickets may be used if compatible

vi)  Avoid roofed entry portal, unless complementary to established fencing pattern in heritage streetscapes.

vii) Gates must not open over public land.

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

ix)  Splay fence adjacent to the driveway to improve driver and pedestrian sightlines.

1200mm solid

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

Render proposed

 

 

N/A

 

 

Conditioned

 

Aligns with property boundary

 

 

No fence near driveway

No

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

Yes

 

 

N/A

 

 

See conditions of consent

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

7.3

Side and rear fencing

 

i)   1800mm maximum height (from existing ground level). Sloping sites step fence down (max. 2.2m).

ii)   Fence may exceed max. if  level difference between sites

iii)  Taper down to front fence height once past the front façade alignment.

iv)  Both sides treated and finished.

Side fencing max. 2.2m.

 

Fence complies with max

Conditioned

 

Conditioned

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

See conditions of consent

See conditions of consent

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.

Located in rear setback

No impact on trees

 

 

Located adjacent to neighbouring pool

Pool is consistent with pool design of adjoining development.

700mm

 

No screen planting proposed, could impact views

Decking and POS is consistent with adjoining development.

Contained in room below pool.

Yes

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

Yes

 

 

 

No

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

7.6

Air conditioning equipment

 

i)   Minimise visibility from street.

ii)   Avoid locating on the street or laneway elevation of buildings.

iii)  Screen roof mounted A/C from view by parapet walls, or within the roof form.

iv)  Locate to minimise noise impacts on bedroom areas of adjoining dwellings.

Not visible from street

Not on street elevation

N/A

 

 

Located at pool level behind plant/store

Yes

Yes

 

N/A

 

 

Yes

7.7

Communications Dishes and Aerial Antennae

 

i)   Max. 1 communications dish and 1 antenna per dwelling.

ii)   Positioned to minimise visibility from the adjoining dwellings and the public domain, and must be:

-    Located behind the front and below roof ridge;

-    minimum 900mm side and rear setback and

-    avoid loss of views or outlook amenity

iii)  Max. 2.7m high freestanding dishes (existing).

Conditioned

See conditions of consent

7.8

Clothes Drying Facilities

 

i)   Located behind the front alignment and not be prominently visible from the street

POS areas have sufficient size to accommodate clothes drying areas.

Yes

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.

Street elevation is articulated. East elevation indicates the proposed dwelling is consistent with adjoining development.

 

N/A

 

 

Colour scheme complements coastal area

Glass is not reflective

Materials are durable

Conditioned

 

Deep soil area provided along northern setback

Not visible from public domain

 

Dwelling is designed to perch on cliff

 

No retaining walls within foreshore building line

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

Yes

See conditions of consent.

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

Variations to DCP Controls

 

Below is an assessment of the proposed variations to DCP controls.

 

Landscaping and Permeable Surfaces

 

Control 2.4iii of Randwick DCP 2013 Chapter C1 requires development to “maximise the amount of permeable surfaces in the front yards of new development”.

 

The proposal does not provide for a significant amount of deep soil in the front yard, however the site boundary adjoins the council landscaping strip. This landscaping strip appears to be the major source of front landscaping for the streetscape in this locality, with the majority of adjoining development providing hardscape between the front boundary and dwelling.

 

The objectives for landscaping are outlined in the DCP below along with assessment comments:

 

Objective: To ensure landscaped areas are effectively distributed on the site to achieve a visual balance between building structures and open space.

 

Comment: From the street, the building appears as a two storey dwelling behind a landscaped front setback, which is council land. Although the council strip is not within the boundaries of the site, it still achieves this objective for the site.

 

Objective: To provide privacy screening between dwellings.

 

Comment: The council strip provides some privacy screening for the dwelling.

 

Objective: To retain and provide for canopy trees and large shrubs to contribute to the establishment of vegetation corridors across the locality.

 

Comment: The development proposes a number of shrubs along the northern setback.

 

Objective: To assist with stormwater infiltration and reduction of overland flow.

 

Since the proposal is directly adjacent to the ocean, stormwater and overland flows are not an issue on this site.

 

Since the proposal meets all relevant objectives of landscaping controls, the variation is supported.

 

Private Open Space

 

Control 2.5i requires the minimum dimensions for contiguous private open space for a site area 601sqm or above to be 8m x 8m.

 

The proposal does not achieve the minimum required POS dimensions, however this is due to the significant constraint on the site, being the rock ravine along the north-eastern side. This ravine constrains POS to the southern and south-eastern areas of the site, and does not allow the proposal to meet the numeric requirement.

 

The objectives for private open space are outlined in the DCP below along with assessment comments:

 

Objective: To ensure an adequate level of private open space is provided for dwellings to enable passive recreational activities by residents.

 

Comment: The proposal provides a large area of POS on the pool level, including the pool itself and an adjoining deck. Although the POS does not fit the dimensions required, it constitutes a contiguous space which is more than adequate to meet the passive recreational needs of residents.

 

Objective: To ensure private open space is designed for usability, solar access, privacy and accessibility.

 

Comment: Private open space is highly usable, providing a large contiguous area adjacent to the rock ravine. Solar access is good, and the space is accessible from the adjacent study and rumpus room.

 

Objective: To ensure dual occupancy development provides a suitable level of functional private open space for each dwelling that offers high amenity for residents.

 

Not applicable.

 

Since the proposal meets all relevant objectives of private open space controls, the variation is supported.

 

External Wall Height

Control 3.2ii requires the maximum external wall height of a dwelling for a sloping site to be 8m.

 

The proposed development incorporates wall heights of up to 10m.

 

Although this is a significant non-compliance, it is consistent with wall heights of adjoining dwellings, with an external wall height of 10.09m at the north-eastern corner of the dwelling to the south. It also results from the complex site conditions.

 

The objectives for building height are outlined in the DCP below along with assessment comments:

 

Objective: To ensure development height establishes a suitable scale to the street and contributes to its character.

 

Comment: The scale of the development viewed from the street is of a compliant two storey dwelling. The non-compliance is most pronounced when viewed from the water, however it is entirely consistent with adjoining development.

 

Objective: To ensure development height does not cause unreasonable impacts upon the neighbouring dwellings in terms of overshadowing, view loss, privacy and visual amenity.

 

Comment: As outlined above, the proposal has no unreasonable impacts on neighbours in terms of overshadowing, view loss, privacy or visual amenity. Since dwellings are oriented to the east towards views, they have few windows on their side elevations, negating any negative impacts external wall heights may have on neighbouring sites.

 

Objective: To ensure the form and massing of development respect the topography of the site.

 

Comment: The bulk of building mass is centered on the most developable land available on the site. No works are proposed over the rock ravine that cuts into the northern side of the site. The dwelling is stepped to respond to the topography of the site, and proposes to lower the level of the existing deck to reduce the impact on the waterfront.

 

Since the proposal meets all relevant objectives of external wall height, and has no negative impacts, the variation is supported.

 


 

Garage Design/Setbacks

Control 6.1iii requires “Where rear lane or secondary street access is not available, parking facilities must be located behind the front façade alignment, either integrated within the dwelling or positioned to the side of the dwelling”.

 

The proposed location of parking facilities is to the side of the dwelling, in front of the front façade alignment, with a nil setback to the adjoining neighbour to the south. The existing garage of the current dwelling on the site is in the same location. Although this is non-compliant, the location of car parking reflects the character of existing garages on the site itself and on adjoining sites. Both No. 13 and No. 11 Seaside Parade to the north of the site have the same garage location.

 

The objectives for car parking are outlined in the DCP below along with assessment comments:

 

Objective: To ensure car parking and access facilities do not visually dominate the property frontage or streetscape.

 

Comment: The proposed garage is located to the side of the dwelling, and is therefore not visually dominant, although it is in front of the front façade alignment. The garage only occupies 36% of the street frontage of the dwelling. The garage is integrated into the development architecturally and in terms of colours and materials, and will therefore be perceived as part of the dwelling itself.

 

Objective: To ensure parking facilities are integrated with the architectural expression of the dwelling as an integrated element.

 

Comment: The garage is integrated into the architecture of the dwelling, providing articulation to break up the front façade of the building.

 

Objective: To minimise hard paved surfaces occupied by driveways and parking facilities, and maximise opportunities for deep soil planting and permeable surfaces for stormwater infiltration.

 

Comment: The driveway is as short as possible by virtue of the garage being located adjacent to the front lot boundary.

 

Objective: To ensure the location and design of parking and access facilities do not pose undue safety risks on building occupants and pedestrians.

 

Comment: The garage is adequately located in terms of pedestrian and resident safety. No sightlines along the garage or driveway are obscured.

 

Objective: To ensure the location and design of parking and access facilities do not adversely impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties.

 

Comment: Due to the existing garage being located in the same position as the garage proposed, there will be no change in to the amenity of the neighbour to the south as a result of the proposal.

 

Since the proposal meets all relevant objectives of car parking, the variation is supported.

 

Driveway Configuration

Control 6.4i requires “the width of driveway must be tapered towards the street boundary and preferably form a single width at that boundary”.

 

The development does not propose the driveway to be tapered towards the street. This is justified by the existing streetscape and the narrow road width at the site. Surrounding development to the west and south has similar double width driveways. The road narrows at the frontage of the site, therefore a wider driveway is justified to improve vehicle maneuverability.

 

The objectives for car parking are outlined in the DCP below along with assessment comments:

 

Objective: To ensure car parking and access facilities do not visually dominate the property frontage or streetscape.

 

Comment: The driveway adjoins the council landscaping strip, which adequately screens the dwelling and associated parking facilities. The proposed driveway will not form an unreasonable part of the streetscape.

 

Objective: To ensure parking facilities are integrated with the architectural expression of the dwelling as an integrated element.

 

Comment: The proposed driveway does not form an unsightly part of the architecture of the dwelling.

 

Objective: To minimise hard paved surfaces occupied by driveways and parking facilities, and maximise opportunities for deep soil planting and permeable surfaces for stormwater infiltration.

 

Comment: The driveway is directly adjacent to the Council landscaped strip, which provides for deep soil planting and stormwater infiltration.

 

Objective: To ensure the location and design of parking and access facilities do not pose undue safety risks on building occupants and pedestrians.

 

Comment: The wider driveway generates a better safety outcome, since vehicle maneuverability on the narrow road will be improved.

 

Objective: To ensure the location and design of parking and access facilities do not adversely impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties.

 

Comment: The proposed driveway will have no adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties.

 

Since the proposal meets all relevant objectives of car parking, the variation is supported.

 

Visual Privacy

Control 5.3iv requires “Where a balcony, deck or terrace is likely to overlook the private open space or windows of the adjacent dwellings, privacy screens must be installed in positions suitable to mitigate the loss of privacy”.

 

The development does not propose any privacy screens on balconies or decks. This reduces visual privacy, but is preferred over the potential view losses screening might create for neighbours. Screening is scarce on surrounding development and it would appear residents prefer to sacrifice their privacy to enjoy the panoramic views afforded by the ocean to the east. That is not unusual in waterfront localities. It is noted that the application has not been the subject of any neighbour submissions.

 

The objectives for visual privacy are outlined in the DCP below along with assessment comments:

 

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

 

Comment: The specific circumstances of the site do not warrant privacy screens to minimise cross-viewing to neighbouring dwellings. This is because both the neighbours to the south and to the north have no privacy screens of any description. If the proposal were to integrate screening, this would set a precedent that would generate negative amenity outcomes for the subject site and neighbouring sites, since views would be restricted by screening.

 

Since strict compliance with this control would result in a less desirable amenity outcome, the variation is supported.

 

Front Fencing

Control 7.2i requires “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 proposal is for a solid fence 1200mm high. Although non-compliant, this is consistent with the streetscape, and achieves a good balance between privacy and interaction with the public domain.

 

The objectives for fencing are outlined in the DCP below along with assessment comments:

 

Objective: The alignment, configuration, rhythm of bays, height, materials, colours and texture of new fences complement the building on the site and the streetscape.

 

Comment: The proposed fence complements the building, and is consistent with surrounding development. Both the existing development on the site, and No. 13 Seaside Parade to the north have solid fences of a similar height.

 

Objective: Fences are designed to achieve a balance between privacy, safety and security for the building occupants and visual interaction with the public domain, without adversely affecting the amenity of the pedestrian environment.

 

Comment: The proposed 1200mm fence achieves a good balance between privacy and interaction with the public domain. Privacy is maintained for children and when seated, however interaction with the public domain is possible when standing up.

 

Objective: Fences are designed to minimise opportunities for graffiti and malicious damage.

 

Comment: Graffiti and malicious damage are not seen as being likely to occur in this street or neighbourhood.

 

Since the proposal meets all relevant objectives of fencing, the variation is supported.

 

Swimming and Spa Pools

Control 7.5iii requires pools to be “Located to minimise noise impacts on the adjoining dwellings”.

 

Control 7.5v requires “Setback the outer edge of pool coping a minimum of 900mm from the rear and side boundaries”.

 

The location of the pool on this site is predetermined by site constraints. The dwelling must be located on the central western portion of the site due to topography, leaving only a narrow piece of land on the southern boundary towards the ocean, with the northern boundary towards the ocean occupied by the rock ravine. Although the location of the pool may result in some noise impacts on adjoining dwellings, both the dwellings to the north and to the south of the site also have pools in similar locations in their rear (waterfront) setbacks.

 

The pool coping is located only 700mm from the southern side boundary. However, the pool is proposed in the same location as the existing pool, which has been out of use for a number of years.

 

The relevant objectives for ancillary development are outlined in the DCP below along with assessment comments:

 

Objective: To provide for ancillary development that enhances the livability of dwellings and maintains reasonable levels of visual amenity, solar access and privacy for the neighbouring dwellings.

 

Comment: The location of the pool is largely dictated by site conditions and constraints, and by the existing development on the site. The location of the new pool will have no detrimental impacts on the privacy, solar access or visual amenity of neighbouring sites. Since each of these sites have similar pool arrangements, the impact will be shared across the sites.

 

Since the proposal meets all relevant objectives of ancillary development, the variation is supported.

 

View Impacts

The proposal balances the need to retain the existing views of adjoining sites, while improving the views that are afforded from the site itself. The design is predicated on attaining views for 15 Seaside Parade that are similar to those afforded by adjoining sites at 13 and 19 Seaside Parade. This is achieved by pushing forward the proposed dwelling to be in line with these dwellings.

 

There are no view impacts on 13 Seaside Parade, since it is in line with and on the same level as the proposal. In addition, the pool structure of the proposal is on the southern property boundary, and therefore has no impact. The view impacts of the proposal on 13 Seaside Parade are considered negligible.

 

The proposal is more likely to impact on 19 Seaside Parade, since it is at a lower level, and since the pool proposed is on the shared boundary of the two properties. 19 Seaside Parade will have reduced views in some aspects, but improved views in others. The proposal at 15 Seaside Parade will block views from 19 Seaside Parade directly to the north, and north-north-east. This is mainly due to the balconies on the upper and living levels of 15 Seaside Parade. However, since these balconies have glass balustrades, there will still be some views towards the north. In any case, 15 Seaside Parade is likely to be blocking the same views which development further to the north at 9 Seaside Parade is already blocking (see photo and view simulation prepared by architect over page).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


       View North from 15 Seaside Parade. Development at 9 Seaside Parade Indicated.

 


 

Additionally, the development at 15 Seaside Parade proposes to lower the pool level by 900mm from the existing building on site. This will improve views from 19 Seaside Parade to the north.

 

In terms of views from the opposite side of Seaside Parade, the development proposes to replace the existing pitched roof with a flat roof. This will reduce the overall height from RL 30.5 to RL 29.5. A view simulation prepared by the architect (shown below) confirms that views from No. 14 Seaside Parade will be improved as a result of the proposal.


Size and Extent of Deck above Ravine

The development proposes to construct balconies at the pool level and ground floor level which are cantilevered over the rock ravine. The areas of balconies which are located further east towards the ravine than the existing deck are identified on the plan over page in aqua shade.

 

 

Although the balconies will extend further over the ravine than the existing development, which was the subject of a development consent to extend the deck in 2013 (DA529/13), this will have no substantial impact to the character of the foreshore area or on neighbouring properties. That is because of the following reasons:

·      The balconies are still recessed well behind the deck of No. 13 Seaside Parade to the north.

·      Since these balconies are proposed to be cantilevered over the ravine, they will have no direct impact on any environmental processes or features.

·      The view assessment as per above confirms that the balconies will have no impact on neighbouring properties.

·      Viewed from the water, the balconies will have no significant visual impact, since they sit against the backdrop of the dwelling itself. They will therefore not be a dominant feature as viewed from the waterway.

·      The privacy impacts of the balconies are minor since these impacts, as discussed above, are shared across site boundaries to preserve panoramic views of the ocean.

 

4.         Referral Comments

 

General Comments

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

 

Parking Comments

Under Part B7 of Council’s DCP 2013 the proposed 5 bedroom residence is required to provide a minimum of 2 off-street carspaces. The submitted plans demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

The proposed garage and driveway complies with the minimum requirements of Australian Standard 2890.1:2004 in regards to size, grades, and overhead clearances.

 

Civil Works Comments

The applicant is proposing to significantly raise surface levels on the Council verge at the location of the proposed driveway and footpath. The crossing will be altered into an upgrade into the new garage instead of a down-grade as is currently the case. No objections are raised to this is in principle and alignment levels have been based on works proposed in the submitted plans.

 

It is also noted that a new pedestrian footpath is proposed centrally along the site frontage across Council’s verge. The proposed footpath does not appear to be to Council’s current standards for footpaths on public property and this aspect of the application is not approved and is subject to approval by Council’s Asset engineers via a Civil Works Application. Council’s standard condition for Civil works has been included in this report.

 

Drainage/Watercourse Comments

There is a Council stormwater pit and pipe which drains Council footpath area in front of the subject site and runs down the northern side boundary and discharges into a watercourse at the rear of the existing dwelling.

 

Detailed drainage plans with levels reduced to Australian Height Datum (AHD), shall be prepared by a suitably qualified Hydraulic Engineer and be submitted to and approved by the certifying authority.  A copy of the plans shall be forwarded to Council, if Council is not the certifying authority.

 

Roof stormwater must be directed to a suitably designed and constructed rainwater tank, as required in the relevant BASIX Certificate for the dwelling. The overflow from the rainwater tank and other surface stormwater must be directed (via a sediment/silt arrestor pit) to:

 

i.     Council’ kerb and gutter or underground drainage system  in Seaside Parade ;OR

 

ii.    The natural watercourse at the rear of the property.

 

Tree Management Comments

The inspection of 2 May 2018 revealed a group of three native coastal trees on the public verge, comprising firstly, at the back of the kerb, between the existing vehicle crossing and western site boundary, from south to north, an 8m tall Banksia integrifolia (Coastal Banksia), then a 6m tall Hibiscus tileaceus (Cottonwood), and then further to their east, hard up against the front property boundary/brick fence, and just south of the pedestrian entry, a mature, 10m tall Banksia integrifolia (Coastal Banksia).

 

Due to their location on public property, all are covered by the provisions of Council’s DCP, and were observed to provide a contribution to the streetscape, as well as shade, privacy and amenity, whilst also providing a food and habitat source for native fauna along the harsh coastal foreshore, so will all need to be retained, as has been shown. 

 

The Entry & Living Plan (dwg no 1.03) shows that vehicle access will be maintained in its existing location, at the lower end of the site, along the southern site boundary, but will be expanded out slightly to now be 5m in width, meaning its northern edge would finish only about 1 metre from the trunk of the most southern Banksia.

 

However, discussions with Council’s Development Engineer, as well as a review of the required alignment levels, confirms that existing levels at the western end of the crossing, adjacent both the tree and kerb, will remain largely unchanged, with the eastern half of the crossing and garage entry actually needing to be raised by around 700mm from their existing levels in order to comply with the grades specified by Council.

 

While the addition of fill over the tensile of its root plate does have the potential to impact its health by restricting gaseous exchange between its root plate and the atmosphere, this result is still seen as much more favorable than if excavations were required, as any direct root damage on the tensile side of its root plate would have a direct correlation to its stability and ability to be safely retained in the public domain.

 

If a retaining wall is required along the northern edge of the new crossing as part of these civil works, so as to support any differences in level that are created between the finished level of the verge and the driveway, this would be in a similar position to the existing edging, with protection conditions dealing with this component included in the report.

 

While the Cottonwood would not be directly affected in anyway given its distance from all works, protection measures still need to be imposed in order to avoid damage from secondary impacts such as truck, deliveries and similar.

 

It is assumed that the existing masonry front fence will be demolished and reconstructed as part of the works, which would still allow the large Banksia to be retained; however, as its root system may have grown with a dependence on this structure for stability to some degree, conditions require that suitable measures be implemented during the course of works to ensure it is not destabilized, especially given this sites frontline location and exposure to strong coastal winds.

 

As part of the external civil works, conditions also require that the remaining small plants and shrubs on the public verge, that were obviously planted by an owner/resident, not Council, be removed and disposed of, wholly at the applicant’s cost, and this area be re-instated purely with turf.

 

A formal walkway linking the street to the front property boundary is shown between the two trees behind the kerb, replacing the existing path that is located towards the northern boundary, and while this may be supported as part of the external civil works due to the absence of a public footpath in this area, this should not affect the trees given the shallow depth of excavations, which would be limited to only about 100mm or so, but conditions dealing with this aspect have been included.

 

Landscaping

There is no vegetation within the subject site at all that would pose a constraint to the works in anyway, so can all be removed where necessary, with the amount of plant material to be increased compared to the current situation through the provision of new garden beds at the front of the dwelling, as well as along the northern site boundary, with conditions requiring that a landscape plan be provided showing the exclusive use of only those front-line coastal species that can withstand the prevailing extreme conditions.

 

Given this site’s location within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, Council has a responsibility to ensure any new development blends in with the natural settings of the unique coastal environment; however, the rear setback is mostly inaccessible and unusable due to the existing rock-shelf and steep drop of the land off to the ocean, including a remnant watercourse through the centre of the site.

 

The table on page 7 of the SEE states that this scheme will achieve compliance with Council’s numerical controls for landscaping for a development of this type, with 41% of the site area to be provided (35% required), with the extensive areas of bedrock at the eastern end of the site include din these calculations.

 

Undergrounding of power lines to site

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 not located within 15m of a mains power distribution pole on the same side of the street hence the above clause is not applicable.

 

 

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 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.

 

B.     That the RDAP 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/6/2018 for Demolition of all structures on site and construction of a new part one to part four storey dwelling house with double garage, rear swimming pool, associated site and landscaping works (variation to building height control), at No. 15 Seaside Parade South Coogee, subject to the development consent conditions attached to this report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Development Application - consent conditions - 15 Seaside Parade, Coogee (DA/6/2018)

 

 

 

 


Development Application - consent conditions - 15 Seaside Parade, Coogee (DA/6/2018)

Attachment 1

 

 


Randwick Development Assessment Panel                                                                 14 June 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D50/18

 

Subject:             60 Holmes Street, Maroubra (DA/233/2018)

Folder No:                   DA/233/2018

Author:                   Plandev Pty Ltd, Thomas Mithen     

 

Proposal:                    Ground level alterations and additions to existing dwelling and new internal access stairs to existing attic storeroom.

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                Mrs K Smith

Owner:                        Mr A J Bowen & Mrs K Smith

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=061e3c9a-0e77-4afe-b294-62833ea5e4c5&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 


 

Executive summary

 

The application is referred to the Randwick Development Assessment Panel (RDAP) as the landowner is a Councillor.

 

The proposed development involves ground level alterations and additions to the existing dwelling and new internal access stairs to the existing attic storeroom.

 

The application was notified in accordance with Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP) and no submissions were received.

 

A minimum landscape area of 70sqm applies to the site under Part C clause 2.1 of the RDCP. The proposal provides 40sqm of landscape area, representing a shortfall of 12%. The non-compliance is acceptable given the proposed addition will be largely contained within the existing awning footprint, and the proposal is compliant in terms of the private open space (POS) and site coverage controls. 

 

A minimum side setback of 900mm applies to the site under Part C clause 3.3.2 of RDCP. The proposed rear addition has a nil setback to the western boundary. The non-compliance is acceptable given the wall forms a continuation of the existing wall alignment and the general paucity of amenity impacts in terms of overshadowing, overlooking and visual bulk to the adjoining property.

 

A rear setback of 8 metres applies to the site under Part C1 clause 3.3.3 of RDCP. The proposed rear addition has a 6 metre setback to the rear boundary. The non-compliance is acceptable given the rear boundary adjoins a large Army barracks and the built form context in the vicinity of the site.

 

The site is subject to flooding during major storm events. Council’s Development Engineer recommends the floor level of the rear addition to be raised 180mm above that proposed, which can be accommodated without increasing the overall height of the proposal given the generous ceiling height. A condition to this effect is included in the recommended development consent.

 

The proposal is consistent with the objectives contained within RLEP 2012 and generally complies with the relevant requirements of the RDCP. The proposal does not cause any adverse impacts for the streetscape and/or neighbouring properties.

 

The proposal is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions

 

Proposal

 

The proposed development involves ground level alterations and additions to the existing dwelling and new internal access stairs to the existing attic storeroom. The proposal is further described as follows:

 

Ground Level

·      Removal of existing rear awning and timber deck;

·      Construction of a new 4.5m x 4.5m lounge room at the rear of the existing dwelling;

·      New timber framed highlight windows on the rear (northern) elevation;

·      New timber framed doors on the rear (northern) elevation with step access to the adjacent private open space area;

·      Removal of existing pull-down ladder and construction of new spiral staircase servicing the existing storage area within the attic space; and

·      Making good of the flooring within the attic floor plan.

It is noted that the proposed lounge room would generally be within the footprint of the existing awning structure, albeit with a minor (approximately 1m) projection rearward into the site. There are no new windows proposed along the side elevations and the western wall of the lounge room is proposed to be constructed on nil setback to the western (side) boundary, as is the case with the existing dwelling which shares a party wall with the adjacent semi-detached dwelling at No.58 Holmes Street, Maroubra.

 

Site Description and Locality

The subject site is legally described as Lot 2 in DP 615467 and commonly known as No.60 Holmes Street, Maroubra. The site is a rectangular shaped allotment with a frontage to Holmes Street of 7.97 metres and an overall site area of 306.5sqm. The site is relatively flat and currently accomodates an existing semi-detached dwellings with detached metal shed structure in the rear yard. Vehicular access is attained at the front of the site via a crossing off Holmes Street.

 

Adjoining the site to the west is the remaining semi-detached dwelling at No.58 Holmes Street. To the east is a two storey semi-detached dwelling. To the north, at the rear, is a large Army barracks site. The remainder of Holmes Street is generally characterised by a mixture of one and two storey dwellings. Pitched tiled roof forms are common throughout.

 

Relevant history

·      A development application for addition of a laundry to the rear of the existing dwelling, internal alterations including new internal staircase to provide access to attic storeroom was approved by Council on 12/08/2014.

·      The subject development application was submitted to Council on 30/04/2018.

·      The application was notified to neighbours in accordance with the RDCP from 03/05/2018 until 17/05/2018.

·      Following a preliminary assessment, it was identified that the site is subject to flooding during major storm events.

·      The applicant provided a flood assessment report on 28 May 2018.

 

Submissions

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the RDCP. No submissions were received.

 

Key Issues

 

Non-compliance with RDCP controls

The proposed development presents three (3) non-compliances with the controls within the RDCP. The non-compliant aspects of the proposal are discussed below:

 

Clause 2.4 – Landscaping and permeable surfaces

The subject site has a site area of 306.5sqm and is therefore required to provide at least 25% (76.6sqm) of landscaping and permeable surfaces in accordance with the RDCP. The proposed development results in approximately 13% (40.1sqm), representing a shortfall of 12% (36.5sqm). This non-compliance is acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The majority of the non-compliance is existing as the new works proposed would be constructed, for the most part, over existing impervious area (beneath the existing awning). As such, the proposal does not cause any noteworthy reduction in permeable areas;

·      The visual balance between building structures and open space would not be materially altered as a result of the proposal given that the existing outdoor areas within the rear setback area would generally remain as is; and

·      The proposal complies with the minimum private open space requirements set out within Part 2.5 of the RDCP, alongside the maximum allowable site coverage within Part 2.3.

 

In view of the above, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the planning objectives of the landscaping and permeable surfaces control within the RDCP and is therefore supported.

 

Clause 3.3.2 – Side setbacks

The site has a frontage width of 7.97m. The development is therefore required to provide 900mm side setbacks for all levels. The proposal provides a compliant 3.5m setback to the eastern side boundary. A nil side setback is proposed to the western boundary which therefore does not comply with the RDCP provisions. This non-compliance is acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The design of the development seeks for a continuation of the existing western wall of the dwelling which has been constructed on nil side setback;

·      Nil side setback is common, and appropriate for, semi-detached dwellings;

·      The non-compliant setback is not attributable to any adverse amenity impacts by way of overshadowing, overlooking or visual bulk and scale for the neighbouring dwelling at No.58 Holmes Street; and

·      It is acknowledged that the new western wall proposed would extend further rearward past the existing party wall and would be visible from No.58 Holmes Street. However, it is a single storey element finished in face brickwork which does not present any unreasonable bulk and scale impacts. 

 

Clause 3.3.3 – Rear setbacks

The proposal is required to provide an 8 metre rear building setback in accordance with Part 3.3.3(i) of RDCP. The proposed new lounge room has a setback to the rear boundary of 6 metres, therefore not complying with the 8 metre minimum requirement. This non-compliance is acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The non-compliant elements (i.e – the rear most 2 metres of the new lounge room) do not present any adverse amenity impacts to adjoining properties with respect to visual bulk and scale, overshadowing or privacy. It is noted that adjoining immediately at the rear is a large Army barracks site;

·      The development is single storey only;

·      There are other existing built forms along the northern side of Holmes Street which appear to encroach within the rear 8 metres of the allotment(s) such as those at 44, 46 and 54 Holmes Street; and

·      The alternative location for additional gross floor area on this site would be via a first floor addition. However, this outcome may compromise the symmetry of the pair of semi-detached dwellings (No’s 58 and 60) given that they are both single storey.

 

Flooding

The site is located within the catchment of the recently completed & Council commissioned ‘Birds Gully Flood Study’, which predicts the subject site will be subject to flooding during major storm events.

 

A flood report submitted with the application specified the 1 in 100yr flood level as 28.08 AHD and a flood planning level of RL 28.58 ( with freeboard of 500mm) . It is also in a flood storage area.

 

The applicant proposes to raise the floor level for the rear addition to RL 28.4 AHD, which represents a reduced freeboard of 320mm above the 1 in 100 year flood level and is 180mm below the general flood planning level of RL 28.58 AHD.

 

Given the small area of the addition (18sqm) and position at rear of the site where wave action is likely to be minimal the proposed additions at RL 28.40 AHD is acceptable.

 

Furthermore, as it is in a flood storage area the addition should also be provided as a slab on piers. Conditions to this effect are included in the recommended development consent.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

That the application for ground level alterations and additions to the existing dwelling and new internal access stairs to the existing attic storeroom 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; and

·      The proposal is acceptable in the street context and does not cause any adverse impacts for the streetscape and/or neighbouring properties.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

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

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

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

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.

 

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 and maintains a reasonable level of amenity for the adjoining properties.

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

The Draft Environment SEPP was exhibited from 31 October 2017 to 31 January 2018. The provisions of this draft SEPP are not applicable to the subject development application.

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

The relevant considerations of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013 have been considered.

 

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

The development is not subject to a planning agreement or draft planning agreement.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

Section 4.15(1)(b) – The likely impacts of the development, including environmental impacts on the natural and built environment and social and economic impacts in the locality

The environmental impacts of the proposed development on the natural and built environment, which are otherwise not addressed in this report, as discussed in the paragraphs below.

 

The proposed development is consistent with the dominant residential character in the locality. The proposal will not result in detrimental social or economic impacts on the locality, noting the minor scale of the proposed works.

 

Section 4.15(1)(c) – The suitability of the site for the development

The site is located in close proximity to local services and public transport. The site has sufficient area to accommodate the proposed land use and associated structures. Therefore, the site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

Section 4.15(1)(d) – Any submissions made in accordance with the EP&A Act or EP&A Regulation

No submissions were received.

Section 4.15(1)(e) – The public interest

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

 

2.         Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

2.1      State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPS)

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land

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

Clause 7 of SEPP 55 requires the consent authority to consider whether land is contaminated prior to granting consent to the carrying out of any development on that land. There is no evident risk to human health and the environment in this case to warrant a more detailed investigation given the immediate surrounds have been used for residential purposes for a considerable number of years, and there have been no known potentially contaminating activities undertaken on the site. The subject site is not identified under RLEP 2012 as constituting contaminated land or land that must be subject to a site audit statement. Accordingly, nothing restricts Council, under SEPP 55, from consenting to the carrying out of the development.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 applies to the proposed development. The proposed development is a ‘BASIX affected development’ as defined under Clause 3 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. Clause 2A of Schedule 1 of Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 requires the submission of a BASIX Certificate/s.

The subject Development Application (DA) is accompanied by an appropriate BASIX Certificate. The certificate demonstrates that the proposal will achieve compliance with the BASIX water, energy and thermal efficiency targets. The BASIX related annotations /details on the submitted plans have been checked. They are consistent with the related commitments indicated on the submitted BASIX Certificate for the DA stage.

 

2.2      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

The site is zoned R2 – Low Density Residential under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will continue to provide housing in a manner that reasonably protects the amenity of residents.

 

The following development standards contained in the RLEP 2012 apply to the proposal:

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

0.75:1 (229sqm)

0.40:1 (122sqm)

Yes

Height of Building (Maximum)

9.5 metres

4.5 metres

Yes

 

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

 

3.1      Part C – Low Density Residential  

 

DCP Clause

Controls

Proposal

Compliance (Yes/No/NA/Conditioned)

2

Site planning

 

 

2.1

Minimum lot size and frontage

 

Minimum lot size (RLEP):

·    R2 = 400sqm

·    R3 = 325sqm

306.5sqm

N/A

 

Minimum frontage

 

 

 

i)   Min frontage R2 = 12m

ii)   Min frontage R3 = 9m

iii)  No battle-axe or hatchet in R2 or R3

iv)  Minimum frontage for attached dual occupancy in R2 = 15m

v)  Minimum frontage for detached dual occupancy in R2 = 18m

Existing = 7.97m

N/A

2.3

Site coverage

 

Up to 300sqm = 60%

301 to 450sqm = 55%

451 to 600sqm = 50%

601sqm or above = 45%

Site = 306.5sqm

Permitted = 55% (168.5sqm)

Proposed = 48% (147sqm)

Yes

2.4

Landscaping and permeable surfaces

 

i)     Up to 300sqm = 20%

ii)    301 to 450sqm = 25%

iii)   451 to 600sqm = 30%

iv)   601 sqm or above = 35%

v)    Deep soil minimum width 900mm.

vi)   Maximise permeable surfaces to front

vii)  Retain existing or replace mature native trees

viii)  Minimum 1 canopy tree (8m mature). Smaller (4m mature) If site restrictions apply.

ix)   Locating paved areas, underground services away from root zones.

Site = 306.5sqm

Required = 25% (76.6sqm)

Proposed = 13% (40.1sqm)

No, but acceptable on merit. Refer to previous discussion within this report.

2.5

Private open space (POS)

 

Dwelling & Semi-Detached POS

 

 

 

Up to 300 sqm = 5m x 5m

301 to 450 sqm = 6m x 6m

451 to 600 sqm = 7m x 7m

601 sqm or above = 8m x 8m

Site = 306.5sqm

Required = 6m x 6m

Proposed = 6m x 8m

Yes. It is noted that the existing metal shed is within the 6m x 8m POS area. However, there is some additional space to the south of the existing timber cubby house to offset this.

3

Building envelope

3.1

Floor space ratio LEP 2012 = 0.75:1

Site area = 306.5sqm

Proposed FSR = 0.40:1 (122sqm)

Yes

3.2

Building height

 

 

 

Maximum overall height LEP 2012 = 9.5m

Existing = 5.45m

Proposed = 4.5m

Yes

 

i)   Maximum external wall height = 7m (Minimum floor to ceiling height = 2.7m)

ii)   Sloping sites = 8m

iii)  Merit assessment if exceeded

Permitted = 7m

Proposed = 4.5m

Yes

3.3

Setbacks

3.3.1

Front setbacks

i)   Average setbacks of adjoining (if none then no less than 6m) Transition area then merit assessment.

ii)   Corner allotments: Secondary street frontage:

-    900mm for allotments with primary frontage width of less than 7m

-    1500mm for all other sites

iii)  do not locate swimming pools, above-ground rainwater tanks and outbuildings in front

The existing front setback is not proposed to be altered.

N/A

3.3.2

Side setbacks:

Semi-Detached Dwellings:

·      Frontage less than 6m = merit

·      Frontage b/w 6m and 8m = 900mm for all levels

Dwellings:

·      Frontage less than 9m = 900mm

·      Frontage b/w 9m and 12m = 900mm (Gnd & 1st floor) 1500mm above

·      Frontage over 12m = 1200mm (Gnd & 1st floor), 1800mm above.

 

Refer to 6.3 and 7.4 for parking facilities and outbuildings

Minimum = 900mm

Proposed = Nil (west)

              3.5m (east)

Western side setback does not comply  but is acceptable on merit. Refer to previous discussion within this report.

3.3.3

Rear setbacks

i)   Minimum 25% of allotment depth or 8m, whichever lesser. Note: control does not apply to corner allotments.

ii)   Provide greater than aforementioned or demonstrate not required, having regard to:

-    Existing predominant rear setback line - reasonable view sharing (public and private)

-    protect the privacy and solar access

iii)  Garages, carports, outbuildings, swimming or spa pools, above-ground water tanks, and unroofed decks and terraces attached to the dwelling may encroach upon the required rear setback, in so far as they comply with other relevant provisions of this DCP.

iv)  For irregularly shaped lots = merit assessment on basis of:-

-    Compatibility

-    POS dimensions comply

-    minimise solar access, privacy and view sharing impacts

 

Refer to 6.3  and 7.4 for parking facilities and  outbuildings

Minimum = 8m

Proposed = 6m

No, but acceptable on merit. Refer to previous discussion within this report. 

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

The streetscape presentation of the existing dwelling is not proposed to be altered. There are no unreasonable amenity impacts associated with the wall length(s) proposed and the new building works would be contained, for the most part, within the footprint of the existing rear awning structure. The proposal is an acceptable response to the site characteristics and the surrounding context.

Yes

4.2

Additional Provisions for symmetrical semi-detached dwellings

 

i)     Enhance the pair as coherent entity:

·      behind apex of roof; low profile or consistent with existing roof

·      new character that is first floor at front after analysis streetscape outcome

ii)     Constructed to common boundary of adjoining semi

iii & iv)avoid exposure of blank party walls to adjoining semi and public domain

 

The new works are appropriately sited well behind the apex of the existing roof and would not be visible from the streetscape. The new lounge room is proposed to be constructed to the common (western) boundary of the adjoining semi. It is noted that the new external western wall would extend further past the existing party wall – this is acceptable for reasons identified within the rear setback discussion. 

Yes

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.)

The proposed external materials include face brick, scyon cladding, timber framed windows and a colourbond roof. The selection of materials and finishes are generally compatible with the existing dwelling and other dwellings in the locality.

 

 

Yes

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.

The proposal has been designed to match existing ground levels.

Yes

5

Amenity

5.1

Solar access and overshadowing

 

Solar access to proposed development:

 

 

 

i)   Portion of north-facing living room windows must receive a minimum of 3 hrs direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June

ii)   POS (passive recreational activities) receive a minimum of 3 hrs of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

The new lounge room faces north and would receive the requisite amount of solar access.

Yes

 

Solar access to neighbouring development:

 

 

 

i)   Portion of the north-facing living room windows must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

iv)  POS (passive recreational activities) receive a minimum of 3 hrs of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

v)  solar panels on neighbouring dwellings, which are situated not less than 6m above ground level (existing), must retain a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. If no panels, direct sunlight must be retained to the northern, eastern and/or western roof planes (not <6m above ground) of neighbouring dwellings.

vi)  Variations may acceptable be subject to:

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

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

·      Topography of the subject and adjoining allotments.

·      Location and level of the windows in question.

·      Shadows cast by existing buildings on the neighbouring allotments.

The proposal does not cause any unreasonable overshadowing impacts for adjoining residential properties having regard to the orientation of nearby sites and the single storey scale of the proposed development.

Adjoining properties will maintain 3 hours solar access to living areas and POS between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

Yes

5.2

Energy Efficiency and Natural Ventilation

 

i)   Provide day light to internalised areas within the dwelling (for example, hallway, stairwell, walk-in-wardrobe and the like) and any poorly lit habitable rooms via measures such as:

·      Skylights (ventilated)

·      Clerestory windows

·      Fanlights above doorways

·      Highlight windows in internal partition walls

·      living rooms contain windows and doors opening to outdoor areas

Note: The sole reliance on skylight or clerestory window for natural lighting and ventilation is not acceptable

The existing dwelling will receive good internal amenity with the rear lounge room and associated living spaces facing north.

Yes

5.3

Visual Privacy

 

Windows

 

 

 

i)   minimise any direct viewing habitable of proposed and neighbours habitable room windows by one or more of the following measures:

-    windows are offset or staggered

-    minimum 1600mm window sills

-    Install fixed and translucent glazing up 1600mm minimum effective sill.

-    Install fixed privacy screens to windows.

-    Creating a recessed courtyard (minimum 3m x 2m).

ii)   orientate living and dining windows away from similar opposite (that is front or rear or side courtyard

The proposal does not include any new window openings on the side elevations.

 

New highlight windows and glazed doors are proposed on the rear elevation. However, there would be no adverse visual privacy impacts given that the new glazing elements are on the ground floor and are orientated towards the rear boundary as opposed to any adjoining residential property. 

Yes

5.4

Acoustic Privacy

 

i)   noise sources not located adjacent to adjoining dwellings bedroom windows

Attached dual occupancies

ii)   Reduce noise transmission between dwellings by:

-    Locate noise-generating areas and quiet areas adjacent to each other.

-    Locate less sensitive areas adjacent to the party wall to serve as noise buffer.

The design and layout of the dwelling is appropriate to minimise acoustic privacy impacts.

Yes

5.5

Safety and Security

 

i)   dwellings main entry on front elevation (unless narrow site)

ii)   Street numbering at front near entry.

iii)  1 habitable room window (glazed area min 2 square metres) overlooking the street or a public place.

iv)  Front fences, parking facilities and landscaping does not to obstruct casual surveillance (maintain safe access)

Whilst the main entry is located on the side, contrary to the DCP guideline, no changes are proposed to the front elevation of the existing dwelling.

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)

The proposal will not impact on the views from surrounding properties.

Yes

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.

Note: See 6.2 parking facilities forward of the front façade alignment may be considered.

iv)  Single width garage/carport if frontage <12m;

Double width if:

-    Frontage >12m,

-    Consistent with pattern in the street;

-    Landscaping provided in the front yard.

v)  Minimise excavation for basement garages and scale of the front elevation

vi)  Avoid long driveways (impermeable surfaces)

No changes are proposed to the existing car parking arrangements onsite.

N/A

 


 

4.         Referral Comments

 

Development Engineer

The following comments were provided by Council’s Development Engineer:

 

General Comments

The proposal is only supported on the basis that the proposed rear addition is raised to a minimum floor level of 28.40 AHD and is constructed as a slab on piers for protection from flooding.  Suitable conditions have been included in this report.

 

Flooding Comments

The site is located within the catchment of the recently completed & Council commissioned ‘Birds Gully Flood Study’, which predicts the subject site will be subject to flooding during major storm events.

 

The applicant was advised to obtain a flood report which has now been issued by Council’s Drainage Engineer

 

The flood report specifies the 1 in 100yr flood level as 28.08 AHD and a flood planning level of RL 28.58 ( with freeboard of 500mm). It also notes the site is located within a flood storage area.

 

The applicant has indicated that a floor level of RL 28.58 would be impractical to match to the existing dwelling and has requested a review of the required floor level.

 

 In consultation with the Development Engineering Coordinator and in consideration of:

·      the small area of the addition (18m2)

·      position at rear of the site where wave action is likely to be minimal

 

Development Engineering advises that a floor level of the rear additions of RL 28.40 AHD (as proposed by the applicant) and requiring only one step up from the existing floor level of 28.21 AHD would be acceptable in this instance. This represents a reduced freeboard of 320mm above the 1 in 100 yr flood level.  

 

Furthermore, as it is in a flood storage area the additions shall be provided as a slab on piers.

 

Conditions requiring the above amendments have been included in this report.

 

Drainage Easement Comments

There is a 1.83m wide drainage easement within the site located adjacent and parallel to the rear property boundary. Council’s GIS system does not indicate the presence of a pipe within this easement and the proposed rear additions will be situated at least 4.17m (6-1.83) from the boundary of the drainage easement. It is therefore considered any conditions in relation to protection of this drainage easement will not be required in this instance.

 

Landscape Comments

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

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the RDAP grants development consent under Sections 4.16 and 4.17 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 233/2018 for ground level alterations and additions to the existing dwelling and new internal access stairs to the existing attic storeroom, at No.60 Holmes Street, Maroubra subject to the development consent conditions attached to this report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

RDAP Development Consent Conditions DA/233/2018, 60 Holmes Street, MAROUBRA

 

 

 

 


RDAP Development Consent Conditions DA/233/2018, 60 Holmes Street, MAROUBRA

Attachment 1

 

 


Randwick Development Assessment Panel                                                                 14 June 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D51/18

 

Subject:             15 Marcel Avenue Coogee (DA/366/2017)

Folder No:                   DA/366/2017

Author:                   James Arnold, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house comprising new rear decks including a plunge pool, replacement of the existing garage with a new garage, conversion of attic space into habitable space, and minor internal alteraions.

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Mrs P N Fonteyn

Owner:                        Mr S B Fonteyn and Mrs P N Fonteyn

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Note. No submissions were received.

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 


 

Executive Summary

 

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

 

The proposal development is for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house comprising new rear decks including a plunge pool, replacement of the existing garage with a new garage, conversion of attic space into habitable space, and minor internal alteraions at 15 Marcel Avenue, Coogee.

 

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant planning requirements contained within the Randwick Local Environemtnal Plan (RLEP) 2012 and the Randwick Development Control Plan (RDCP) 2013.  In summary, the development seeks to continue the dwelling house use of the land which is permissible in the R3 zone, the proposal complies with FSR, and seeks to vary the building height standard in Clause 4.3 of the LEP. The building height variation is an existing non-compliance for the roof ridge, and the proposal seeks to extend the roof line to the rear as part of an attic conversion. The height variation is supported primarily on the grounds that the existing ridge height is being maintained and the extension is to the rear which will not be visible in the street and will have no significant impacts on neighbours.

 

The other key issue with the proposal is the proposed lower level rear deck which is considered excessive in size and has insufficient setbacks. The result would be unacceptable visual bulk, overshadowing and privacy issues for adjoining properties. A condition has been recommended to reduce the size of the deck which will ensure impacts on neighbours are minimised and acceptable.

 

Subject to the recommended non-standard conditions of consent, the proposal is considered to be generally consistent with the applicable planning controls and as such is recommended for approval.

 

Proposal

 

Details of the proposed development are as follows:

 

·      Convert the existing attic space into habitable space comprising a horizontal rear extension of the existing roof line with new dormer window and balcony facing the rear. Internally, the new attic will include a master bedroom with a separate dressing room, and bathroom;

·      Replacement of the existing elevated rear deck off the lower level with a new larger deck with a plunge pool;

·      New elevated rear balcony off the ground floor level;

·      Replacement of existing single attached garage with slightly wider single garage in the same location;

·      Range of minor internal alterations; and,

·      Removal of a tree at the rear and retention of the remainder of trees at the rear including building the new rear deck around an existing Jacaranda Tree.

 

The submitted Statement of Environmental Effects notes that the purpose of the application is to improve the liveability of the dwelling and to better utilise the site which has a dramatic slope to the rear which renders the majority of the external ground level space unusable.


 

Site and Locality Description

 

The subject site addressed as 15 Marcel Avenue, Coogee and comprises one allotment legally described as Lot 50 in DP 318884. The site is located on the southern side of Marcel Avenue approximately 200m east of Carrington Road. The site is generally regular in shape with a slightly angled eastern side boundary. The site has a 19.81m frontage, average length of 31m and an area of 490.3m2.

 

Improvements on the site comprise a part one, part two storey dwelling house of brick construction with a gabled tiled roof. The dwelling is single storey at street level and has a lower level as the site falls away to the rear. Ancillary elements of the dwelling include an attached single garage to the eastern side at the front and a cantilevered rear deck off the lower level.

 

The site has a significant fall from the street to the rear of approximately 10m. The majority of the fall occurs at the rear where there is base rock that sharply falls away to a gully that traverses the rear of the properties fronting to Marcel Avenue and Ritchard Avenue. The gully contains dense bushland with established trees and undergrowth. The front yard of the site comprises maintained lawn and boundary shrubs.

 

The site is located within a residential area comprised of a mixture of dwellings houses and small residential flat buildings of 2-3 storeys in height. The built form in the area is typically original with brick construction materials and pitched tiled roofs. The site adjoins the western edge of the Moira Crescent Heritage Conservation Area and is 50-100m east of the Heritage listed Residential Flat Buildings at 23 and 31 Marvel Avenue. The heritage area has aesthetic significance due to the high integrity of the inter-war streetscapes and contains the best preserved inter-war flat buildings in the area.

 

The adjoining properties are as follows:

 

·      Western side – 11A Marcel Avenue – Two storey residential flat building with brick facades and a hipped tiled roof.

·      Eastern side – 17 Marcel Avenue – Two storey residential flat building with brick facades and a hipped tiled roof.

·      Southern rear – 30 Ritchard Avenue – Two storey semi-detached dwelling with brick facades and a hipped roof.

 

IMG_0170

Figure 1. Front of subject site from Marcel Avenue

(Source: James Arnold, 2018)

 

Figure 2. Existing rear deck and gully at the rear of the subject site as viewed from the adjoining property to the east.

(Source: James Arnold, 2018)

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Key Issues

 

Height variation (Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards)

The proposal has been assessed as non-compliant with the development standard contained within clause 4.3 ‘height of buildings’ of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The clause stipulates that the height of a building on the site is not to exceed 9.5m. Whilst the proposed alterations and additions will not increase the height of the existing roof ridge, it will be extended towards the rear of the site where the ground levels below the ridge drop away dramatically. The result of this is that the extended roof ridge will have a maximum height up to 11.71m which represents a 23% variation of the development standard.

 

The Applicant has submitted a Clause 4.6 exception request to the building height development standard. This exception is considered in detail within the RLEP 2012 section of this report. In summary, the variation is considered to satisfy the provisions of Clause 4.6 and is acceptable on the grounds that:

 

·      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 of the zone;

·      Contravention of the development standard does not raise any matter of significance for State or Regional Environmental Planning; and,

·      There will be no public benefit in maintain the development standard in this instance.

Excessive size of proposed lower rear deck

A major component of the proposal is the introduction of a new rear deck off the ground floor and a large replacement rear deck off the lower level (basement level on plans) which will include a plunge pool.

 

These decks form the private open space for the site as the rear yard is a largely inaccessible and heavily vegetated gully. Whilst no issue is raised with utilising the decks for private open space, the size and minimal rear setback of the proposed enlarged lower level rear deck will lead to unacceptable impacts.

 

The proposed lower level rear deck has an area of approximately 67sqm with dimensions of 9.3m wide and 6.6m long which is considered to be excessive in size. The rear deck will accommodate the majority of the rear portion of the site with only 2m setbacks from the side boundaries and 2.27m from the rear. This excessive size combined with the supporting posts, which will be up to 7m in height, will result in a range of unacceptable impacts to adjoining properties including visual bulk, privacy and overshadowing. These impacts are illustrated in Figure 3 below. 

 

rear deck obstrusive

Figure 3. Marked 3D perspective of the development indicating issues with rear deck (Source: Hampshire Design / Marked: James Arnold)

 

The visual impact of the structure and supporting posts will be highly obtrusive when viewed from the properties to the rear in Ritchard Avenue which are at a much lower level and as a result will have an unsightly view of the underside of the deck, the pool and the large supporting posts. The structure will also result in some additional overshadowing of the properties to the south given the size and minimal setbacks proposed.

 

The other issue with the deck is the minimal setbacks of 2-2.27m which will facilitate overlooking of the rear yards and living areas of the properties to the rear. The elevation of the deck at over 7m above the gully and the rear properties will enable close and direct views down to neighbouring private open spaces and living areas. The size of the deck will also require some significant pruning of the existing vegetation in the gully that will further reduce privacy for neighbours.

 

Having consideration that there is an existing rear deck and the site is highly constrained for private open space provision, it is considered that a reduction in the size and increase in the setbacks of the deck would sufficiently mitigate the above impacts. In considering the appropriate size, under the RDCP 2013 the development is required to have a 7m x 7m private open space which equates to 49sqm. The proposal includes two rear decks which are both considered to function as private open space as they are at the rear and adjoin internal living areas. The combined area of the decks is 90sqm which far exceeds the 49sqm standard which suggests that there is significant scope to reduce the size of the lower deck and maintain an appropriate amount of private open space.

 

The existing rear deck is triangular in shape and comes within 3.2m of the rear boundary at the farthest point. The existing side setbacks are in the order of 1.8-2.9m on the eastern side and 3.2m on the western side. Considering these existing setbacks and the requirements for private open space, it is recommended the deck is reduced to have a minimum rear setback of 3.5m, minimum western side setback of 3m, and eastern side setback as proposed. It is also recommended that the proposed glass balustrades are obscure glazed or are solid style with no openings greater than 30mm to further improve privacy for adjoining properties. The revised dimensions of the deck compared against the proposed and existing deck are illustrated in Figure 4 below.

 

The recommended setbacks will be generally consistent with the existing deck and will result in a deck of approximately 44sqm or a total of 67sqm of private open space on site which will provide satisfactory amenity. The reduced deck will result in improved separation to the rear and eastern side, reduced the overall bulk, and reduced height of the supporting posts. Furthermore, less of the existing screening vegetation will be required to be pruned. These factors will ensure that any impacts of visual obtrusiveness, overlooking and overshadowing will be mitigated to an acceptable level.

 

The recommended condition to resolve the above issues is as follows:

 

Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the rear deck at basement level is to be amended as detailed below and submitted to and approved by Council.

 

·      The basement level rear deck is to be reduced in size to have a minimum rear setback of 3.5m and a minimum western side setback of 3m. As part of the amendments, the plunge pool may have to be relocated, reduced in size or deleted.

 

·      To improve privacy for adjoining properties, the deck balustrades are to be provided with translucent glass or solid (with no individual opening of more than 30mm wide with the total area of all openings of no more than 30% of the surface area of the balustrade).

 

 

 

amended deck

Figure 4. Marked Basement Floor Plan showing the recommended reduced new deck compared against the existing and proposed deck.

(Source: Hampshire Design / Marked: James Arnold)

 

 

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 proposed development for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling comprising new rear decks including a plunge pool, replacement of the existing garage with a new garage, conversion of attic space into habitable space, and minor internal alteraions, be approved (subject to conditions) for the reasons below.

 

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

 

·      The proposal is consistent with the objectives and controls of the RLEP 2012 and the RDCP 2013;

 

·      The proposal is consistent with the 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 (as amended via conditions) is considered to be suitable for the location and is compatible with the desired future character of the locality; and,

 

·      The environmental impacts are acceptable (subject to conditions).

 


 

Detailed Assessment

 

1.0      Matters for Consideration

 

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

 

Section 4.15 ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

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

See below.

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

Nil.

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

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

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

Section 4.15(1)(b) – The likely impacts of the development, including environmental impacts on the natural and built environment and social and economic impacts in the locality

The environmental impacts of the proposed development on the natural and built environment have been addressed in this report.

The proposed development is consistent with the prevailing residential character in the locality.

The proposal will not result in detrimental social or economic impacts on the locality.

Section 4.15(1)(c) – The suitability of the site for the development

The proposed development continues the dwelling house use of the site which is permissible in the R3 zone and there are no salient site or contextual features which would make the site unsuitable for the development.

Section 4.15(1)(d) – Any submissions made in accordance with the EP&A Act or EP&A Regulation

No submissions were received in support of the proposal.

Section 4.15(1)(e) – The public interest

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

 

2.0      Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments and Development Control Plans

 

The following statutory Environmental Planning Instruments apply in the assessment of the proposed development:

 

·      State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land;

·      State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index BASIX) 2004;

·      State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017; and,

·      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

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

The provisions of SEPP 55 have been considered in the assessment of the application. The site and adjoining properties are currently used for residential purposes. There is no evidence to suggest any potentially contaminating activities have taken place on or near the site. Accordingly, the site is considered suitable for the proposed ongoing residential use and satisfies the provisions of the SEPP.

 

2.2      State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

The proposed development includes BASIX affected buildings. A compliant BASIX certificate has been submitted and in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 the environmentally sustainable commitments within the certificate are required to be fulfilled as a prescribed condition of consent. Accordingly, the proposal satisfies the provisions of the SEPP.

 

2.3      State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017

The Vegetation SEPP has been taken into consideration in the assessment of the application. The Vegetation SEPP provides approval pathways for the removal of vegetation in non-rural areas and matters for consideration in the assessment of applications to remove vegetation.

 

The proposal includes the removal of one tree on site which is located near the rear boundary. The tree has been reviewed by Council’s Landscape Technician who noted that the tree is a 6m tall Avocado Tree and no objection was raised to its removal as it is suppressed by larger trees and does not have any landscape or visual significance. Conditions have been imposed for replacement plantings within the rear of the site. It is noted that deck has been recommended to be pulled back from the rear boundary and as such the Avodaco tree may not need to be removed. The landscaping conditions have been amended to reflect this change.


The remaining trees are located near the rear boundary and are proposed to be retained. The recommended reduced deck will assist in the retention and protection of these trees and will result in less pruning. Appropriate tree protection conditions have been included.

 

Given the above, the proposal is considered to satisfy the provisions of the Vegetation SEPP.

 

2.4      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

The following provisions of the RLEP 2012 apply to the proposal:

 

Provision

Proposal

Complies?

Zoning and Permissibility

R3 Medium Density Residential

The proposal seeks to maintain the existing dwelling house use of the site which is permitted with consent in the R3 zone.

Yes

Floor Space Ratio

Dwelling house or semi in R2 or R3 zone:

300-450sqm – Max 0.75:1

450-600sqm – Max 0.65:1

+600sqm – Max 0.6:1

0.63:1

GFA 309.2sqm

Site Area 490.3sqm

Basement 86.5sqm

Ground 160.8sqm

Attic 64.9sqm

(exclude void above stairs 3sqm)

Yes

 

Height of Building

Max 9.5m

11.71m

Ridge RL 68.00

EGL below RL 56.29

No – Clause 4.6 request supported refer below

Heritage

Various requirements for protecting heritage

The site adjoins the western edge of the Moira Crescent Heritage Conservation Area and is within 50-100m east of the Heritage listed Residential Flat Buildings at 23 and 31 Marvel Avenue. I404 and I405.

The proposal is generally consistent with the heritage clause and will have minimal impact on the heritage values of the adjoining HCA and nearby heritage items.

Refer to Key Issues for discussion.

Yes – via conditions, refer below

 

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards – Height of Buildings

Clause 4.6 provides a mechanism for development consent to be granted where a development contravenes a development standard. The clause stipulates that the consent authority must consider and be satisfied that a written request from the applicant justifies the contravention by demonstrating that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention. Furthermore, the consent authority must be satisfied that the development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the standard and the zone.

 

The proposal has been assessed as non-compliant with the development standard contained within clause 4.3 ‘height of buildings’ of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The clause stipulates that the height of a building on the site is not to exceed 9.5m. Whilst the proposed alterations and additions will not increase the height of the existing roof ridge, it will be extended towards the rear of the site where the ground levels below the ridge drop away dramatically. The result of this is that the extended roof ridge will have a maximum height up to 11.71m which represents a 23% variation of the development standard.

 

In accordance with the requirements of clause 4.6, the applicant has submitted the following written request to vary the building height development standard.

 

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

The applicant’s request and the assessing officer’s assessment have determined that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. The key points are as follows:

 

§ The proposed extended roof line for the purposes of a habitable attic space will only be a minor addition to the bulk of the building. The additional bulk is located to the rear of the building in the centre of the site and as such will not have any visual impact on the streetscape appearance of the dwelling;

 

§ The modest scale of the roof addition ensures that neighbouring properties are only minimally affected in terms of additional overshadowing which has been assessed as complying with the DCP 2013 provisions. Furthermore, the FSR of the development remains compliant and as such the overall bulk of the structure is reasonable for the site and surrounds;

 

§ The roof addition will include new windows facing the sides and to the rear. Given the level of the attic is well above the neighbouring properties to the rear, the views will be well over the top of neighbouring properties. The views from the side windows will separated from the side boundaries by 5-6m and as such any minor cross views to neighbouring rear yards that may be available will not cause any noteworthy impact;

 

§ The height non-compliance is primarily the result of the sharply sloping site to the rear. As illustrated in Figure 5, the roof addition is 9.5m in height up to 11.71m at the rear-most point which is due to the existing ground levels beneath falling away into the gully below; and,

 

§ The objectives of the height development standard are achieved despite non-compliance. Consistency with the objectives of the height development standard is detailed in the public interest section below.

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

The applicant’s request and the assessing officer’s assessment satisfactorily demonstrate that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravention. The key points are as follows:

 

§ The height of the dwelling is being maintained, the roof line is just being extended slightly to the rear. This extension will allow for the conversion of the attic space into a new master bedroom for the dwelling which will provide a large additional bedroom to the existing two bedroom dwelling. This is considered an improved planning outcome as it will result in better utilisation and amenity of the site which is zoned for medium density residential development.

height - roof

Figure 5. Marked North-West Elevation showing the height of the extended roof. (Source: Hampshire Design / Marked: James Arnold)

Despite the height variation, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the height standard and the objectives of the zone as follows:

 

Objective

Proposal

Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings

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

The proposal seeks only a minor addition to the built form of the existing dwelling and will remain compliant with the FSR provisions. The bulk of the structure is considered to be consistent with surrounding development which comprises a mixture of dwellings and flat buildings within a medium density residential zone.

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

The adjacent Moira Ave HCA and nearby heritage items are of inter-war architectural styles and include small two storey flat buildings. The development maintains the existing bungalow architectural style of the development with the alterations and additions matching the existing style. This will ensure the development does not adversely impact the adjoining HCA and nearby heritage items.

(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 proposal seeks only a minor addition to the building and new and larger rear decks. Impacts of the development are minimal which is discussed in the above points. The visual bulk of the rear deck is discussed further under the key issues section of the report and will be made acceptable by condition.

Zone R3 Medium Density Residential

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

The proposal will better utilise the site introducing a third bedroom and improve the amenity of the dwelling. This will be consistent with the medium density environment.

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

The proposal will improve the amenity of the existing dwelling house which provides for a variety of housing types in the area.

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

The proposal will not inhibit the ability of the zone to accommodate other land uses.

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

The streetscape appearance of the development will remain unchanged.

To protect the amenity of residents.

The amenity of residents will be improved on the site and the adjoining sites will be minimally affected. The large rear deck proposed is discussed under the key issue section of this report and will be reduced in size via condition to minimise visual bulk issues for neighbours.

To encourage housing affordability.

The proposal will not have any notable impact on housing affordability.

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

The proposal will not inhibit the ability of the zone to accommodate small scale businesses.

 

Clause 5.10 – Heritage Conservation

The site adjoins the western edge of the Moira Crescent Heritage Conservation Area and is within 50-100m east of the Heritage listed Residential Flat Buildings at 23 and 31 Marvel Avenue (see Figure 6). Accordingly, the proposal has been assessed against the relevant heritage provisions for the development which are contained within clause 5.10 of the RLEP 2012 and Part B2 of the RDCP 2013.

 

Figure 6. RLEP 2012 Heritage Map with the site shown in green adjoining the Miora Crescent HCA in red and within the vicinity of heritage items I404 and I405.

(Source: Council Mapping)

 

A Heritage Impact Statement was submitted with the application and the application was referred to Council’s Heritage Consultant for review. Council’s Heritage Consultant generally raised no objections to the proposal and has recommended conditions and advised on some minor design modifications. These recommended conditions relate to the provision of detailed finishes and materials to ensure the alterations and additions remain consistent with the style of the existing dwelling.  Furthermore, some advisory comments were provided relating to the heritage values of the dwelling including retaining the chimney and ensuring the style of the proposed new garage door does not attempt to mimic the existing. These advisory comments are considered to be warranted under the heritage planning provisions as the dwelling is considered a contributory item to the adjacent HCA and are appropriate to be conditioned.

 

Based on the comments and recommendations made by Council’s Heritage Consultant, the following conditions are recommended:

 

In relation to the heritage values and impacts of the development, the following amended plans and details are to be submitted to and approved by Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate:

 

·      Amended plans which include demolition plans for all relevant sections and details of the design, height, materials and structure of the front fence and gates are to be submitted and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessment prior to a Construction Certificate being issued. Fencing and gates are to be compatible with the style of the dwelling and the streetscape character. The timber pickets to the front fence are to have a maximum gap of 50mm in order to be sympathetic to the historic fencing styles in the area.

 

·      A complete Schedule of Materials and Finishes including details of the proposed paint scheme are to be submitted and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessment prior to a Construction Certificate being issued. Unpainted surfaces, e.g. - brickwork/stonework are to remain unpainted, and no applied finishes are to be used.

 

·      Amended plans showing the existing chimney to be retained or reinstated are to be submitted and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessment prior to a Construction Certificate being issued.

 

·      The proposed garage doors must not to mimic the existing style and shall be designed to remain sympathetic in terms of fabric/design. The details of the proposed garage doors are to be submitted and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessment prior to a Construction Certificate being issued.

 

·      The details of the proposed entrance driveway gates shall be submitted and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessment prior to a Construction Certificate being issued. The gates shall be designed to remain sympathetic to the existing dwelling and the streetscape.

 

2.5      Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 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 an alternative solution results 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 omitted)

 

2.5.1     Section C1: Low Density Residential

 

Clause

Control

Proposal

Complies?

 

Classification

Zoning = R2

-

2

Site planning

 

 

2.1

Minimum lot size and frontage

 

i)   No battle-axe or hatchet in R2 or R3

ii)   Minimum frontage for attached dual occupancy in R2 = 15m

No subdivision proposed.

N/A

2.3

Site coverage

 

Up to 300 sqm = 60%

301 to 450 sqm = 55%

451 to 600 sqm = 50%

601 sqm or above = 45%

Minor increase due to expanded garage.

Total site coverage 211sqm or 43%.

 

Yes

2.4

Landscaping and permeable surfaces

 

i)     Up to 300 sqm = 20%

ii)    301 to 450 sqm = 25%

iii)   451 to 600 sqm = 30%

iv)   601 sqm or above = 35%

v)    Deep soil minimum width 900mm.

vi)   Maximise permeable surfaces to front

vii)  Retain existing or replace mature native trees

viii)  Minimum 1 canopy tree (8m mature). Smaller (4m mature) If site restrictions apply.

ix)   Locating paved areas, underground services away from root zones.

No change to existing landscaped areas which would likely be compliant exceeding 30% of site area.

N/A

2.5

Private open space (POS)

 

Dwelling & Semi-Detached POS

 

 

 

Up to 300 sqm = 5m x 5m

301 to 450 sqm = 6m x 6m

451 to 600 sqm = 7m x 7m

601 sqm or above = 8m x 8m

Proposed new rear decks are considered POS for the site, given the ground level rear portion of the site is heavily vegetated and inaccessible due the slope.

The new decks have a combined area of 90sqm with sufficient dimensions which is consistent with this control which equates to a POS requirement of 49sqm.

The basement level rear deck is considered excessive in size due to impacts on adjoining properties which is discussed under the Key Issues section of this report.

Yes – refer Key Issues

 

Dual Occupancies (Attached and Detached) POS

 

 

 

451 to 600 sqm = 5m x 5m each

601sqm or above = 6m x 6m each

ii) POS satisfy the following criteria:

·      Situated at ground level (except for duplex

·      No open space on podiums or roofs

·      Adjacent to the living room

·      Oriented to maximise solar access

·      Located to the rear behind dwelling

·      Has minimal change in gradient

N/A – dual occupancy not proposed.

 

 

 

 

N/A

3

Building envelope

3.2

Building height

 

 

 

i)   Maximum external wall height = 7m (Minimum floor to ceiling height = 2.7m)

ii)   Sloping sites = 8m

iii)  Merit assessment if exceeded

External wall heights of the existing building will be unchanged at 5.5m-6.5m which complies with the 8m maximum on sloping sites.

 

Existing 2.7m ceiling heights at basement and ground retained. The new habitable attic will have ceiling heights of 1.9-2.9m. These ceiling heights are acceptable as the edges of the attic where the ceiling heights are lower are largely utilised for storage and wardrobes. The primary usable areas are generally towards the centre where sufficient ceiling heights are provided for the bedroom use. It is also noted that the ceiling heights will have to comply with the minimum heights specified for habitable areas in the Building Code of Australia, which contains ceiling height minimums with attic roof spaces.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

No – Acceptable on merit.

3.3

Setbacks

3.3.1

Front setbacks

i)   Average setbacks of adjoining (if none then no less than 6m) Transition area then merit assessment.

ii)   Corner allotments: Secondary street frontage:

-    900mm for allotments with primary frontage width of less than 7m

-    1500mm for all other sites

iii)  do not locate swimming pools, above-ground rainwater tanks and outbuildings in front

Existing 4.2m minimum front setback to be unchanged.

N/A

3.3.2

Side setbacks:

Semi-Detached Dwellings:

·      Frontage less than 6m = merit

·      Frontage b/w 6m and 8m = 900mm for all levels

Dwellings and dual occs:

·      Frontage less than 9m = 900mm

·      Frontage b/w 9m and 12m = 900mm (Gnd & 1st floor) 1500mm above

·      Frontage over 12m = 1200mm (Gnd & 1st floor), 1800mm above.

Refer to 6.3 and 7.4 for parking facilities and outbuildings

No change to side setbacks apart from the minor widening of the garage which will have a western side setback of 300mm – 1.7m.

This setback is acceptable given the garage is single storey and only a minor portion comes close to the boundary due to the angle of the side boundary. The minor reduction in the side setback of the garage will not have any impacts on the adjoining property.

Yes

3.3.3

Rear setbacks

i)   Minimum 25% of allotment depth or 8m, whichever lesser. Note: control does not apply to corner allotments.

ii)   Provide greater than aforementioned or demonstrate not required, having regard to:

-    Existing predominant rear setback line - reasonable view sharing (public and private)

-    protect the privacy and solar access

iii)  Garages, carports, outbuildings, swimming or spa pools, above-ground water tanks, and unroofed decks and terraces attached to the dwelling may encroach upon the required rear setback, in so far as they comply with other relevant provisions.

iv)  For irregularly shaped lots = merit assessment on basis of:-

-    Compatibility

-    POS dimensions comply

-    minimise solar access, privacy and view sharing impacts

Refer to 6.3  and 7.4 for parking facilities and  outbuildings

7.6m is 25% of the allotment depth which is the applicable rear setback requirement.

 

The proposal will not change the existing rear building line which is a compliant 8.87m-10.27m.

 

In accordance with control (iii) the new rear basement deck will encroach into the rear setback with a rear setback of 2.27m. This setback is considered insufficient as it will result in visual bulk, overshadowing and overlooking to the adjoining properties. This issue is discussed further in the Key Issues section of this report.

Yes – via condition refer Key Issues

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

The proposed alterations maintain the existing building design, with only a simple extension of the main roof line to the rear. The design is compatible with the surroundings and the site.

Yes

4.2

Additional Provisions for symmetrical semi-detached dwellings

 

i)     Enhance the pair as coherent entity:

·      behind apex of roof; low profile or consistent with existing roof

·      new character that is first floor at front only after analysis streetscape outcome

ii)     Constructed to common boundary of adjoining semi

iii & iv)avoid exposure of blank party walls to adjoining semi and public domain

N/A – not semi-detached dwellings.

N/A

4.3

Additional Provisions for Attached Dual Occupancies

 

Should present a similar bulk as single dwellings

i)   Garage for each dwelling shall have a single car width only

ii)   Articulate and soften garage entry

iii)  Minimise driveway width

iv)  Maximum 2m setback of front entry from front façade

v)  Maximise landscape planting at front

N/A – not dual occupancies.

N/A

4.4

Roof Design and Features

 

 

 

Rooftop terraces

i)   on stepped buildings only (not on uppermost or main roof)

ii)   above garages on sloping sites (where garage is on low side)

Dormers

iii)  Dormer windows don’t dominate

iv)  Maximum 1500mm height, top is below roof ridge; 500mm setback from side of roof, face behind side elevation, above gutter of roof.

v)  Multiple dormers consistent

vi)  Suitable for existing

Celestial windows and skylights

vii) Sympathetic to design of dwelling

Mechanical equipment

viii) Contained within roof form and not visible from street and surrounding properties.

Dormer window proposed to rear of attic level. The dormer is incorporated into the design of the roof form and faces the rear of the site. It is considered to be appropriate and will not have any adverse impact on the appearance of the dwelling and will not be visible in the street.

Yes

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 climate to withstand natural weathering, ageing and deterioration.

vi)  recycle and re-use sandstone

(See also section 8.3 foreshore area.)

A Materials and Finishes schedule was submitted with the DA. The alterations and additions match the existing dwelling including bricks, timber decking and glass balustrades. The colour pallete is considered to be neutral and recessive. Sufficient articulation and visual interest is provided in the design. Overall the colours, materials and finishes are considered appropriate.

 

It is noted that the Heritage Consultant recommended additional detail of materials and finishes specifically regarding the front gate and garage doors are provided at the Construction Certificate stage.

Yes

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)  If site conditions require setbacks < 900mm, retaining walls must be stepped with each stepping not exceeding a maximum height of 2200mm.

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.

No significant retaining walls or excavation is proposed.

The new rear decks are to be supported by posts on piers which will require only minor contained excavation.

Yes

5

Amenity

5.1

Solar access and overshadowing

 

Solar access to proposed development:

 

 

 

i)   Portion of north-facing living room windows must receive a minimum of 3 hrs direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June

 

ii)   POS (passive recreational activities) receive a minimum of 3 hrs of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

Subject Site:

 

The existing and proposed altered dwelling does not have any north-facing living rooms given the orientation of the site.

 

The proposed extended rear deck will be the POS for the site and the submitted shadow diagrams indicate that it will receive compliant sunlight of approximately 3 hours between 1-4pm in mid-winter.

Yes

 

Solar access to neighbouring development:

 

 

 

i)   Portion of the north-facing living room windows must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

iv)  POS (passive recreational activities) receive a minimum of 3 hrs of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

v)  solar panels on neighbouring dwellings, which are situated not less than 6m above ground level (existing), must retain a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. If no panels, direct sunlight must be retained to the northern, eastern and/or western roof planes (not <6m above ground) of neighbouring dwellings.

vi)  Variations may be acceptable subject to a merits assessment with regard to:

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

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

·      Topography of the subject and adjoining allotments.

·      Location and level of the windows in question.

·      Shadows cast by existing buildings on the neighbouring allotments.

Adjoining properties:

 

The proposed alterations and additions will lead to some minor additional overshadowing as a result of the extended roof ridge to the rear and the extended rear deck.

 

The submitted solar access diagrams indicate that the additional overshadowing is generally minor and will primarily affect the roofs of the properties to the south which sit at a much lower level to the site.

 

The living areas and POS areas of the dwellings to the south will largely maintain existing levels of sunlight which is likely to be in the order of 3 hours in the afternoon in mid-winter. It is noted that there is significant vegetation in the gully to the rear of the site which would overshadow the adjoining properties however vegetation is typically not a consideration for overshadowing.

 

It is also noted that the size of the rear deck is considered excessive as it will be visually obtrusive, overlook and cause additional shadows to the south beyond reasonable for such as structure. Further discussion is contained within the Key Issues section of this report.

Yes

5.2

Energy Efficiency and Natural Ventilation

 

i)   Provide day light to internalised areas within the dwelling (for example, hallway, stairwell, walk-in-wardrobe and the like) and any poorly lit habitable rooms via measures such as:

·      Skylights (ventilated)

·      Clerestory windows

·      Fanlights above doorways

·      Highlight windows in internal partition walls

ii)  Where possible, provide natural lighting and ventilation to any internalised toilets, bathrooms and laundries

iii)  living rooms contain windows and doors opening to outdoor areas

Note: The sole reliance on skylight or clerestory window for natural lighting and ventilation is not acceptable

The internal layout of the dwelling will remain largely unchanged which includes sufficient north, east and western windows to achieve good levels of sunlight penetration.

Yes

5.3

Visual Privacy

 

Windows

 

 

 

i)   proposed habitable room windows must be located to minimise any direct viewing of existing habitable room windows in adjacent dwellings by one or more of the following measures:

-    windows are offset or staggered

-    minimum 1600mm window sills

-    Install fixed and translucent glazing up to 1600mm minimum.

-    Install fixed privacy screens to windows.

-    Creating a recessed courtyard (minimum 3m x 2m).

ii)   orientate living and dining windows away from adjacent dwellings (that is orient to front or rear or side courtyard)

The only new habitable room windows proposed are to the rear master bedroom within the new attic level. Given the level of the site is well above the neighbouring properties to the rear, the views to the rear will be well over the top of neighbouring properties. The views from the side windows will be well separated from the side boundaries by 5-6m and as such any minor cross views to neighbouring rear yards that may be available is not of concern.

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

Balcony

 

 

 

iii)  Upper floor balconies to street or rear yard of the site (wrap around balcony to have a narrow width at side)

iv)  minimise overlooking of POS via privacy screens (fixed, minimum of 1600mm high and achieve  minimum of 70% opaqueness (glass, timber or metal slats and louvers)

v) Supplementary privacy devices:  Screen planting and planter boxes (Not sole privacy protection measure)

vi)  For sloping sites, step down any ground floor terraces and avoid large areas of elevated outdoor recreation space.

The proposed alterations and additions includes new larger rear decks.

 

The ground level rear deck is not of concern for privacy as it is setback 7m from the rear boundary and is only the secondary area of POS with the larger deck below being the primary POS. Furthermore, the height of the deck at over 10m above the gully below will ensure any views will be well over the top of surrounding POS areas of adjoining properties.

 

The lower level rear deck will result in unacceptable overlooking as it is large with minor setbacks. Conditions are recommended to reduce the size, increase the setbacks, and introduce screening balustrades to minimise overlooking impacts. Detailed discussion on the lower level rear deck is provided in the Key Issues section of this report.

Yes – via condition refer Key Issues

5.4

Acoustic Privacy

 

i)   noise sources not located adjacent to adjoining dwellings bedroom windows

Attached dual occupancies

ii)   Reduce noise transmission between dwellings by:

-    Locate noise-generating areas and quiet areas adjacent to each other.

-    Locate less sensitive areas adjacent to the party wall to serve as noise buffer.

Proposed new rear decks are the only new noise source proposed. These are not located near any noise sensitive areas such as bedrooms.

Yes

5.5

Safety and Security

 

i)   dwellings main entry on front elevation (unless narrow site)

ii)   Street numbering at front near entry.

iii)  1 habitable room window (glazed area min 2 square metres) overlooking the street or a public place.

iv)  Front fences, parking facilities and landscaping does not to obstruct casual surveillance (maintain safe access)

No change to safety and security of the site with the existing front doors and windows unchanged.

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)

The proposal includes only a minor roof extension and unroofed larger decks which will have minimal impact on any views available across the site.

Yes

6

Car Parking and Access

6.1

Location of Parking Facilities:

 

 

 

i)   Maximum 1 vehicular access

ii)   Locate off rear lanes, or secondary street frontages where available.

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

Note: See 6.2 for circumstances when parking facilities forward of the front façade alignment may be considered.

iv)  Single width garage/carport if frontage <12m;

Double width if:

-    Frontage >12m,

-    Consistent with pattern in the street;

-    Landscaping provided in the front yard.

v)  Minimise excavation for basement garages

vi)  Avoid long driveways (impermeable surfaces)

Existing single width crossover to the site from Marcel Avenue to be retained.

 

New single garage to replace existing single garage is appropriately dimensioned and located slightly behind the front building line consistent with the existing garage.

Yes

6.2

Parking Facilities forward of front façade alignment (if other options not available)

 

i)   The following may be considered:

-    An uncovered single car space

-    A single carport (max. external width of not more than 3m and

-    Landscaping incorporated in site frontage

ii)   Regardless of the site’s frontage width, the provision of garages (single or double width) within the front setback areas may only be considered where:

-    There is no alternative, feasible location for accommodating car parking;

-    Significant slope down to street level

-    does not adversely affect the visual amenity of the street and the surrounding areas;

-    does not pose risk to pedestrian safety and

-    does not require removal of significant contributory landscape elements (such as rock outcrop or sandstone retaining walls)

N/A – No parking proposed forward of front building line.

N/A

6.3

Setbacks of Parking Facilities

 

i)   Garages and carports comply with Sub-Section 3.3 Setbacks.

ii)   1m rear lane setback

iii)  Nil side setback where:

-    nil side setback on adjoining property;

-    streetscape compatibility;

-    safe for drivers and pedestrians; and

-    Amalgamated driveway crossing

New single garage to replace existing single garage is appropriately dimensioned and located slightly behind the front building line consistent with the existing garage.

 

The minor widening of the garage which will have a western side setback of 300mm – 1.7m.

 

This setback is acceptable given the garage is single storey and only a minor portion comes close to the boundary due to the angle of the side boundary. The minor reduction in the side setback of the garage will not have any impacts on the adjoining property.

Yes

6.4

Driveway Configuration

 

Maximum driveway width:

-    Single driveway – 3m

-    Double driveway – 5m

Must taper driveway width at street boundary and at property boundary

 

Proposed driveway to be widened to 3m.

Yes

6.5

Garage Configuration

 

i)   recessed behind front of dwelling

ii)   The maximum garage width (door and piers or columns):

-    Single garage – 3m

-    Double garage – 6m

iii)  5.4m minimum length of a garage

iv)  2.6m max wall height of detached garages

v)  recess garage door 200mm to 300mm behind walls (articulation)

vi)  600mm max. parapet wall or bulkhead

vii) minimum clearance 2.2m AS2890.1

Refer to setbacks for discussion on slightly reduced side setback for new garage (as compared to the existing garage side setback).

Yes

6.6

Carport Configuration

 

i)   Simple post-support design (max. semi-enclosure using timber or metal slats minimum 30% open).

ii)   Roof: Flat, lean-to, gable or hipped with pitch that relates to dwelling

iii)  3m maximum width.

iv)  5.4m minimum length

v)  2.6m maximum height with flat roof or 3.0m max. height for pitched roof.

vi)  No solid panel or roller shutter door.

vii) front gate allowed (minimum 30% open)

viii) Gate does not open to public land

N/A – No carports proposed.

N/A

6.7

Hardstand Car Space Configuration

 

i)   Prefer permeable materials in between concrete wheel strips.

ii)   2.4m x 5.4m minimum dimensions

N/A – No hardstand open parking proposed.

N/A

7

Fencing and Ancillary Development

7.1

General - Fencing

 

i)   Use durable materials

ii)   sandstone not rendered or painted

iii)  don’t use steel post and chain wire, barbed wire or dangerous materials

iv)  Avoid expansive surfaces of blank rendered masonry to street

New vehicle entry gate proposed to match existing. The heritage officer has requested further details of the fence style that will be required to be submitted prior to Construction Certificate. Further discussion is provided under Key Issues.

Yes – via condition refer Key Issues

7.2

Front Fencing

 

i)   1200mm max. (Solid portion not exceeding 600mm), except for piers.

     -  1800mm max. provided upper two-thirds partially open (30% min), except for piers.

ii)   lightweight materials used for open design and evenly distributed

iii)  1800mm max solid front fence permitted in the following scenarios:

-    Site faces arterial road

-    Secondary street frontage (corner allotments) and fence is behind the alignment of the primary street façade (tapered down to fence height at front alignment).

Note: Any solid fences must avoid continuous blank walls (using a combination of materials, finishes and details, and/or incorporate landscaping (such as cascading plants))

iv)  150mm allowance (above max fence height) for stepped sites

v)  Natural stone, face bricks and timber are preferred. Cast or wrought iron pickets may be used if compatible

vi)  Avoid roofed entry portal, unless complementary to established fencing pattern in heritage streetscapes.

vii) Gates must not open over public land.

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

ix)  Splay fence adjacent to the driveway to improve driver and pedestrian sightlines.

New vehicle entry gate proposed to match existing which is open style and does not exceed 1.2m in height. The heritage officer has requested further details of the fence style that will be required to be submitted prior to Construction Certificate. Further discussion is provided under Key Issues.

Yes – Refer Key Issues

7.3

Side and rear fencing

 

i)   1800mm maximum height (from existing ground level). Sloping sites step fence down (max. 2.2m).

ii)   Fence may exceed max. if  level difference between sites

iii)  Taper down to front fence height once past the front façade alignment.

iv)  Both sides treated and finished.

N/A – no change to existing side and rear fencing.

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)  First floor addition to existing may be considered subject to:

-    Containing it within the roof form (attic)

-    Articulating the facades;

-    Using screen planting to visually soften the outbuilding;

-    Not being obtrusive when viewed from the adjoining properties;

-    Maintaining adequate solar access to the adjoining dwellings; and

-    Maintaining adequate privacy to the adjoining dwellings.

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

N/A – No outbuildings proposed.

N/A

7.5

Swimming pools and Spas

 

i)   Locate behind the front building line

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

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

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

v)  Setback coping a minimum of 900mm from the 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.

Proposal includes a new enlarged rear deck at basement level that includes a plunge pool. Given the deck and pool will be elevated over 8m above the natural ground level, there will be no noise sensitive areas of adjoining properties that are within close distance. Furthermore, the deck has been conditioned to be setback further from the sides and rear which will further reduce noise to neighbours.

Appropriate conditions are included to ensure pool plant is within an acoustic enclosure.

Yes

7.6

Air conditioning equipment

 

i)   Minimise visibility from street.

ii)   Avoid locating on the street or laneway elevation of buildings.

iii)  Screen roof mounted A/C from view by parapet walls, or within the roof form.

iv)  Locate to minimise noise impacts on bedroom areas of adjoining dwellings.

N/A – No air conditioning equipment proposed.

N/A

7.7

Communications Dishes and Aerial Antennae

 

i)   Max. 1 communications dish and 1 antenna per dwelling.

ii)   Positioned to minimise visibility from the adjoining dwellings and the public domain, and must be:

-    Located behind the front and below roof ridge;

-    minimum 900mm side and rear setback and

-    avoid loss of views or outlook amenity

iii)  Max. 2.7m high freestanding dishes (existing).

N/A – No communication dishes proposed.

N/A

7.8

Clothes Drying Facilities

 

i)   Located behind the front alignment and not be prominently visible from the street

Large areas of the new decks are available for clothes drying facilities which is located behind the front building line.

Yes

 

3.0      Referral Comments

 

Referral Officer

Comments

Development Engineer

No objections were raised, subject to conditions.

Landscape Technician

No objections were raised, subject to conditions.

It noted that the conditions relating to removal of existing vegetation within the gully at the rear of the site are still applicable despite the rear deck being conditioned to be reduced in size. The vegetation removal under the landscaping conditions is primarily due to the type of species and health of the trees rather being necessitated by the proposed rear deck.

Heritage Consultant

Council’s Heritage Consultant generally raised no objections to the proposal and has recommended conditions and advised on some minor design modifications. These recommended conditions and advisory comments are considered to be warranted under the heritage planning provisions and have been incorporated into conditions of consent.

For informational purposes, some of the key comments of the heritage consultant are provided below:

 

As the addition will only be visible from the rear of the subject residence, it will not impact the Marcel Avenue streetscape and adjacent HCA. The topography of the site will further assist in obscuring the addition from view along Marcel Avenue, which slopes down to the south…

The proposed addition requires modifications to the existing roof form, towards the rear, involving removal of the existing chimney. As such, it should be noted that retention or reinstatement of the existing chimney would result in a more positive heritage outcome and therefore should be considered by the applicant…

It is recommended, however, that the newly-installed garage doors not mimic the existing, but rather be of a simple design. Furthermore, it is recommended that a more sympathetic design and colour be explored for the entrance gates to replace the existing, as opposed to the arched design proposed…

…deck extension, with spa and plunge pool, and ground floor deck addition will not be visible from the Marcel Avenue streetscape, as they will be set toward the rear of the dwelling…

…the following conditions are recommended for inclusion in a consent:

·      updated plans which include demolition plans for all relevant sections and details of the design, height, materials and structure of the front fence and gates are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. Fencing and gates are to be compatible with the style of the dwelling and the streetscape character. The timber pickets to the front fence are to have a maximum gap of 50mm in order to be sympathetic to the historic fencing styles in the area; and

·      a complete Schedule of Materials and Finishes including details of the proposed paint scheme are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. Unpainted surfaces, e.g. - brickwork/stonework are to remain unpainted, and no applied finishes are to be used.

The following suggestions are also made as a means of achieving an improved heritage outcome overall as an advisory design modification:

·      that retention or reinstatement of the existing chimney be considered;

·      that the newly-installed garage doors not mimic the existing, but be both sympathetic in terms of their fabric/design and simple in design; and

·      that a more sympathetic design and colour be explored for the replacement entrance driveway gates.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That the RDAP is satisfied that the matters required to be addressed under clause 4.6(4) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 have been demonstrated and that consent may be granted to the development application, which contravenes the height of buildings development standard in Clause 4.3 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The concurrence of the Director of the Department of Planning & Environment may be assumed.

 

B.     That the RDAP grants development consent under Sections 4.16 and 4.17 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 366/2017 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling comprising new rear decks including a plunge pool, replacement of the existing garage with a new garage, conversion of attic space into habitable space, and minor internal alteraions, at No. 15 Marcel Avenue Coogee, subject to the development consent conditions attached to this report.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Development Consent Conditions - DA.366.2017 - 15 Marcel Avenue Coogee

 

 

 

 


Development Consent Conditions - DA.366.2017 - 15 Marcel Avenue Coogee

Attachment 1

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Randwick Development Assessment Panel                                                                 14 June 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D52/18

 

Subject:             251 Fitzgerald Avenue, Maroubra (DA/89/2018)

Folder No:                   DA/89/2018

Author:                   Willana Associates, Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                    Demolition of existing structures, construction of a three storey residential flat building containing 7 dwellings and basement garage (variation to floor space ratio controls).

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                Marjoe Pty Ltd

Owner:                        Mr K A Hudson

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=ad8a91ad-e640-47ac-9db5-284b36e61bf6&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

Executive summary

 

The application is referred to the Randwick Development Assessment Panel (RDAP) as  the development is subject to SEPP 65.

 

Approval is sought for the demolition of all existing structures on site and construction of a three storey residential flat building containing 7 dwellings and a basement car park for 10 vehicles, associated site and landscaping works.  

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP.  As a result of this notification, no submissions were received.

 

The proposed development has a maximum floor space ratio of 0.79:1, which does not comply with the development standard under Clause 4.4 of the LEP. The applicant has submitted a request under Clause 4.6 for the exceptions to the floor space ratio standard and the request is considered to be well founded. The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the relevant objectives of the floor space ratio standard and the R3 zones and there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the strict compliance with the floor space ratio standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. 

 

The proposed development adopts a wall height of 9.5m, which does not comply with the wall height control of the DCP. 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 modern designs for residential flat buildings. Despite the proposal including a minor variation to the floor space development standard, the proposed design is generally compatible with the area and considered to be an appropriate built form in the locality.

 

The proposed development would be suitable for the site and would have minimal impacts on the amenity of the adjoining and surrounding properties.

 

For these reasons, the proposed development is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

Proposal

 

Approval is sought for the demolition of all existing structures on the site and the construction of a residential flat building containing seven (7) apartments across three storeys. A basement car park is also proposed containing 10 car spaces.  Landscaping is also proposed across the site. 

 

Amended Plans were submitted to Council on 29 March 2018 in response to comments by the Design Review Panel on 12 March 2018. This assessment has been undertaken based on the amended documentation provided. 

 

Further amended plans were provided on 2 April 2018 (stamped 18 May 2018) in response to a request for further information dated 11 April 2018.

 

Note: Subdivision has not been included in this assessment despite being included in the description as it was excluded on the DA checklist and no information has been provided relating to it. 

A breakdown of the units proposed are indicated in Table 1.

 

Table 1:

Level

Unit

Bedroom

Area

Ground

Apartment 1

One bed

50m2

 

Apartment 2

Two bedroom

75m2

 

Apartment 3

One bedroom

50m2

First

Apartment 4

Two bedroom

75m2

 

Apartment 5

Two bedroom

75m2

Second

Apartment 6

Two bedroom

75m2

 

Apartment 7

One bedroom

50m2

 

Site Description and Locality

 

The subject site comprises of Lot 19 DP 36217, located at 251 Fitzgerald Avenue, Maroubra. The subject site has a primary street frontage of 16.15m, to Fitzgerald Avenue. The side boundaries to the east and west have a length of 36.58m. The rear boundary, to the south has a length of 16.15m.

 

The surrounding locality comprises a mix of detached dwellings, attached dwellings, multi-unit housing and residential flat buildings.  The site currently contains a two storey dwellings house with an attached garage and swimming pool at the rear. 

 

To the east the property adjoins a single storey dwelling house, with landscaping in the front and rear setback.  To the west the property adjoins a two storey residential flat building which is part of a development of two residential flat buildings, surrounded by landscaping.  To the rear, south the property adjoins residential units, which are two storeys in height and fronts Yorktown Parade. 

 

Relevant history

 

Amended Plans were submitted to Council on 29 March 2018 in response to the Design Review Panel 12 March 2018. The main design changes included in the revised drawings where:

 

·           Revised eastern windows so that they are all 3m off the boundary and now comply with required setback;

·           Improved communal open space area to the eastern side of the building;

·           North facing skylights added to rear units (angled at 25 degrees toward the northern sun);

·           Roof over the central breezeway has been lowered to more clearly articulate the two buildings;

·           More landscape provided to podium deck on Level 1 and access shown for maintenance;

·           Front fence made more transparent to soften the interface with the wide landscaped verge of Fitzgerald Ave;

·           2 bedroom apartments increased so all achieve ADG minimum of 75m2;

·           Obscured glass balcony balustrades to screen air-conditioning plant, etc;

·           Lightweight metal cladding specified for top level to improve building articulation;

 

Further amended plans were provided on 20 April 2018 in response to a request for further information dated 11 April 2018.  These amendments included:

 

·           Reduction in area of Unit 7 from 59m2 to 50m2;

·           Lowering roof and skylights to comply with the building height standard; and

·           More detailed sun studies.

This assessment has been undertaken based on the amended documentation provided. 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification.  As a result of this notification, no submissions were received.

 

The amended plans were not renotified given a net reduction in the overall impact of the development.  

 

Key Issues

 

i.          Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to development standard (Floor Space Ratio )

The proposed development has a maximum floor space ratio of 0.79:1, which does not comply with the development standard under Clause 4.4 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