RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Randwick Local Planning Panel Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

Thursday 12 July 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 Local Planning Panel                                                                                   12 July 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Randwick Local Planning Panel Meeting

 

Notice is hereby given that a Randwick Local Planning Panel Meeting of the Council of the City of Randwick will be held in the Council Chamber, 1st Floor 90 Avoca Street Randwick on Thursday, 12 July 2018 at 1pm

 

 

Alternate Chairpersons:                 Garry West

 

Expert Members:                         Kara Krason; Janette Murrell

 

Community Representatives:          Mio Margarit Chow (North Ward)

 

Quorum:                                     Three (3) members

 

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of RLPP 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

D54/18      13/20 Glebe Street, Randwick (DA/3/2018).............................................. 1

D55/18      14/20 Glebe Street, Randwick (DA/4/2018)............................................ 33

D56/18      2 Llanfoyst Street, Randwick (DA/725/2017)........................................... 65

D57/18      130A Marine Parade, Maroubra (DA/198/2017)...................................... 159

D58/18      3 Milford Street, Randwick (DA/128/2018)............................................ 253

Miscellaneous Reports

Nil     

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Kerry Kyriacou

Acting Director City Planning


Randwick Local Planning Panel                                                                                   12 July 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D54/18

 

Subject:             13/20 Glebe Street, Randwick (DA/3/2018)

Folder No:                   DA/3/2018

Author:                   William Jones, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling (unit 13) including conversion of the associated storage area underneath unit 13 into a living area.

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Ducray Design

Owner:                        Mr P I Brownrigg, Ms J E Brownrigg, Ms D D Kielt

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=ad525790-deb8-477d-98c7-45bc440efdd9&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan


 

Executive summary

 

The application is referred to the Randwick Local Planning Panel (RLPP) as the development contravenes the floor space ratio development standard by more than 10% and the development is subject to the State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65).

 

The proposal seeks development consent for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling (unit 13) including conversion of the associated storage area underneath unit 13 into a living area.

 

This DA is assessed concurrently with DA/4/2018 (unit 14), which proposes similar works adjacent to subject unit 13 and is also referred to the RLPP for determination and is recommended for refusal.

 

The proposal was notified in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP). One submission was received raising concerns with privacy and amenity impacts.

 

The proposal contravenes the floor space ratio (FSR) development standard under Clause 4.4 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP) by 28.1% and a request under Clause 4.6 for exception to a development standard has been submitted by the applicant. It is noted that the proposal will result in a reduction in FSR as the existing building does not comply, however as the FSR is being modified the variation must be assessed. The Clause 4.6 request is not acceptable as the proposal is not in accordance with key objectives of the floor space ratio development standard and the R3 Medium Residential zone with regards to residential amenity and environmental needs.

 

The key issues relate to the conversion of the approved storage area at the basement level into a habitable room, resulting in poor residential amenity due to lack of natural light and ventilation and insufficient ceiling height. Non-compliances are proposed to key design criteria as part of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) relating to minimum ceiling height, habitable room width and depth, natural light and ventilation, bedroom size, storage and provision of private open space (POS). Concerns are also raised with the potential use of the study as a third bedroom, which would result in a non-compliant apartment size.

 

A more skilful design is required to alleviate the concerns raised in this report, and therefore the proposal cannot be supported in its current form.

 

Proposal

 

Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling (unit 13) including conversion of the associated storage area underneath unit 13 into a living area.

 

Specifically:

 

·      Conversion of the 42m2 storage area underneath the ground floor of unit 13 into an open-plan lounge and kitchen with bathroom and laundry;

 

·      Installation of glass doors within the existing west-facing opening and 3 new north-facing windows at the basement level;

 

·      Installation of an internal stair connecting the basement and ground floor levels; and

 

·      Conversion of the ground floor to contain 2 bedrooms and a study.

Figure 1. Proposed ground floor alterations (shown in red) and works already carried out (shown in blue)

Figure 2. Proposed basement alterations (shown in red)

Upon inspecting the site it was observed that some works had already occurred that included installation of walls and minor works to the existing bathroom on the ground floor. The applicant was requested to show existing works on a revised site plan. Council’s Building Regulation and Compliance team were notified of the unauthorised works.

 

Site Description and Locality

 

The subject site is known as 13/20 Glebe Street, Randwick and is formally described as Lot 13 SP 95170. The site is 717.5m2, is regular in shape and has a 16.6m frontage to Glebe Street to the east. The site comprises a part 4 and part 5 storey residential flat building (approved in 1941) that contains 14 units. The site does not contain a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area.

 

Unit 13 is located at the rear of the existing building with a dual-aspect to the north and west. The basement level beneath the ground floor is part of the strata lot of unit 13 and is used as storage and contains a WC. The rear private open space that is enclosed by fencing is not allocated to unit 13 as per the approved strata plans, however it is allocated for the exclusive use of unit 13 as part of the strata bylaws and associated strata bylaw plan.

Figure 3. Western façade and (non DA approved) POS

 

IMG_0782

Figure 4. Unouthorised works on ground floor

 

Relevant history

 

·      BA/389/1941 approved the existing residential flat building. The existing building comprises 14 units (8 x 1 bedroom and 6 x 2 bedroom units), with 1 x bedroom units all located at the rear (west) of the site. The original approved drawings shows a laundry within the eastern section of the basement level, with direct access to the adjacent basement level (beneath unit 14) comprising a WC. It is expected that this was a common area. It is not clear whether the western section of the ground floor was approved for parking, however considering the driveway access and width of the western opening it is expected parking was provided.

 

 

Figure 5. Original approved basement plan

 

·      A Complying Development Certificate (CDC/311/2016) was approved by a Private Certifier in November 2016 for alterations and additions and a fire upgrade to the existing building. As part of this CDC, a decked pedestrian pathway was constructed down the original access driveway effectively making the driveway redundant.

 

 

Figure 6. Insert from approved CDC

 

·      The units were converted to strata title via DA/886/2016, approved 20 February 2017 by delegated authority. Conditions were provided requiring removal of the redundant vehicular crossover. The approved strata plans showed the basement level as a “storeroom”. The communal area being used as POS was not approved as part of Pt 13. 

Figure 7. Approved basement strata plan for DA/886/2016

 

Submissions

 

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

 

·      12 Bligh Place, Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

Conversion of the basement will result in privacy impacts to 12 Bligh Place.

 

The proposed living area will not overlook adjoining properties as the west-facing glazed doors and north-facing windows are located at the ground floor (basement) level. No additional upper floor living areas or windows are proposed. Notwithstanding, the DA is recommended for refusal due to poor residential amenity.

The estimated development cost is too low considering remediation, asbestos removal, drainage etc. is required.

Remediation is not required. The estimated cost of works is reasonable considering the minimal works proposed.

Increased noise impacts.

 

Increased noise impacts is not expected to occur given the residential use of the unit is not proposed to change. Notwithstanding, the DA is recommended for refusal due to poor residential amenity.

The proposed development will not comply with natural light controls.

Noted.

 

Potential for light spillage to 12 Bligh Place.

 

A standard condition could be provided so light spillage onto adjoining properties does not occur. Notwithstanding, the DA is recommended for refusal due to poor residential amenity.

The excessive FSR non-compliance will set an undesirable precedent.

 

A variation to the FSR development standard has been assessed and is not supported due to poor residential amenity that is in conflict with objectives of the FSR development standard and the R3 Medium Density Residential zone (refer to Key Issues section below).

 

Key Issues

 

Residential Amenity

The proposal will result in poor residential amenity that cannot be supported for the following reasons:

 

·      The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone contained within the RLEP as the amenity of residents will not be protected due to non-compliances with SEPP 65 and the ADG.

 

·      The proposal does not comply with Clause 4.4 Floor space ratio within the RLEP and is inconsistent with the objectives of this clause as the building will not respond to environmental needs due to non-compliances with SEPP 65 and the ADG.

 

·      The proposal does not comply with Clause 30 of SEPP 65 as the proposed living area does not comply with minimum floor to ceiling heights.

 

·      The proposal is inconsistent with the design quality principles of SEPP 65.

 

·      The proposal does not comply with key design criteria as part of the ADG relating to floor to ceiling height, habitable room width and depth, natural ventilation, bedroom size and storage and provision of private open space.

 

·      The proposal does not comply with development controls as part of the RDCP in relation to provision of natural ventilation and energy efficiency. 

 

Clause 4.6 – Exception to Development Standard

Pursuant to Clause 4.4 of the RLEP 2012, the floor space ratio must not be more than 0.9:1 on the site. A floor space ratio of 1.153:1 is proposed.

 

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

Development Standard

0.9:1 (645.7m2)

Existing FSR

1.159:1 (832m2 including the basement storage)

Proposed FSR for DA/4/2018 (unit 14 = 6m2 reduction in GFA)

1.151:1 (826m2)

Proposed FSR for DA/3/2018 (unit 13 = 4.5m2 reduction in GFA)

1.153:1 (827.5m2)

Proposed combined FSR being assessed concurrently

1.13:1 (813.5m2)

Exceedance of the Development Standard

Existing = 28.8%

DA/4/2018 = 27.9%

DA/3/2018 = 28.1%

Combined = 27.2% (reduction by 1.6%)

 

The applicant has submitted a clause 4.6 exception request. The 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 not accepted on the grounds that:

 

·      The proposed development is not in accordance with key objectives of clause 4.4 and the R3 Medium Residential zone with regards to responding to environmental needs and protecting the amenity of occupants, as discussed throughout this report.

 

Private Open Space / Communal Open Space

No POS was allocated to unit 13 in accordance with the approved strata plan (DA/886/2016). Fencing has been installed at the rear of unit 13, effectively resulting in the privatisation of common property as POS. Despite this, the strata committee has consented to the exclusive use of the common property for unit 14 and the erection of fences as evidenced by the strata bylaws submitted with the DA (see plan below).

 

Figure 8. Approved strata committee plan

 

Notwithstanding, the POS does not form part of the approved strata plan and therefore for the purposes of the subject DA assessment cannot be considered as POS. Inclusion of the common property as POS is not proposed as part of the DA and an assessment of POS in terms of its size and solar access and resulting loss of communal open space has not been provided.

 

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 alterations and additions to the existing dwelling (unit 13) including conversion of the associated basement storage area underneath unit 13 into a living area be refused for the following reasons:

 

·           The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone contained within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 as the amenity of residents will not be protected due to non-compliances with State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development and the Apartment Design Guide.

 

·           The proposal does not comply with Clause 4.4 Floor space ratio within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and is inconsistent with the objectives of this clause as the building will not respond to environmental needs due to non-compliances with State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development and the Apartment Design Guide.

 

·           The proposal does not comply with Clause 30 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development as the proposed living area does not comply with minimum floor to ceiling heights.

 

·           The proposal does is not in accordance with the design quality principles of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development.

 

·           The proposal does not comply with key design criteria as part of the Apartment Design Guide relating to minimum floor to ceiling height, maximum habitable room width and depth, natural ventilation, bedroom size and storage and provision of private open space. Concerns are also raised with the potential use of the study as a third bedroom, which would result in a non-compliant apartment size.

 

·           The proposal does not comply with development controls as part of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 in relation to provision of natural ventilation and energy efficiency. 

 


 

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 proposed development is not in accordance with the State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development, or key development standards and objectives of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (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 does not satisfy key objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 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.

 

 

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. Notwithstanding, the site is not 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 will not result in significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality. Notwithstanding, the proposal does not promote the objectives of the zone and accordingly, the proposal is not considered to be in the public interest.

 


 

 

2.         Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

2.1      State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPS)

 

2.1.1   State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development

The State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65) aims to promote quality design of Residential Flat Buildings. The proposed development is subject to SEPP 65 as it involves the substantial refurbishment of an existing building (which includes part of a building as defined by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

 

The DA was not referred to the Design Excellence Panel (DEP) for advice concerning the design quality of the development given only internal works are proposed with the addition of external windows as part of the proposed living area, which have been assessed against SEPP 65 and the associated Apartment Design Guide below.

 

Clause 30 of SEPP 65 provides standards that cannot be used as grounds to refuse development consent, which include:

 

(1) If an application for the modification of a development consent or a development application for the carrying out of development to which this Policy applies satisfies the following design criteria, the consent authority must not refuse the application because of those matters:

 

(a) if the car parking for the building will be equal to, or greater than, the recommended minimum amount of car parking specified in Part 3J of the Apartment Design Guide,

 

Planning comment: Car parking is not provided on site for the existing building. The additional bedroom will not result in detrimental impacts to on street parking (refer to Development Engineering referral comments).

 

(b) if the internal area for each apartment will be equal to, or greater than, the recommended minimum internal area for the relevant apartment type specified in Part 4D of the Apartment Design Guide,

 

Planning comment: The internal area exceeds minimum requirements for a 2 bedroom apartment with 2 bathrooms. However, the proposed study is capable of being used as a third bedroom, in which case the internal area will not comply with minimum requirements for a 3 bedroom apartment.

 

(c) if the ceiling heights for the building will be equal to, or greater than, the recommended minimum ceiling heights specified in Part 4C of the Apartment Design Guide.

 

Note. The Building Code of Australia specifies minimum ceiling heights for residential flat buildings.

 

Planning comment: The ceiling height for the proposed living area is 2.4m, which does not comply with the minimum ceiling height for a habitable room as required by the Apartment Design Guide, being 2.7m.

 

(2) Development consent must not be granted if, in the opinion of the consent authority, the development or modification does not demonstrate that adequate regard has been given to:

(a) the design quality principles, and

(b) the objectives specified in the Apartment Design Guide for the relevant design criteria.

 

Planning comment: The design quality principles and the design criteria specified in the ADG have been assessed below. Adequate regard has not been given to the principles and the objectives and design criteria as part of the ADG.

 

(3) To remove doubt:

 

(a) subclause (1) does not prevent a consent authority from refusing an application in relation to a matter not specified in subclause (1), including on the basis of subclause (2), and

(b) the design criteria specified in subclause (1) are standards to which section 79C (2) of the Act applies.

 

Clause 28 (2) of the SEPP requires the consent authority to take into consideration the design quality of the development when evaluated in accordance with the design quality principles, and the Apartment Design Guide. These are considered below:

 

Schedule 1 Design quality principles

 

Principle 1: Context and Neighbourhood Context

Good design responds and contributes to its context. Context is the key natural and built features of an area, their relationship and the character they create when combined. It also includes social, economic, health and environmental conditions.

Responding to context involves identifying the desirable elements of an area’s existing or future character. Well designed buildings respond to and enhance the qualities and identity of the area including the adjacent sites, streetscape and neighbourhood.

 

Consideration of local context is important for all sites, including sites in established areas, those undergoing change or identified for change.

 

Planning comment: The subject site is within an established residential area characterised by older-style residential flat buildings to the north, south and west as part of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone, and by single dwellings to the east as part of the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

 

Although the proposal does not seek to modify the existing building envelope thereby not resulting in additional built form / visual bulk that might conflict with the existing context, the proposal is not in accordance with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density zone relating to protection of residential amenity and is therefore not in accordance with the desired future character of the zone.

 

Principle 2: Built form and scale

Good design achieves a scale, bulk and height appropriate to the existing or desired future character of the street and surrounding buildings.

 

Good design also achieves an appropriate built form for a site and the building’s purpose in terms of building alignments, proportions, building type, articulation and the manipulation of building elements.

 

Appropriate built form defines the public domain, contributes to the character of streetscapes and parks, including their views and vistas, and provides internal amenity and outlook.

 

Planning comment: Although there will be no change to the built form and scale of the existing building, internal amenity will be compromised due to non-compliances with floor to ceiling height, habitable room width and depth, natural ventilation, bedroom size and storage.

 

Principle 3: Density

Good design achieves a high level of amenity for residents and each apartment, resulting in a density appropriate to the site and its context.

 

Appropriate densities are consistent with the area’s existing or projected population.

 

Appropriate densities can be sustained by existing or proposed infrastructure, public transport, access to jobs, community facilities and the environment.

 

Planning comment: Internal amenity will be compromised due to non-compliances with floor to ceiling height, habitable room width and depth, natural ventilation, bedroom size and storage.

 

Principle 4: Sustainability

Good design combines positive environmental, social and economic outcomes.

 

Good sustainable design includes use of natural cross ventilation and sunlight for the amenity and liveability of residents and passive thermal design for ventilation, heating and cooling reducing reliance on technology and operation costs. Other elements include recycling and reuse of materials and waste, use of sustainable materials and deep soil zones for groundwater recharge and vegetation.

 

Planning comment: Internal amenity will be compromised due to non-compliances with floor to ceiling height, habitable room width and depth, natural ventilation and bedroom size resulting in a reliance upon technology for lighting, heating and cooling.

 

Principle 5: Landscape

Good design recognises that together landscape and buildings operate as an integrated and sustainable system, resulting in attractive developments with good amenity. A positive image and contextual fit of well designed developments is achieved by contributing to the landscape character of the streetscape and neighbourhood.

 

Good landscape design enhances the development’s environmental performance by retaining positive natural features which contribute to the local context, co-ordinating water and soil management, solar access, micro-climate, tree canopy, habitat values and preserving green networks.

 

Good landscape design optimises useability, privacy and opportunities for social interaction, equitable access, respect for neighbours’ amenity and provides for practical establishment and long term management.

 

Planning comment: No changes to landscaping is proposed. However, it is noted that the POS is not part of the strata lots and therefore privatisation of the communal open space has not been assessed.

 

Principle 6: Amenity

Good design positively influences internal and external amenity for residents and neighbours. Achieving good amenity contributes to positive living environments and resident well being.

 

Good amenity combines appropriate room dimensions and shapes, access to sunlight, natural ventilation, outlook, visual and acoustic privacy, storage, indoor and outdoor space, efficient layouts and service areas and ease of access for all age groups and degrees of mobility.

 

Planning comment: Internal amenity will be compromised due to non-compliances with floor to ceiling height, room width and depth, natural ventilation, bedroom size and storage.

 

Principle 7: Safety

Good design optimises safety and security within the development and the public domain. It provides for quality public and private spaces that are clearly defined and fit for the intended purpose. Opportunities to maximise passive surveillance of public and communal areas promote safety.

 

A positive relationship between public and private spaces is achieved through clearly defined secure access points and well lit and visible areas that are easily maintained and appropriate to the location and purpose.

 

Planning comment: Safety and security will be maintained.

 

Principle 8: Housing diversity and social interaction

Good design achieves a mix of apartment sizes, providing housing choice for different demographics, living needs and household budgets.

 

Well designed apartment developments respond to social context by providing housing and facilities to suit the existing and future social mix.

 

Good design involves practical and flexible features, including different types of communal spaces for a broad range of people and providing opportunities for social interaction among residents.

 

Planning comment: The proposed development seeks to add an additional bedroom, which will provide for housing needs, however this is at the expense of providing adequate residential amenity.

 

Principle 9: Aesthetics

Good design achieves a built form that has good proportions and a balanced composition of elements, reflecting the internal layout and structure. Good design uses a variety of materials, colours and textures.

 

The visual appearance of a well designed apartment development responds to the existing or future local context, particularly desirable elements and repetitions of the streetscape.

 

Planning comment: No changes to the existing building envelope is proposed.

 

Apartment Design Guide

 

Clause 28 of SEPP 65 requires the consent authority to consider the ADG. The following table provides and assessment against the design criteria of the ADG:

 


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

ADG - Design Criteria

Proposal

Complies

Communal and Public Open Space

Communal open space has a minimum area equal to 25% of the site (179.3m2).

 

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

 

No change to communal open space is proposed.

 

 

 

N/A

Deep Soil Zones

Deep soil zones are to meet the following minimum requirements:

Site Area

Minimum Dimension

Deep Soil Zone (% of site area)

650m2 – 1,500m2

3m

7% (55.76m2)

 

No changes to deep soil landscaping is proposed.

 

 

 

N/A

 

Visual Privacy

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

 

Building Height

Habitable Rooms and Balconies

Non-habitable rooms

Up to 12m (4 storeys)

6m

3m

 

No changes to the existing building separation (3m to the northern side boundary) is proposed.

 

N/A

Solar Access and Daylight

Living rooms and private open spaces of at least 70% of apartments in a building receive a minimum of 2 hours direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm at mid-winter in the Sydney Metropolitan Area and in the Newcastle and Wollongong local government areas. A maximum of 15% of apartments in a building receive no direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm at mid-winter

 

Only 50% of units (7 units) within the existing building currently receive compliant solar access, being the units facing north. Subject unit 14 does not currently receive solar access to the south facing living area.

 

Unit 13 will receive >2 hours solar access to the living areas and POS.

 

Yes

Natural Ventilation

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

 

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

 

Cross-over apartment

cross ventilating apartment with two opposite aspects and with a change in level between one side of the building and the other

 

Cross-through apartment

cross ventilating apartment on one level with two opposite aspects

 

Despite the proposed windows in the northern façade, adequate cross ventilation will not be achieved due to the depth of the living room and non-compliant floor to ceiling height.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

Ceiling Height

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

·      Habitable Rooms – 2.7m

·      Non-habitable rooms – 2.4m

 

Floor to ceiling heights for the habitable room is 2.4m, which does not comply.

 

 

No

Apartment Layout

Apartments are required to have the following minimum internal areas:

·      Studio - 35m2

·      1 Bedroom - 50m2

·      2 Bedroom - 70m2

·      3 Bedroom - 90m2

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

·           4m for 2 and 3 bedroom apartments

 

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

 

75m2 required for a 2 bedroom apartment with 2 bedrooms and 86m2 provided. However, the proposed study is capable of being used as a third bedroom and as a result, the proposal will not comply with the 90m2 minimum size requirement.

 

 

 

The proposed living area is provided with 9.2m2 glazing total, which = 21% of the floor area (42m2). Despite compliance with the criteria, due to the non-compliant ceiling height and excessive room depth, natural light and ventilation will not be achieved.

 

Bedroom 1 = 10.8m2

Bedroom 2 = 8.1m2 (excluding 1.1m2 wardrobe)

Bedroom 2 does not comply. 

 

Bedroom 1 = 2.8m x 3.9m.

Bedroom 2 = 3m x 2.1m - 2.8m.

Both bedrooms do not comply.

 

The living room = 3.8m x 9m, which does not comply.

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Environmental Performance

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

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

 

The proposed living area is open plan, combining living, dining and kitchen. In accordance with Figure 4D.3, up to 3 x the ceiling height is acceptable for open plan layouts. The depth of the open plan room from the western glazed door is 9m (3.7 x the 2.4m ceiling height), which does not comply.

 

No

Open Space

All apartments are required to have primary balconies as follows:

·      Studio - 4m2

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

Units 13 and 14 are provided with privatised common areas that are being used as POS, however as these areas have not been assessed as part of the strata plan approved via DA/886/2016, these areas cannot be considered as POS.

 

No

 

Common Circulation Space

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

 

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

 

No changes to common circulation is proposed. 

 

N/A

Storage

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

·      Studio - 4m³

·      1 Bedroom - 6m³

·      2 Bedroom - 8m³

·      3 Bedroom - 10m³

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

 

No storage is provided.

 

No

 

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

SEPP: BASIX requirements came into force for all new dwellings, dual occupancies and some transient residential accommodation where development applications were lodged on or after 1 July 2004. A BASIX assessment is a mandatory component of the development approval process under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) Regulation 2004 and State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

 

A satisfactory BASIX certificate was submitted with the application.

 

2.2      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

The proposal is inconsistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposal will not protect 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)

0.9:1 (645.75m2)

1.153:1 (827.5m2)

No

 

Height of Building (Maximum)

12m

No change to the existing building height is proposed.

N/A

 

Clause 4.6 – Floor Space Ratio

The proposal seeks to vary a development standard contained within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012). A Clause 4.6 exception has been submitted to Council.

 

Pursuant to Clause 4.4 of the RLEP 2012, the floor space ratio must not be more than 0.9:1 on the site. A floor space ratio of 1.153:1 is proposed.

 

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

Development Standard

0.9:1 (645.7m2)

Existing FSR

1.159:1 (832m2 including the basement storage)

Proposed FSR for DA/4/2018 (unit 14 = 6m2 reduction in GFA)

1.151:1 (826m2)

Proposed FSR for DA/3/2018 (unit 13 = 4.5m2 reduction in GFA)

1.153:1 (827.5m2)

Proposed combined FSR being assessed concurrently

1.13:1 (813.5m2)

Exceedance of the Development Standard

Existing = 28.8%

DA/4/2018 = 27.9%

DA/3/2018 = 28.1%

Combined = 27.2% (reduction by 1.6%)

 

The proposal contravenes the maximum floor space ratio development standard contained in clause 4.4 (2) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP).

 

Clause 4.6 RLEP Request to Vary Development Standard

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

 

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

Pursuant to clause 4.6(3) of the RLEP 2012, development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant 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 Feb 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 in certain cases.

 

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

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 Floor Space Ratio standard are set out in clause 4.4 (1) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

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

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

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

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

 

The applicant’s written justifications for the departure from the standard are as follows:

 

 

Assessing Officer’s Clause 4.6 Assessment:

Although the proposed development will result in a 4.5m2 reduction in gross floor area (GFA), given the floor space ratio (FSR) of the building is being modified, an assessment of the overall FSR is carried out, which contravenes the maximum floor space ratio development standard contained in clause 4.4 (2) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP).

 

To understand the extent of the variation it must be determined whether any part of the existing basement level can be counted towards GFA. In accordance with the RLEP definition for GFA, basement storage is excluded. The RLEP defines basement as follows:

 

basement means the space of a building where the floor level of that space is predominantly below ground level (existing) and where the floor level of the storey immediately above is less than 1 metre above ground level (existing).

 

DA/886/2016 required removal of the redundant vehicular access. The approved strata plans show the basement level as a storeroom. The existing ground level is taken to be the ground level beneath the existing basement slab. In accordance with the RLEP definition for basement, as the storey immediately above is greater than 1m above existing ground level the entire approved storage area is not part of a basement and is therefore counted as GFA given only basement storage is excluded. As a result of the proposed development there will be a 4.5m2 decrease to GFA due to the provision of a staircase, which is excluded from the GFA calculation.

 

Despite the decrease in GFA as a result of the staircase, given the FSR of the building is being modified the overall FSR must be assessed, which results in a variation to the FSR control that exceeds 10% given the existing non-compliance.

 

Although the proposed development will not result in additional bulk or impacts to adjoining properties, the proposed development is not in accordance with the objectives of the FSR development standard and the objectives of the R3 Medium Residential zone as it will result in poor residential amenity due to the sub-standard living area due to non-compliances with floor to ceiling height, habitable room width and depth, natural ventilation, bedroom size and storage. Concerns are also raised with the potential use of the study as a third bedroom, which would result in a non-compliant apartment size. Subsequently, a variation to the FSR development standard is not supported.

 

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

 

The applicant’s written request has not successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. The proposal does not achieve the objectives of the FSR development standard or the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone as discussed below.

 

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?

 

It is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the FSR development standard and the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

 

Consistency with the objectives of the Floor Space Ratio standard:

 

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

 

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

 

Planning comment: No changes to the size and scale of the existing building is proposed, which will remain compatible with the character of the locality.

 

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

 

Planning comment: The proposed development will not respond to environmental needs, providing a sub-standard living area due to non-compliances with the minimum floor to ceiling height, maximum habitable room width and depth, natural ventilation, bedroom size and storage.

 

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

 

Planning comment: No changes to the size and scale of the building is proposed, therefore there will be no impacts upon the nearby heritage item to the south-east and the heritage conservation area to the west.

 

(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.

 

Planning comment: No changes to the size and scale of the building is proposed, therefore there will be no increased visual bulk, overshadowing or view loss. Privacy impacts will not occur given new windows will not overlook adjoining properties and existing windows on the upper floor will serve bedrooms and a study, which are not frequented rooms.

 

Consistency with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone: 

 

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

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

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

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

·      To protect the amenity of residents.

·      To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

Planning comment: The proposal does not protect the amenity of residents, providing a sub-standard living area due to non-compliances with floor to ceiling height, habitable room width and depth, natural ventilation, bedroom size and storage. Concerns are also raised with the potential use of the study as a third bedroom, which would result in a non-compliant apartment size. Subsequently, a variation to the FSR development standard is not supported.

 

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

Department of Planning and Environment for development that contravenes a development standard? If so:

 

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

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: 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 Feb 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 in certain cases.

 

Variation from the adherence to the maximum floor space ratio on this occasion is not considered to be of benefit to the orderly use of the site due to impacts upon residential amenity.

 

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

 

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.

 

It is noted that Clause 6 of SEPP 65 refers to Parts 3 and 4 of the ADG and requires:

 

(1)  This clause applies in respect of the objectives, design criteria and design guidance set out in Parts 3 and 4 of the Apartment Design Guide for the following:

 

(a)  visual privacy,

(b)  solar and daylight access,

(c)  common circulation and spaces,

(d)  apartment size and layout,

(e)  ceiling heights,

(f)  private open space and balconies,

(g)  natural ventilation,

(h)  storage.

 

(2)  If a development control plan contains provisions that specify requirements, standards or controls in relation to a matter to which this clause applies, those provisions are of no effect.

 

(3)  This clause applies regardless of when the development control plan was made.

 

Therefore, where the RDCP provides controls in relation to (1), refer to the planning assessment against these criteria as part of the ADG assessment further above.

 

The relevant provisions of the DCP are addressed below.

 

DCP Clause

Control

Proposal

Compliance (Yes/No/NA/ Conditioned)

B7

Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access

3.

Parking & Service Delivery Requirements

 

Car parking requirements:

1space per 2 studios

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

1.2 spaces per 2-bedroom unit

1.5 spaces per 3- or more bedroom unit

1 visitor space per 4 dwellings

 

Motor cycle requirements:

5% of car parking requirement

 

 

Council’s Development Engineer has assessed parking demand and concluded that the additional 2 bedrooms (in conjunction with DA/3/2018 and DA/4/2018) would require 0.4 additional parking spaces, which would not result in significant impact to on street parking.

Refer to Referrals section below

C2

Medium Density Residential

2

Site Planning

2.3

Private and communal open space

2.3.1

Private open space

 

Private open space is to be:

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

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

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

The proposed development does not comply with the POS design criteria provided by the ADG (refer to assessment above).

No

3

Building Envelope

3.1

Floor space ratio

 

0.9:1

1.153:1 (827.5m2)

No

3.2

Building height

 

12m

 

No changes are proposed to the existing building height.

N/A

4

Building Design

4.1

Building façade

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

The additional windows in the northern façade and glazed doors in the southern facade will contribute to the articulation of the building.

Yes

4.7

Apartment layout

 

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

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

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

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

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

The proposed development does not comply with the apartment layout design guidance provided by the ADG (refer to assessment above).

No

 

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

The proposed development does not comply with the apartment layout design criteria provided by the ADG (refer to assessment above).

Yes

 

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

 

The proposed development does not comply with the POS design criteria provided by the ADG (refer to assessment above).

No

 

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

 

The proposed development does not comply with the apartment layout design criteria provided by the ADG (refer to assessment above).

No

4.8

Balconies

 

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

The proposed development does not comply with the POS design criteria provided by the ADG (refer to assessment above).

No

5

Amenity

5.1

Solar access and overshadowing

 

Solar access for proposed development

 

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

The proposed development complies with solar access and daylight design criteria provided by the ADG (refer to assessment above).

Yes

5.2

Natural ventilation and energy efficiency

 

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

The proposed development complies with solar access and daylight design criteria provided by the ADG, however does not comply with the apartment layout design criteria and therefore sufficient daylight and ventilation will not be achieved (refer to assessment above).

No

 

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

Sun shading is not provided to the west-facing glazing.

 

No

 

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

All habitable rooms will have window openings to outdoor areas.

Yes

5.3

Visual privacy

 

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

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

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

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

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

-    Translucent glazing

-    Fixed timber or metal slats

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

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

The proposed development complies with the visual privacy design guidance provided by the ADG (refer to assessment above).

Yes

5.4

Acoustic privacy

 

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

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

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

-    Double glazing

-    Operable screened balconies

-    Walls to courtyards

-    Sealing of entry doors

Living areas and bedrooms are sufficiently separated.

Yes

5.6

Safety and security

 

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

Safe and secure access will be maintained via the existing entrance to unit 13.

Yes

7.6

Storage

 

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

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

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

(a)    Studio apartments – 6m3

(b)    1-bedroom apartments – 6m3

(c)    2-bedroom apartments – 8m3

(d)    3 plus bedroom apartments – 10m3

 

The proposed development does not comply with storage design criteria provided by the ADG (refer to assessment above).

No

7.7

Laundry facilities

 

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

Approved POS is not provided therefore laundry facilities are not available.

No

 

(ii)     Provide internal laundry for each dwelling unit.

A laundry is provided as part of the ground floor.

Yes

 

Referral Comments

 

Development Engineer

An application has been received for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling (unit 13) including conversion of the associated basement storage area underneath unit 13 into a living area (variation to floor space ratio control) at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Building Plans by Ducray Design and Drafting dated 2nd May 2018.

·      Strata Plans (SP) 95170;

·      Statement of Environmental Effects stamped by Council 2nd  January 2018

 

General Comments

No objections are raised to the development subject to the comments and conditions provided in this report.

 

Parking Comments

There is currently no off-street parking provided on the site.

 

The development approvals for the building (being BA/389/1941 & BA/468/1947) are now over 70yrs old and originally approved the basement area as a garage. As part of the more recent development approval for strata subdivision (being DA/886/2016) it was recognised that the existing driveway did not comply with current Australian standards and the garages had not been used for parking for many years. Hence it was required that  the existing vehicle crossing and layback on Council’s  Glebe St verge be removed and replaced with kerb & gutter thereby returning this area to on-street parking and providing a public benefit. In addition the former internal driveway was converted to a timber access walkway under CDC/311/2016

 

The current application now proposes to convert the former garage to a new lounge & kitchen area while the existing lounge & kitchen area on the floor above will become a new bedroom & study. Under Part B7 of Council’s DCP the parking demand generated by the unit will increase from 1 space (for the existing 1 bedroom unit) to 1.2 spaces (for new 2 bedroom + study). The increase of 0.2 spaces is a very minor increase and with the approved conversion of the driveway to a timber walkway and the removal of vehicle crossing, there is no scope to provide additional off-street parking.

 

It should also be noted that a similar application has been lodged for the unit next door (Unit 14) under DA/4/2018 and the cumulative impact of both developments also needs to be considered. If both developments are approved the parking demand on the site will increase by 0.4 spaces (2 x 0.2) which is relatively minor and not expected to significantly impact on on-street parking demand. The recent provision of the additional on-street space as part of the works for DA/886/2010 could be argued to address the extra demand.

 

Strata Comments

A strata scheme under SP 95170 is now operating on the site as approved under DA/886/20110. As the former garaged spaces (depicted as storage on SP 95170), already form part of the strata lot above new strata plans will not need to be prepared for the site and no strata conditions are required.

 

Should the application be approved there are no engineering conditions required to be included by Development Engineering.

 

Recommendation

 

That the RLPP refuse development consent under Section 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 3/2018 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling (unit 13) including conversion of the associated storage area underneath unit 13 into a living area at No. 13/20 Glebe Street, Randwick for the following reasons:

 

·           The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 as the amenity of residents will not be protected due to non-compliances with the relevant provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development and the Apartment Design Guide.

 

·           The proposal does not comply with the development standard for Floor Space Ratio under clause 4.4 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and is inconsistent with the objectives of this clause as the building will not respond to the environmental needs due to non-compliances with the relevant provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development and the Apartment Design Guide.

 

·           The proposal does not comply with Clause 30 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development as the proposed living area does not comply with floor to ceiling heights as specified in Part 4C of the Apartment Design Guide.

 

·           The proposal is inconsistent with the design quality principles of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development.

 

·           The proposal does not comply with key design criteria as part of the Apartment Design Guide relating to floor to ceiling height, habitable room width and depth, natural ventilation, bedroom size and storage and provision of private open space. Concerns are also raised with the potential use of the study as a third bedroom, which would result in a non-compliant apartment size.

 

·           The proposal does not comply with development controls as part of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 in relation to the provision of natural ventilation and energy efficiency.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Randwick Local Planning Panel                                                                                   12 July 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D55/18

 

Subject:             14/20 Glebe Street, Randwick (DA/4/2018)

Folder No:                   DA/4/2018

Author:                   William Jones, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling (unit 14) including conversion of the associated storage area underneath unit 14 into a living area.

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Ducray Design

Owner:                        Apartment 14 Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=ad525790-deb8-477d-98c7-45bc440efdd9&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan


 

Executive summary

 

The application is referred to the Randwick Local Planning Panel (RLPP) as the development contravenes the floor space ratio development standard by more than 10% and the development is subject to the State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65).

 

The proposal seeks development consent for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling (unit 14) including conversion of the associated storage area underneath unit 14 into a living area.

 

This DA is assessed concurrently with DA/3/2018 (unit 13), which proposes similar works adjacent to subject unit 14 and is also referred to the RLPP for determination and is recommended for refusal.

 

The proposal was notified in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP). One submission was received raising concerns with privacy and amenity impacts.

 

The proposal contravenes the floor space ratio (FSR) development standard under Clause 4.4 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP) by 27.9% and a request under Clause 4.6 for exception to a development standard has been submitted by the applicant. It is noted that the proposal will result in a reduction in FSR as the existing building does not comply, however as the FSR is being modified the variation must be assessed. The Clause 4.6 request is not acceptable as the proposal is not in accordance with key objectives of the FSR development standard and the R3 Medium Residential zone with regards to residential amenity and environmental needs.

 

The key issues relate to the conversion of the approved storage area at the basement level into a habitable room, resulting in poor residential amenity due to lack of natural light and ventilation and insufficient ceiling height. Non-compliances are proposed to key design criteria as part of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) relating to minimum ceiling height, habitable room width and depth, natural light and ventilation, bedroom size, storage and provision of private open space (POS).

 

A more skilful design is required to alleviate the concerns raised in this report, and therefore the proposal cannot be supported in its current form.

 

Proposal

 

Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling (unit 14) including conversion of the associated storage area underneath unit 14 into a living area.

 

Specifically:

 

·      Conversion of the 42m2 storage area underneath the ground floor of unit 14 into an open-plan lounge and kitchen with bathroom and laundry;

 

·      Installation of glass doors within the existing west-facing opening and a new south-facing window at the basement level;

 

·      Installation of an internal stair connecting the basement and ground floor levels; and

 

·      Conversion of the ground floor to contain 2 bedrooms and a study.

Figure 1. Proposed ground floor alterations (shown in red)

Figure 2. Proposed basement alterations (shown in red)

Site Description and Locality

 

The subject site is known as 14/20 Glebe Street, Randwick and is formally described as Lot 14 SP 95170. The site is 717.5m2, is regular in shape and has a 16.6m frontage to Glebe Street to the east. The site comprises a part 4 and part 5 storey residential flat building (approved in 1941) that contains 14 units. The site does not contain a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area.

 

Unit 14 is located at the rear of the existing building with a dual-aspect to the south and west. The basement beneath the ground floor is part of the strata lot of unit 14 and is used as storage and contains a WC. The rear private open space that is enclosed by fencing is not allocated to unit 14 as per the approved strata plans, however it is allocated for the exclusive use of unit 14 as part of the strata bylaws and associated strata bylaw plan.

 

Figure 3. Southern façade showing ground and basement levels

 

Figure 4. Western façade and (non DA approved) POS

 

IMG_0778

Figure 5. View east inside basement

 

Relevant History

 

·      BA/389/1941 approved the existing residential flat building. The existing building comprises 14 units (8 x 1 bedroom and 6 x 2 bedroom units), with 1 x bedroom units all located at the rear (west) of the site. The original approved drawings shows a WC within the eastern section of the basement level, with direct access to the adjacent ground level (beneath adjacent unit 13) comprising a laundry. It is expected that this was a common area. It is not clear whether the western section of the basement was approved for parking, however considering the driveway access and width of the western opening it is expected parking was provided.

 

Figure 6. Original approved basement plan

 

·      A Complying Development Certificate (CDC/311/2016) was approved by a Private Certifier in November 2016 for alterations and additions and a fire upgrade to the existing building. As part of this CDC, a decked pedestrian pathway was constructed down the southern access driveway effectively making the driveway redundant.

 

 

Figure 7. Insert from approved CDC

 

·      The units were converted to strata title via DA/886/2016, approved 20 February 2017 by delegated authority. Conditions were provided requiring removal of the redundant vehicular crossover. The approved strata plans showed the basement level as a “storeroom”. The communal area being used as POS was not approved as part of Pt 14. 

 

Figure 8. Approved basement strata plan for DA/886/2016

Submissions

 

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

 

·      12 Bligh Place, Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

Conversion of the basement will result in privacy impacts to 12 Bligh Place.

 

The proposed living area will not overlook adjoining properties as the west-facing glazed doors are located at the ground floor (basement) level. No additional upper floor living areas or windows are proposed. Notwithstanding, the DA is recommended for refusal due to poor residential amenity.

The estimated development cost is too low considering remediation, asbestos removal, drainage etc. is required.

Remediation is not required. The estimated cost of works is reasonable considering the minimal works proposed.

Increased noise impacts.

 

Increased noise impacts is not expected to occur given the residential use of the unit is not proposed to change. Notwithstanding, the DA is recommended for refusal due to poor residential amenity.

The proposed development will not comply with natural light controls.

Noted.

 

Potential for light spillage to 12 Bligh Place.

 

A standard condition could be provided so light spillage onto adjoining properties does not occur. Notwithstanding, the DA is recommended for refusal due to poor residential amenity.

The excessive FSR non-compliance will set an undesirable precedent.

 

A variation to the FSR development standard has been assessed and is not supported due to poor residential amenity that is in conflict with objectives of the FSR development standard and the R3 Medium Density Residential zone (refer to Key Issues section below).

 

Key Issues

 

Residential Amenity

The proposal will result in poor residential amenity that cannot be supported for the following reasons:

 

·      The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone contained within the RLEP as the amenity of residents will not be protected due to non-compliances with SEPP 65 and the ADG.

 

·      The proposal does not comply with Clause 4.4 Floor space ratio within the RLEP and is inconsistent with the objectives of this clause as the building will not respond to environmental needs due to non-compliances with SEPP 65 and the ADG.

 

·      The proposal does not comply with Clause 30 of SEPP 65 as the proposed living area does not comply with minimum floor to ceiling heights.

 

·      The proposal is inconsistent with the design quality principles of SEPP 65.

 

·      The proposal does not comply with key design criteria as part of the ADG relating to floor to ceiling height, habitable room width and depth, natural ventilation, bedroom size and storage and provision of private open space.

 

·      The proposal does not comply with development controls as part of the RDCP in relation to provision of natural ventilation and energy efficiency.

 

Clause 4.6 – Exception to Development Standard

Pursuant to Clause 4.4 of the RLEP 2012, the floor space ratio must not be more than 0.9:1 on the site. A floor space ratio of 1.15:1 is proposed.

 

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

Development Standard

0.9:1 (645.7m2)

Existing FSR

1.159:1 (832m2 including the basement storage)

Proposed FSR for DA/4/2018 (unit 14 = 6m2 reduction in GFA)

1.151:1 (826m2)

Proposed FSR for DA/3/2018 (unit 13 = 4.5m2 reduction in GFA)

1.153:1 (827.5m2)

Proposed combined FSR being assessed concurrently

1.13:1 (813.5m2)

Exceedance of the Development Standard

Existing = 28.8%

DA/4/2018 = 27.9%

DA/3/2018 = 28.1%

Combined = 27.2% (reduction by 1.6%)

 

The applicant has submitted a clause 4.6 exception request. The 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 not accepted on the grounds that:

 

·      The proposed development is not in accordance with key objectives of clause 4.4 and the R3 Medium Residential zone with regards to responding to environmental needs and protecting the amenity of occupants, as discussed throughout this report.

 

Private Open Space / Communal Open Space

No POS was allocated to unit 14 in accordance with the approved strata plan (DA/886/2016). Fencing has been installed at the rear of unit 14, effectively resulting in the privatisation of common property as POS. The strata committee has consented to the exclusive use of the common property for unit 14 and the erection of fences as evidenced by the strata bylaws submitted with the DA (see plan below).

 

Figure 9. Approved strata committee plan

 

Notwithstanding, the POS does not form part of the approved strata plan and therefore for the purposes of the subject DA assessment cannot be considered as POS. Inclusion of the common property as POS is not proposed as part of the DA and an assessment of POS in terms of its size and solar access and resulting loss of communal open space has not been provided.

 

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 alterations and additions to the existing dwelling (unit 14) including conversion of the associated basement storage area underneath unit 14 into a living area be refused for the following reasons:

 

·      The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone contained within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 as the amenity of residents will not be protected due to non-compliances with State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development and the Apartment Design Guide.

 

·      The proposal does not comply with Clause 4.4 Floor space ratio within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and is inconsistent with the objectives of this clause as the building will not respond to environmental needs due to non-compliances with State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development and the Apartment Design Guide.

 

·      The proposal does not comply with Clause 30 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development as the proposed living area does not comply with minimum floor to ceiling heights.

 

·      The proposal does is not in accordance with the design quality principles of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development.

 

·      The proposal does not comply with key design criteria as part of the Apartment Design Guide relating to minimum floor to ceiling height, maximum habitable room width and depth, natural ventilation, bedroom size and storage and provision of private open space.

 

·      The proposal does not comply with development controls as part of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 in relation to provision of natural ventilation and energy efficiency. 

 


 

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 proposed development is not in accordance with the State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development, or key development standards and objectives of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (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 does not satisfy key objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 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.

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. Notwithstanding, the site is not 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 will not result in significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality. Notwithstanding, the proposal does not promote the objectives of the zone and accordingly, the proposal is not considered to be in the public interest.

 


 

2.         Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

2.1      State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPS)

 

2.1.1   State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development

 

The State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65) aims to promote quality design of Residential Flat Buildings. The proposed development is subject to SEPP 65 as it involves the substantial refurbishment of an existing building (which includes part of a building as defined by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

 

The DA was not referred to the Design Excellence Panel (DEP) for advice concerning the design quality of the development given only internal works are proposed with the addition of one external window as part of the proposed living area, which have been assessed against SEPP 65 and the associated Apartment Design Guide (ADG) below.

 

Clause 30 of SEPP 65 provides standards that cannot be used as grounds to refuse development consent, which include:

 

(1) If an application for the modification of a development consent or a development application for the carrying out of development to which this Policy applies satisfies the following design criteria, the consent authority must not refuse the application because of those matters:

 

(a) if the car parking for the building will be equal to, or greater than, the recommended minimum amount of car parking specified in Part 3J of the Apartment Design Guide,

 

Planning comment: Car parking is not provided on site for the existing building. The additional bedroom will not result in detrimental impacts to on street parking (refer to Development Engineering referral comments).

 

(b) if the internal area for each apartment will be equal to, or greater than, the recommended minimum internal area for the relevant apartment type specified in Part 4D of the Apartment Design Guide,

 

Planning comment: The internal area exceeds minimum requirements for a 2 bedroom apartment with 2 bathrooms. It is noted that the proposed study is not enclosed and is not capable of being used as a third bedroom.

 

(c) if the ceiling heights for the building will be equal to, or greater than, the recommended minimum ceiling heights specified in Part 4C of the Apartment Design Guide.

 

Note. The Building Code of Australia specifies minimum ceiling heights for residential flat buildings.

 

Planning comment: The ceiling height for the proposed living area is 2.4m, which does not comply with the minimum ceiling height for a habitable room as required by the Apartment Design Guide, being 2.7m.

 

(2) Development consent must not be granted if, in the opinion of the consent authority, the development or modification does not demonstrate that adequate regard has been given to:

(a) the design quality principles, and

(b) the objectives specified in the Apartment Design Guide for the relevant design criteria.

 

Planning comment: The design quality principles and the design criteria specified in the ADG have been assessed below. Adequate regard has not been given to the principles and the objectives and design criteria as part of the ADG.

 

(3) To remove doubt:

 

(a) subclause (1) does not prevent a consent authority from refusing an application in relation to a matter not specified in subclause (1), including on the basis of subclause (2), and

 

(b) the design criteria specified in subclause (1) are standards to which section 79C (2) of the Act applies.

 

Clause 28 (2) of the SEPP requires the consent authority to take into consideration the design quality of the development when evaluated in accordance with the design quality principles, and the Apartment Design Guide. These are considered below:

 

Schedule 1 Design quality principles

 

Principle 1: Context and Neighbourhood Context

Good design responds and contributes to its context. Context is the key natural and built features of an area, their relationship and the character they create when combined. It also includes social, economic, health and environmental conditions.

Responding to context involves identifying the desirable elements of an area’s existing or future character. Well designed buildings respond to and enhance the qualities and identity of the area including the adjacent sites, streetscape and neighbourhood.

 

Consideration of local context is important for all sites, including sites in established areas, those undergoing change or identified for change.

 

Planning comment: The subject site is within an established residential area characterised by older-style residential flat buildings to the north, south and west as part of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone, and by single dwellings to the east as part of the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

 

Although the proposal does not seek to modify the existing building envelope thereby not resulting in additional built form / visual bulk that might conflict with the existing context, the proposal is not in accordance with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density zone relating to protection of residential amenity and is therefore not in accordance with the desired future character of the zone.

 

Principle 2: Built form and scale

Good design achieves a scale, bulk and height appropriate to the existing or desired future character of the street and surrounding buildings.

 

Good design also achieves an appropriate built form for a site and the building’s purpose in terms of building alignments, proportions, building type, articulation and the manipulation of building elements.

 

Appropriate built form defines the public domain, contributes to the character of streetscapes and parks, including their views and vistas, and provides internal amenity and outlook.

 

Planning comment: Although there will be no change to the built form and scale of the existing building, internal amenity will be compromised due to non-compliant floor to ceiling height, habitable room width and depth, natural ventilation, bedroom size and storage.

 

Principle 3: Density

Good design achieves a high level of amenity for residents and each apartment, resulting in a density appropriate to the site and its context.

 

Appropriate densities are consistent with the area’s existing or projected population.

 

Appropriate densities can be sustained by existing or proposed infrastructure, public transport, access to jobs, community facilities and the environment.

 

Planning comment: Internal amenity will be compromised due to non-compliances with floor to ceiling height, habitable room width and depth, natural ventilation, bedroom size and storage.

 

Principle 4: Sustainability

Good design combines positive environmental, social and economic outcomes.

 

Good sustainable design includes use of natural cross ventilation and sunlight for the amenity and liveability of residents and passive thermal design for ventilation, heating and cooling reducing reliance on technology and operation costs. Other elements include recycling and reuse of materials and waste, use of sustainable materials and deep soil zones for groundwater recharge and vegetation.

 

Planning comment: Internal amenity will be compromised due to non-compliances with floor to ceiling height, habitable room width and depth, natural ventilation and bedroom size resulting in a reliance upon technology for lighting, heating and cooling.

 

Principle 5: Landscape

Good design recognises that together landscape and buildings operate as an integrated and sustainable system, resulting in attractive developments with good amenity. A positive image and contextual fit of well designed developments is achieved by contributing to the landscape character of the streetscape and neighbourhood.

 

Good landscape design enhances the development’s environmental performance by retaining positive natural features which contribute to the local context, co-ordinating water and soil management, solar access, micro-climate, tree canopy, habitat values and preserving green networks.

 

Good landscape design optimises useability, privacy and opportunities for social interaction, equitable access, respect for neighbours’ amenity and provides for practical establishment and long term management.

 

Planning comment: No changes to landscaping is proposed. However, it is noted that the POS is not part of the strata lots, and therefore privatisation of the communal open space has not been assessed.

 

Principle 6: Amenity

Good design positively influences internal and external amenity for residents and neighbours. Achieving good amenity contributes to positive living environments and resident well being.

 

Good amenity combines appropriate room dimensions and shapes, access to sunlight, natural ventilation, outlook, visual and acoustic privacy, storage, indoor and outdoor space, efficient layouts and service areas and ease of access for all age groups and degrees of mobility.

 

Planning comment: Internal amenity will be compromised due to non-compliances with floor to ceiling height, habitable room width and depth, natural ventilation, bedroom size and storage.

 

Principle 7: Safety

Good design optimises safety and security within the development and the public domain. It provides for quality public and private spaces that are clearly defined and fit for the intended purpose. Opportunities to maximise passive surveillance of public and communal areas promote safety.

 

A positive relationship between public and private spaces is achieved through clearly defined secure access points and well lit and visible areas that are easily maintained and appropriate to the location and purpose.

 

Planning comment: Safety and security will be maintained.

 

Principle 8: Housing diversity and social interaction

Good design achieves a mix of apartment sizes, providing housing choice for different demographics, living needs and household budgets.

 

Well designed apartment developments respond to social context by providing housing and facilities to suit the existing and future social mix.

 

Good design involves practical and flexible features, including different types of communal spaces for a broad range of people and providing opportunities for social interaction among residents.

 

Planning comment: The proposed development seeks to add an additional bedroom, which will provide for housing needs, however this is at the expense of providing adequate residential amenity.

 

Principle 9: Aesthetics

Good design achieves a built form that has good proportions and a balanced composition of elements, reflecting the internal layout and structure. Good design uses a variety of materials, colours and textures.

 

The visual appearance of a well designed apartment development responds to the existing or future local context, particularly desirable elements and repetitions of the streetscape.

 

Planning comment: No changes to the existing building envelope is proposed.

 

Apartment Design Guide

 

Clause 28 of SEPP 65 requires the consent authority to consider the ADG. The following table provides and assessment against the design criteria of the ADG:

 


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

ADG - Design Criteria

Proposal

Complies

Communal and Public Open Space

Communal open space has a minimum area equal to 25% of the site (179.3m2).

 

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

 

No change to communal open space is proposed.

 

 

 

N/A

Deep Soil Zones

Deep soil zones are to meet the following minimum requirements:

Site Area

Minimum Dimension

Deep Soil Zone (% of site area)

650m2 – 1,500m2

3m

7% (55.76m2)

 

No changes to deep soil landscaping is proposed.

 

 

 

N/A

 

Visual Privacy

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

 

Building Height

Habitable Rooms and Balconies

Non-habitable rooms

Up to 12m (4 storeys)

6m

3m

 

No changes to the existing building separation (3m to the southern side boundary) is proposed.

 

N/A

Solar Access and Daylight

Living rooms and private open spaces of at least 70% of apartments in a building receive a minimum of 2 hours direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm at mid-winter in the Sydney Metropolitan Area and in the Newcastle and Wollongong local government areas. A maximum of 15% of apartments in a building receive no direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm at mid-winter

 

Only 50% of units (7 units) within the existing building currently receive compliant solar access, being the units facing north. Subject unit 14 does not currently receive solar access to the south facing living area.

 

As a result of the proposed development, unit 14 will receive >2 hours solar access resulting in 57% of apartments receiving compliant solar access. Although the existing building does not comply, the subject unit does comply with the development control as a result of the proposed alterations.

 

Unit 14 complies

Natural Ventilation

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

 

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

 

Cross-over apartment

cross ventilating apartment with two opposite aspects and with a change in level between one side of the building and the other

 

Cross-through apartment

cross ventilating apartment on one level with two opposite aspects

 

The proposed basement living room cannot be cross ventilated due to lack of windows and the depth of the living area in the basement level.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

Ceiling Height

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

·      Habitable Rooms – 2.7m

·      Non-habitable rooms – 2.4m

 

Floor to ceiling heights for the habitable room is 2.4m, which does not comply.

 

 

No

Apartment Layout

Apartments are required to have the following minimum internal areas:

·      Studio - 35m2

·      1 Bedroom - 50m2

·      2 Bedroom - 70m2

·      3 Bedroom - 90m2

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

·           4m for 2 and 3 bedroom apartments

 

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

 

75m2 required for a 2 bedroom apartment with 2 bedrooms and 86m2 provided.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposed living area is provided with 5.4m2 glazing total, which = 12.8% of the floor area (42m2). Despite compliance with the criteria, due to the non-compliant ceiling height and excessive habitable room depth, natural light and ventilation will not be achieved.

 

Bedroom 1 = 11m2.

Bedroom 2 = 10.6m2.

It is noted that wardrobes are not shown however, which would likely result in non-compliance.

 

 

Bedroom 1 = 2.8m x 3.9m

Bedroom 2 = 3.6m x 2.9m.

Both bedrooms do not comply.

 

The living room = 3.8m x 8.4m, which does not comply.

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

Environmental Performance

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

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

 

The proposed living area is open plan, combining living, dining and kitchen. In accordance with Figure 4D.3, up to 3 x the ceiling height is acceptable for open plan layouts.

 

The depth of the open plan room from the western glazed door is 9m (3.7 x the 2.4m ceiling height), which does not comply.

 

No

Open Space

All apartments are required to have primary balconies as follows:

·      Studio - 4m2

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

Units 13 and 14 are provided with privatised common areas that are being used as POS, however as these areas have not been assessed as part of the strata plan approved via DA/886/2016, these areas cannot be considered as POS.

 

No

Common Circulation Space

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

 

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

 

No changes to common circulation is proposed. 

 

N/A

Storage

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

·      Studio - 4m³

·      1 Bedroom - 6m³

·      2 Bedroom - 8m³

·      3 Bedroom - 10m³

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

 

No storage is provided.

 

No

 

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

SEPP: BASIX requirements came into force for all new dwellings, dual occupancies and some transient residential accommodation where development applications were lodged on or after 1 July 2004. A BASIX assessment is a mandatory component of the development approval process under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) Regulation 2004 and State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

 

A satisfactory BASIX certificate was submitted with the application.

 

2.2      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

 

The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

The proposal is inconsistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposal will not protect 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)

0.9:1 (645.75m2)

1.151:1 (826m2)

No

 

Height of Building (Maximum)

12m

No change to the existing building height is proposed.

N/A

 

Clause 4.6 – Floor Space Ratio

The proposal seeks to vary a development standard contained within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012). A Clause 4.6 exception has been submitted to Council.

 

Pursuant to Clause 4.4 of the RLEP 2012, the floor space ratio must not be more than 0.9:1 on the site. A floor space ratio of 1.151:1 is proposed.

 

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

Development Standard

0.9:1 (645.7m2)

Existing FSR

1.159:1 (832m2 including the basement storage)

Proposed FSR for DA/4/2018 (unit 14 = 6m2 reduction in GFA)

1.151:1 (826m2)

Proposed FSR for DA/3/2018 (unit 13 = 4.5m2 reduction in GFA)

1.153:1 (827.5m2)

Proposed combined FSR being assessed concurrently

1.13:1 (813.5m2)

Exceedance of the Development Standard

Existing = 28.8%

DA/4/2018 = 27.9%

DA/3/2018 = 28.1%

Combined = 27.2% (reduction by 1.6%)

 

The proposal contravenes the maximum floor space ratio development standard contained in clause 4.4 (2) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP).

 

Clause 4.6 RLEP Request to Vary Development Standard

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

 

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

Pursuant to clause 4.6(3) of the RLEP 2012, development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant 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 Feb 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 in certain cases.

 

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

 

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 Floor Space Ratio standard are set out in clause 4.4 (1) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

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

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

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

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

 

The applicant’s written justifications for the departure from the standard are as follows:

 

 

Assessing Officer’s Clause 4.6 Assessment:

Although the proposed development will result in a 6m2 reduction in gross floor area (GFA), given the floor space ratio (FSR) of the building is being modified, an assessment of the overall FSR is carried out, which contravenes the maximum floor space ratio development standard contained in clause 4.4 (2) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP).

 

To understand the extent of the variation it must be determined whether any part of the existing basement level can be counted towards GFA. In accordance with the RLEP definition for GFA, basement storage is excluded. The RLEP defines basement as follows:

 

basement means the space of a building where the floor level of that space is predominantly below ground level (existing) and where the floor level of the storey immediately above is less than 1 metre above ground level (existing).

 

DA/886/2016 required removal of the redundant vehicular access. The approved strata plans show the basement level as a storeroom. The existing ground level is taken to be the ground level beneath the existing basement slab. In accordance with the RLEP definition for basement, as the storey immediately above is greater than 1m above existing ground level the entire approved storage area is not part of a basement and is therefore counted as GFA given only basement storage is excluded. As a result of the proposed development there will be a 6m2 decrease to GFA due to the provision of a staircase, which is excluded from the GFA calculation.

 

Despite the decrease in GFA as a result of the staircase, given the FSR of the building is being modified the overall FSR must be assessed, which results in a variation to the FSR control that exceeds 10% given the existing non-compliance.

 

Although the proposed development will not result in additional bulk or impacts to adjoining properties, the proposed development is not in accordance with the objectives of the FSR development standard and the objectives of the R3 Medium Residential zone as it will result in poor residential amenity due to the sub-standard living area with a non-compliant ceiling height, habitable room width and habitable room depth that will not receive adequate natural light and ventilation, and non-compliant bedroom width and lack of storage. Subsequently, a variation to the FSR development standard is not supported.

 

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

 

The applicant’s written request has not successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. The proposal does not achieve the objectives of the FSR development standard or the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone as discussed below.

 

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?

 

It is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the FSR development standard and the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

 

Consistency with the objectives of the Floor Space Ratio standard:

 

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

 

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

 

Planning comment: No changes to the size and scale of the existing building is proposed, which will remain compatible with the character of the locality.

 

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

 

Planning comment: The proposed development will not respond to environmental needs, providing a sub-standard living area with a non-compliant ceiling height, habitable room width and room depth that will not receive adequate natural light and ventilation, and non-compliant bedroom width and lack of storage.

 

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

 

Planning comment: No changes to the size and scale of the building is proposed, therefore there will be no impacts upon the nearby heritage item to the south-east and the heritage conservation area to the west.

 

(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.

 

Planning comment: No changes to the size and scale of the building is proposed, therefore there will be no increased visual bulk, overshadowing or view loss. Privacy impacts will not occur given new windows will not overlook adjoining properties and existing windows on the upper floor will serve bedrooms and a study, which are not frequented rooms.

 

Consistency with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone: 

 

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

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

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

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

·      To protect the amenity of residents.

·      To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

Planning comment: The proposed development will not protect the amenity of residents, providing a sub-standard living area with a non-compliant ceiling height, habitable room width and room depth that will not receive adequate natural light and ventilation, and non-compliant bedroom width and lack of storage. Subsequently, a variation to the FSR development standard is not supported.

 

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

Department of Planning and Environment for development that contravenes a development standard? If so:

 

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

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: 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 Feb 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 in certain cases.

 

Variation from the adherence to the maximum floor space ratio on this occasion is not considered to be of benefit to the orderly use of the site due to impacts upon residential amenity.

 

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

 

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.

 

It is noted that Clause 6 of SEPP 65 refers to Parts 3 and 4 of the ADG and requires:

 

(1)  This clause applies in respect of the objectives, design criteria and design guidance set out in Parts 3 and 4 of the Apartment Design Guide for the following:

 

(a)  visual privacy,

(b)  solar and daylight access,

(c)  common circulation and spaces,

(d)  apartment size and layout,

(e)  ceiling heights,

(f)  private open space and balconies,

(g)  natural ventilation,

(h)  storage.

 

(2)  If a development control plan contains provisions that specify requirements, standards or controls in relation to a matter to which this clause applies, those provisions are of no effect.

 

(3)  This clause applies regardless of when the development control plan was made.

 

Therefore, where the RDCP provides controls in relation to (1), refer to the planning assessment against these criteria as part of the ADG assessment further above.

 

The relevant provisions of the DCP are addressed below.

 

DCP Clause

Control

Proposal

Compliance (Yes/No/NA/ Conditioned)

B7

Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access

3.

Parking & Service Delivery Requirements

 

Car parking requirements:

1space per 2 studios

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

1.2 spaces per 2-bedroom unit

1.5 spaces per 3- or more bedroom unit

1 visitor space per 4 dwellings

 

Motor cycle requirements:

5% of car parking requirement

 

 

Council’s Development Engineer has assessed parking demand and concluded that the additional 2 bedrooms (in conjunction with DA/3/2018 and DA/4/2018) would require 0.4 additional parking spaces, which would not result in significant impact to on street parking.

Refer to Referrals section below

C2

Medium Density Residential

2

Site Planning

2.3

Private and communal open space

2.3.1

Private open space

 

Private open space is to be:

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

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

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

The proposed development does not comply with the POS design criteria provided by the ADG (refer to assessment above).

No

3

Building Envelope

3.1

Floor space ratio

 

0.9:1

1.151:1 (826m2)

No

3.2

Building height

 

12m

 

No changes are proposed to the existing building height.

N/A

4

Building Design

4.1

Building façade

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

The additional glazing will contribute to the articulation of the building.

Yes

4.7

Apartment layout

 

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

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

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

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

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

The proposed development does not comply with the apartment layout design criteria provided by the ADG (refer to assessment above).

No

 

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

The proposed development does not comply with the apartment layout design criteria provided by the ADG (refer to assessment above).

No

 

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

 

The proposed development does not comply with the POS design criteria provided by the ADG (refer to assessment above).

No

 

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

The proposed development does not comply with the apartment layout design criteria provided by the ADG (refer to assessment above).

No

4.8

Balconies

 

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

 

The proposed development does not comply with the apartment layout design criteria provided by the ADG (refer to assessment above).

No

5

Amenity

5.1

Solar access and overshadowing

 

Solar access for proposed development

 

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

The proposed development complies with solar access and daylight design criteria provided by the ADG (refer to assessment above).

Yes

5.2

Natural ventilation and energy efficiency

 

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

The proposed development complies with solar access and daylight design criteria provided by the ADG, however does not comply with the apartment layout design criteria and therefore sufficient daylight and ventilation will not be achieved (refer to assessment above).

No

 

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

Sun shading is not provided to the west-facing glazing.

 

No

 

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

The open plan living room in the basement level is not provided with access to window opening for the depth of the room.

No

5.3

Visual privacy

 

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

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

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

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

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

-    Translucent glazing

-    Fixed timber or metal slats

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

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

The proposed development complies with the visual privacy design guidance provided by the ADG (refer to assessment above).

 

Notwithstanding, the proposed window in the southern façade is provided with a raised window sill height. It will be possible however for occupants walking down the existing path along the southern boundary to look into the kitchen given the slope of the path.

Yes

5.4

Acoustic privacy

 

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

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

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

-    Double glazing

-    Operable screened balconies

-    Walls to courtyards

-    Sealing of entry doors

Living areas and bedrooms are sufficiently separated.

Yes

5.6

Safety and security

 

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

Safe and secure access will be maintained via the existing entrance to unit 14.

Yes

7.6

Storage

 

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

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

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

(a)    Studio apartments – 6m3

(b)    1-bedroom apartments – 6m3

(c)    2-bedroom apartments – 8m3

(d)    3 plus bedroom apartments – 10m3

The proposed development does not comply with storage design criteria provided by the ADG (refer to assessment above).

No

7.7

Laundry facilities

 

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

Approved POS is not provided therefore laundry facilities are not available.

No

 

(ii)     Provide internal laundry for each dwelling unit.

A laundry is provided as part of the basement level.

Yes

 


 

Referral Comments

 

Development Engineer

An application has been received for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling (unit 14) including conversion of the associated basement storage area underneath unit 14 into a living area (variation to floor space ratio control) at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Amended Building Plans by Ducray Design and Drafting dated 7nd March 2018.

·      Strata Plans (SP) 95170;

·      Statement of Environmental Effects stamped by Council 2nd  January 2018

 

General Comments

No objections are raised to the development subject to the comments and conditions provided in this report.

 

Parking Comments

There is currently no off-street parking provided on the site.

 

The development approvals for the building (being BA/389/1941 & BA/468/1947) are now over 70yrs old and originally approved the basement area as a garage. As part of the more recent development approval for strata subdivision (being DA/886/2016) it was recognised that the existing driveway did not comply with current Australian standards and the garages had not been used for parking for many years. Hence it was required that  the existing vehicle crossing and layback on Council’s  Glebe St verge be removed and replaced with kerb & gutter thereby returning this area to on-street parking and providing a public benefit. In addition the former internal driveway was converted to a timber access walkway under CDC/311/2016

 

The current application now proposes to convert the former garage to a new lounge & kitchen area while the existing lounge & kitchen area on the floor above will become a new bedroom & study. Under Part B7 of Council’s DCP the parking demand generated by the unit will increase from 1 space (for the existing 1 bedroom unit) to 1.2 spaces (for new 2 bedroom + study). The increase of 0.2 spaces is a very minor increase and with the approved conversion of the driveway to a timber walkway and the removal of vehicle crossing, there is no scope to provide additional off-street parking.

 

It should also be noted that a similar application has been lodged for the unit next door (Unit 13) under DA/3/2018 and the cumulative impact of both developments also needs to be considered. If both developments are approved the parking demand on the site will increase by 0.4 spaces (2 x 0.2) which is relatively minor and not expected to significantly impact on on-street parking demand. The recent provision of the additional on-street space as part of the works for DA/886/2010 could be argued to address the extra demand.

 

Strata Comments

A strata scheme under SP 95170 is now operating on the site as approved under DA/886/20110. As the former garaged spaces (now depicted as storage on SP 95170), already form part of the strata lot above, new strata plans will not need to be prepared for the site and no strata conditions are required.

 

Should the application be approved there are no engineering conditions required to be included by Development Engineering.

 


 

Recommendation

 

That the RLPP refuse development consent under Section 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 4/2018 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling (unit 14) including conversion of the associated storage area underneath unit 14 into a living area at No. 14/20 Glebe Street, Randwick for the following reasons:

 

·           The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 as the amenity of residents will not be protected due to non-compliances with the relevant provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development and the Apartment Design Guide.

 

·           The proposal does not comply with the development standard for Floor Space Ratio under clause 4.4 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and is inconsistent with the objectives of this clause as the building will not respond to the environmental needs due to non-compliances with the relevant provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development and the Apartment Design Guide.

 

·           The proposal does not comply with Clause 30 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development as the proposed living area does not comply with floor to ceiling heights as specified in Part 4C of the Apartment Design Guide.

 

·           The proposal is inconsistent with the design quality principles of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development.

 

·           The proposal does not comply with key design criteria as part of the Apartment Design Guide relating to floor to ceiling height, habitable room width and depth, natural ventilation, bedroom size and storage and provision of private open space.

 

·           The proposal does not comply with development controls as part of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 in relation to the provision of natural ventilation and energy efficiency.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Randwick Local Planning Panel                                                                                   12 July 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D56/18

 

Subject:             2 Llanfoyst Street, Randwick (DA/725/2017)

Folder No:                   DA/725/2017

Author:                   William Jones, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Demolition of all structures on site and construction of a part two and part three storey multi-dwelling housing development comprising 4 dwellings, car parking for 8 vehicles and associated site and landscaped works.

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                Brenchley Architects

Owner:                        Mr P M Linklater and Mrs A M Linklater

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 


 

Executive summary

 

The application is referred to the Randwick Local Planning Panel (RLPP) as 10 or more unique submissions by way of objection were received.

 

The proposal seeks development consent for demolition of all structures on site and construction of a part two and part three storey multi-dwelling housing development comprising 4 dwellings, car parking for 8 vehicles and associated site and landscaping works.

 

The proposal was advertised and notified in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP). Ten submissions were received raising key concerns with privacy and acoustic impacts, overshadowing, visual bulk, height of the semi-basement car park and height of the eastern boundary retaining wall and fence. Amended drawings were provided showing a reduction in height of the basement level and elevated terraces, a reduction in floor to ceiling heights, modified roof design, inclusion of privacy screening and increased side boundary setbacks. The amended drawings were re-notified and a further 8 submissions were received raising the same key concerns. Eighteen submissions were received in total from seven property addresses.

 

The proposal contravenes the floor space ratio standard under Clause 4.4 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 by 4% and a request under Clause 4.6 for exception to a development standard has been submitted by the applicant. The Clause 4.6 request is acceptable as the additional floor area relates to the provision of an additional visitor parking space, which is desirable and will not result in amenity impacts of adjoining neighbours.

 

The key issues largely relate to the semi-basement that is not entirely contained below existing natural ground level. As a result, elevated east-facing terraces are located above the semi-basement (provided in this location to achieve solar access) and a retaining wall and privacy screen is provided along the eastern boundary ranging in height from 3.5m to 2.1m. Due to the change in level from the subject site to the adjoining properties to the east, the visual bulk of the building and the retaining wall is emphasised when viewed from these properties. Following amended drawings, it is noted that the proposed semi-basement cannot be further lowered due to gradients and floor to ceiling height requirements. The semi-basement level is also constrained due to the state heritage item that adjoins the southern property boundary and the minimal frontage that dictates the driveway access on the western (high) side of the site.

 

Despite the site constraints the proposal complies with the development standard and objectives for building height, wall height, overshadowing, privacy and visual amenity. The proposal is consistent with other medium density development within the transitioning area and is consistent with the desired future character, with sites to the west being elevated above the corresponding property to the east due to the slope of the land. The proposed development follows this characteristic while stepping down from west to east (associated with the lowered terraces), following the site contours. The proposal is therefore recommended for approval subject to non-standard conditions to further reduce amenity impacts to surrounding properties. Notably, conditions are recommended so that the eastern retaining wall is lowered to the height of the terraces (to comply with the RDCP development standard) and that the fencing above is setback to allow low-maintenance landscaping in-between to better articulate and soften the appearance of the wall and the fence.

 


 

Proposal

 

The proposal seeks development consent for demolition of all structures on site and construction of a part two and part three storey multi-dwelling housing development comprising 4 dwellings, car parking for 8 vehicles and associated site and landscaped works.

 

Specifically:

 

·      Construction of 4 x 2 storey multi-dwelling units each comprising living and private open space on the ground floor and 3 bedrooms on the first floor.

 

·      Basement car park comprising 8 car parking spaces including 1 visitor car parking space, 3 bicycle parking spaces and bin storage.

 

Figure 1. Northern (street) perspective.

 

Figure 2. Eastern perspective to adjoining properties that front Pitt Street.

 


 

Revised drawings were received by Council on 7 March 2018 in response to concerns raised by Council and issues raised in submissions. The revised drawings included:

 

·      Revised basement parking arrangement with a visitor parking space.

 

·      Lowering of the basement level by 770mm, resulting in lowering of the ground floor terraces by 570mm.

 

·      A swale along the northern boundary as per Development Engineering requirements.

 

·      A fence above the eastern retaining wall to the eastern terraces.

 

·      Modified roof design to be a pitched roof (no overall building height reduction but a reduction in bulk).

 

·      Additional articulation to all façades by adding blade wall recesses to the first floor and splayed privacy screening including additional street-facing windows.

 

·      Increased side boundary setbacks to the east-facing living rooms (from 3m to 3.8m).

 

Site Description and Locality

 

The subject site is known as 2 Llanfoyst Street, Randwick and is legally described as Lot 2 in DP 13010. The site is 622.1m2 with a north-south orientation (37.1m x 16.7m) and a 9.8m frontage to Llanfoyst Street to the north (a cul-de-sac). The site contains a single storey dwelling with trees and a swimming pool.

 

The site slopes approximately 1.5m from west to east and is approximately 2m higher that the eastern adjoining properties that have frontages to Pitt Street. Western properties are elevated, capitalising on distant horizon water views to the east. Surrounding development is characterised by a mix of residential flat buildings and single dwellings to the west, and single dwellings to the east along Pitt Street. A Local and State Heritage Item is located to the south identified as Nugal Hall, located at 16-18 Milford Street, Randwick.

 

Figure 3. Subject site (left) off Llanfoyst Street.

 

IMG_0748

Figure 4. View north-east from rear of existing dwelling showing slope of the land to the east.

 

IMG_0750

Figure 5. Water views beyond to the east.

 

 

IMG_0745

Figure 6. Heritage Item identified as Nugal Hall abutting the rear (southern) property boundary.

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the original and amended proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. Eighteen submissions were received in total (10 from the original notification and 8 from the re-notification) from the following properties:

 

·      20 Milford Street, Randwick

·      22 Milford Street, Randwick

·      18 Pitt Street, Randwick

·      22 Pitt Street, Randwick

·      20 Pitt Street, Randwick

·      16-18 Milford Street, Randwick

·      3 Llanfoyst Street, Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

The specifications of the first floor privacy screening along the eastern elevation is not provided. 

Conditions are recommended to ensure appropriate screening is provided that will prevent direct overlooking of surrounding properties. Refer to Key Issues section below.

The rear garden of 22 Milford Street will be in shadow from 3:00pm on 21 June. The main living room window is also adjacent to this garden, which will be overshadowed.

The southern properties along Milford Street will receive compliant solar access from 8:00am until 1:00pm on 21 June, with the proposed development causing additional shadow from 1:00pm until 3:00pm only. Refer to Key Issues section below.

The development should follow the natural slope of the land to reduce bulk.

The proposed terraces step down with the slope of the site. Further stepping cannot be achieved due to the basement level below. The proposed development complies with building height and wall height development standards and is sufficiently articulated to minimise visual amenity impacts. Refer to Key Issues section below.

Incomplete survey information in relation to the surrounding Pitt Street and Milford Street properties with windows to Pitt Street properties not surveyed for solar access assessment purposes.

Solar access is assessed against the solar access development standards in the RDCP, which is based upon the submitted shadow diagrams. According to the applicant, the submitted shadow diagrams are accurate and are based on the RL’s provided by the registered surveyor shown on the Survey Plan. These RL’s include some ground levels to the Pitt Street and Milford Street properties near the shared boundary as well as the ridge and eave heights for all existing dwellings on Pitt Street.

 

The proposed development complies with the solar access development standard with east-facing living room windows of properties fronting Pitt Street maintaining solar access. The proposed development will not cause adverse overshadowing to the west-facing living room windows of properties fronting Pitt Street (refer to Key Issues section below and comments provided in response to the following submission issue).

Overshadowing of west-facing living room windows and POS of properties fronting Pitt Street.

 

For 20 Pitt Street, although east-facing living room windows are available, the west-facing living room is the most frequented.

The proposed development complies with solar access development standards, with east-facing living room windows of properties fronting Pitt Street maintaining compliant solar access. Notwithstanding, it is noted that the west-facing living room windows of 20 Pitt Street relate to a frequented living room. The proposed development will cause additional overshadowing to the west-facing living room of 20 Pitt Street from approximately 2:30pm until 3:00pm. The proposed development does not overshadow the west-facing facade outside of these hours.

 

20 Pitt Street is provided with a stagged western façade that will cause some overshadowing to itself, however it is understood that the west-facing windows do currently receive some solar access late in the afternoon (which would be approximately when the proposed development would overshadow it). Despite the additional overshadowing to the west facing windows of 20 Pitt Street, considering other living room windows will receive compliant solar access in accordance with the development standard, it is unreasonable to further modify the proposed development given it complies with building height and wall height development standards and is within a transitioning medium density area (refer to Key Issues section below).

Proposed landscaping does not optimise useability, privacy and opportunities for social interaction, equitable access, respect for neighbours’ amenity and practical establishment and long term management.

Landscaping has been assessed by Council’s Landscape Officer and is considered to be suitable. Refer to Referrals section below.

Privacy impacts associated with the elevated terraces along the eastern boundary. The terraces should be orientated to the front and rear of the site or the basement further lowered.

Privacy impacts will not occur with the inclusion of fencing along the eastern boundary. Refer to Key Issues section below.

Non-compliant eastern side setback with elevated terraces within the 3m setback requirement.

Noted. The proposed development complies with the objectives of the setback development standard. Refer to detailed assessment below.

Non-compliant southern, western and northern boundary setbacks associated with the terraces and parts of the car park.

Noted. The proposed development complies with the objectives of the setback development standard. Refer to detailed assessment below.

The basement car park is primarily located above NGL, which does not comply with C2, 6.1 (v) (a) of the RDCP. There is scope for it to be lowered and still comply with Australian Standards.

The basement level cannot be further lowered. The proposed development complies with the objectives of the setback development standards. Refer to Key Issues section below.

Non-compliant basement car park with the external walls being greater than 1.2m above NGL.

Noted. The proposed development complies with the objectives of the basement and external wall development standards. Refer to Key Issues section below.

Non-compliant POS. The changes in level also make the POS unusable.

 

Noted. The proposed development complies with the objectives of the POS development standard. The change in level is not expected to adversely impact usability of the POS and is desirable in order to reduce the height of the eastern wall and fence. Refer to Key Issues section below.

The wall height exceeds 8m.

The maximum wall height is 7.7m, which complies as measured from existing NGL to the underside of the eaves on the eastern elevation.

Insufficient deep soil landscaping. Many hard paving areas have been counted towards deep soil landscaping on the drawings.

Noted. The proposed development complies with the objectives of the deep soil landscaping development standard. Refer to Key Issues section below.

Bulk and scale of the development will affect the visual amenity of eastern properties.

The proposed development will not result in adverse visual amenity impacts as it complies with building height and wall height development standards, and is provided with sufficient articulation. The proposed development is assessed as being in accordance with the desired future character of the transitioning medium density area. Conditions are recommended to improve the articulation of the eastern boundary wall. Refer to Key Issues section below.

The ground floor windows have been made larger and the living areas elevated when comparing the original and amended drawings. The ground floor ceiling heights should be reduced to reduce bulk and scale and privacy impacts.

Noted. However the proposed development complies with building height and wall height development standards and will not result in adverse privacy impacts or overshadowing. The proposed development is assessed as being in accordance with the desired future character of the transitioning medium density area and a further reduction in height is not considered necessary.

The height of the eastern boundary wall is excessive, which will have a 0m side boundary setback. The eastern boundary wall is effectively a fence, which does not comply with the 1.8m maximum side fence height specified by the RDCP nor the retaining wall controls, with the footings of the retaining wall not shown and a 0.9m setback not provided.

The eastern wall should be setback 0.9m from the eastern boundary with low maintenance landscaping provided at the ground level.

Noted. Conditions are recommended to reduce the height of the retaining wall (to comply with the maximum permitted retaining wall height above existing NGL) and to step the privacy fencing back from the wall to improve articulation. The proposed wall complies with the objectives of the retaining wall and fencing development standards. Refer to Key Issues section below.

Acoustic impacts associated with eastern orientation of terraces and balconies.

Units 1 and 4 are provided with north and south facing POS in addition to the east-facing terraces, therefore not all unit’s POS is entirely orientated to the east.

 

Solid timber lapped and capped fencing is proposed along the eastern boundary wall, which will mitigate acoustic impacts and will be enforced via a condition. Upper floor, east-facing Juliet balconies provided for all units are off bedrooms only, which are not highly frequented rooms and are not of sufficient size to result in adverse acoustic impacts. Refer to Key Issues section below.

The development should be orientated to the front and the rear on the narrow lot in accordance with the RDCP.

The proposed single block design is in accordance with the conventional lot layout specified in the RDCP. Units 1 and 4 are orientated to the east, as well as to the north and south. Refer to Key Issues section below.

The timber fence on top of the eastern boundary wall will be difficult to maintain / access. Should it remain, it should be lapped and capped.

Lapped and capped timber fencing is proposed and will be enforced via a condition.

Overdevelopment of the site.

The proposed development complies with key development standards and objectives and is considered to be suitable for the R3 Medium Density zoned site.

Neighbour’s consent was not obtained for the works on the boundary, nor for future maintenance.

Works are not proposed on neighbouring properties. A condition is recommended to ensure construction occurs from within the subject site only (condition no. 70). Ongoing maintenance of the boundary walls is not expected to occur considering they will comprise concrete with sandstone cladding.

The proposed development does not comply with the design quality principles under SEPP 65.

SEPP 65 does not apply to multi-dwelling housing. Notwithstanding, the proposal provides good articulation and residential amenity and is in accordance with the transitioning medium density area.

DA/283/2017 (5 Llanfoyst Street) adopted a compliant design and the subject DA should follow suite. A more skilful design would result in less impacts / improved amenity.

The proposed development is assessed on its merits and is considered to comply with the relevant development standards and objectives of the RLEP and RDCP.

The proposed development does not respond well to the southern Heritage Item.

The proposed development is subservient to the heritage item, having a lower height and suitable rear setback. Council’s Heritage Planner has assessed the proposed development and recommends approval subject to conditions (refer to Referrals section below).

A Heritage Impact Assessment was not provided.

A HIS was submitted with the DA. Council’s Heritage Planner has assessed the proposed development and recommends approval subject to conditions (refer to Referrals section below).

Construction of the basement will potentially compromise the structural integrity of the Heritage Item.

Council’s Heritage Planner has assessed the proposed development and recommends approval subject to conditions that include measures to ensure the heritage item is not impacted during construction (refer to Referrals section below).

Concerns with overshadowing of north-facing windows of the Heritage Item.

The heritage item will continue to receive compliant solar access in accordance with the development standards. Refer to Key Issues section below.

The design and materials is not in keeping with the streetscape character.

The proposed development is in accordance with the desired future character of the transitioning medium density area. Conditions are recommended to ensure appropriate materials and finishes are utilised to reflect the established character.

The roof form is not consistent with surrounding development.

The low pitched roof is consistent with other pitched roofs in the locality.

Can a visitor parking space be provided?

A visitor parking space has been provided as part of the revised design.

Details as to location of clothes drying facilities are not provided.

Noted. A condition will ensure clothes drying facilities are provided within the POS of each unit that is not visible from the public domain.

Impacts during construction due to vehicle movements.

Standard conditions will insure compliance with a TMP and any damages to Council property during works to be rectified.

Recommended conditions of consent:

-    Protection of the ‘Green Jasmine Wall’ (landscaping) on the western boundary of 22 Pitt Street.

-    The eastern wall to have a side setback of 1.2m to the eastern boundary to provide setback. The setback to be planted with 3m high mature vegetation (to reduce visual bulk, improve privacy and solar access).

-    No excavation within the 1.2m eastern side setback specified above.

-    The basement wall to have a 1.2m setback to the eastern boundary.

-    The eastern wall to be raised from RL 41.98 to RL 42.55 and the eastern wall clad with sandstone (to improve privacy and visual amenity).

-    Installation of a 1.8m high timber fence along the eastern boundary should the existing fence be damaged.

-    The eastern terraces to have a 600mm wide planter 900mm high along the eastern wall landscaped with 2.5m high foliage.

-    Addition of acoustic baffles to the eastern wall.

-    Reduction in size of the first floor windows with raised sill heights.

-    First floor parapet to be maximum 2.85m above the FFL of the first floor (to improve solar access).

-    Reduction in building height and 8 degree roof pitch (to improve solar access).

-    Use of rock saws only within 2m of boundaries to reduce vibration.

-    Survey to be completed prior to CC with the site pegged at 5m intervals to ensure side setbacks are accurate.

A new condition is recommended to ensure protection of the landscaped wall on the western boundary of 22 Pitt Street (condition no. 65).

 

The eastern wall is required via condition to be lowered to match the height of the FFL of the terraces, with the 1.8m high lapped and capped fencing to be setback 500mm from the eastern property boundary with low maintenance landscaping in-between. This is considered suitable to ensure the eastern wall is provided with sufficient articulation whist taking account the minimum requirements / dimensions for the basement and provision of POS for each unit. Refer to Key Issues section below.

 

Conditions requiring privacy screening to first floor windows and raised window sill heights have been provided.

 

The proposed development complies with building height and wall height development standards and will not result in adverse impacts to solar access or visual amenity of adjoining properties, therefore a reduction in the parapet or roof pitch is not required.

 

Standard conditions will ensure vibration during construction is minimised.

 

A standard condition will ensure that a Registered Surveyor’s “check survey certificate” or other suitable documentation must be obtained at the following stage/s of construction to demonstrate compliance with the approved setbacks, levels, layout and height of the building to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority:

 

·           prior to construction (pouring of concrete) of footings and boundary retaining structures,

·           prior to construction (pouring of concrete) of each floor slab,

·           upon completion of the building, prior to issuing an Occupation Certificate,

·           as otherwise may be required by the PCA.

 

 

Key Issues

Clause 4.6 – Exception to Development Standard

Pursuant to Clause 4.4 of the RLEP 2012, the floor space ratio must not be more than 0.75:1 on the site. A floor space ratio of 0.78:1 is proposed.

 

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

Development Standard

0.75:1 (or 466.57m2)

Proposal

0.78:1 (485.5m2)

Exceedance of the Development Standard

4%

 

The applicant has submitted a clause 4.6 exception request. The 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 proposed development is consistent with the desired streetscape character.

 

·      The proposed development will not have an adverse impact upon the amenity of surrounding properties in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

 

·      The proposed development is in accordance with the objectives of the FSR development standard and the objectives of the R3 Medium Density zone.

 

·      The proposed development will provide for the housing needs of the community.

 

Basement Level

The key issues largely relate to the basement level and resulting elevated eastern terraces and the eastern boundary retaining wall. The applicant was requested to reduce the height of the basement level as far as practicable to reduce the height of the east-facing terraces and the height of the eastern wall in order to improve privacy and reduce visual bulk. The resulting amended design lowered the terraces from RL 41.15 to 40.18 (0.97m), which resulted in a reduced height of the elevated POS and less bulk associated with the eastern wall (noting that the amended design includes 1.8m high privacy screening, whereas the original did not).

 

The site is significantly constrained due to the narrow cul-de-sac frontage, which restricts the location of the basement entry ramp to the western side. This in conjunction with the State and local heritage item that abuts the southern boundary results in the basement needing to abut the side boundaries. As a result, an elevated ground floor level and POS is proposed above the basement with a lengthy eastern boundary retaining wall. The east-facing terraces are all provided in this location in response to meeting minimum solar access requirements as demonstrated by the submitted shadow diagrams.

 

According to Council’s Development Engineer, further reduction to the basement car park level would result in an undesirable vehicular access grade, which would be too steep for manoeuvring bins. The installation of ceiling services in the basement must also be considered. Therefore the revised basement design is essentially at its limits. There would be no benefit in lowering the basement level considering the development complies with the objectives of key development standards (refer to other Key Issues as part of this section, and the detailed assessment section provided at the end of the RDCP assessment table).


 

Building Orientation

A number of submissions suggested a two-block arrangement with a centralised courtyard in order to minimise east-facing terraces. Clause 2, Table 1 of Part C2 of the RDCP provides site layout guides for different lot types. According to Table 1, a two-block arrangement is most suitable for the following sites:

 

·      Both narrow, elongated allotments and wider allotments;

·      Allotments with rear lane access;

·      Allotments with significant level difference or steep slope;

·      East-west oriented allotments where overshadowing from the adjoining property to the north forms a major constraint; and/or

·      The adjoining developments have significant building mass with habitable room windows oriented to the common boundaries.

 

Figure 7. Insert from Cl 2 of the RDCP

 

Assessing officer’s comment: Although the site is subject to a change in level between allotments to the west and east, the site is not considered to be narrow (having a 16.7m width) and is orientated north-south. Because of this, a split block arrangement is not desirable as the resulting central courtyard would be unlikely to receive compliant solar access. Additionally, a greater rear setback is desirable to the southern State heritage item.

 

The subject site is considered to be in accordance with a conventional lot layout, with Table 1 noting that a single building block is appropriate for allotments with uniform configuration and a width of at least 15m. The configuration notes that the block should be setback from the property boundaries to enable landscaping and open space, with habitable room windows able to be provided on all elevations.

 

Figure 8. Insert from Cl 2 of the RDCP

The proposed development includes a central block configuration with sufficient setbacks to permit landscaping and open space. Therefore the proposed central block configuration is supported subject to conditions.

 

Solar Access for Surrounding Development

A number of submissions raised overshadowing as a key concern. Despite the site constraints, the proposal complies with the solar access development standard pursuant to Clause 5.1 of Part C2 of the RDCP, which requires the following:

 

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: Based on the submitted shadow diagrams, living areas of neighbouring dwellings will receive compliant solar access in accordance with the above development standard. Comments on surrounding properties are provided below.

 

Eastern properties fronting Pitt Street

 

Following review of approved plans and online sales listings, and based on site visits and information submitted in submissions, 18, 20 and 22 Pitt Street are all provided with east facing living room windows that will continue to receive compliant solar access from 8:00am until 12:00pm.

 

Notwithstanding, it is noted that concerns were raised in the submissions regarding overshadowing of west-facing windows, therefore comments are provided on each property below:

 

·      18 Pitt Street will continue to receive solar access to west-facing windows from 11:00am until 2:00pm.

 

·      20 Pitt Street is provided with a staggered façade that steps in from west to east. As a result, the building will overshadow some of its own façade, receiving some solar access from approximately 2:00pm until 3:00pm. The proposed development will cause additional overshadowing to the west-facing living room of 20 Pitt Street from approximately 2:30pm until 3:00pm. The proposed development does not overshadow the west-facing facade outside of these hours. Considering east-facing living room windows will receive compliant solar access in accordance with the development standard, it is unreasonable to further modify the proposed development to maintain current solar access to the western façade of this property considering compliance with building height and wall height development standards is achieved.

 

·      22 Pitt Street is provided with a large west-facing awning, which already overshadows west-facing windows. Notwithstanding, the proposed development will not cause additional overshadowing to the western façade of 22 Pitt Street based on the submitted shadow diagrams.

 

Southern property (heritage item) at 16-18 Milford Street

 

·      Based on historic floor plans, 16-18 Milford Street is provided with north-facing windows to the “formal dining room” on the ground floor. A portion of these windows will continue to receive some solar access between 8:00am and 9:00am and between 1:00pm and 2:00pm. Notwithstanding, the property is provided with other living rooms, which have east, south and west-facing windows that will continue to receive compliant solar access in accordance with the development standard.

 

Western property at 5 Llanfoyst Street

 

·      The Court-approved RFB (DA/283/2017) is provided with east, north and south-facing living room windows. Based on the submitted shadow diagrams, the proposed development will not cause any additional overshadowing to the approved building.

 

The existing 3 storey dwelling is already mostly in shadow on the eastern elevation with some additional proposed shadow from 9:00 until 10:00am. The additional proposed shadow on the eastern façade is minimal and is not expected to adversely reduce solar access to the existing dwelling, which has an upper floor living room with north-facing windows.

 

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: Based on the submitted shadow diagrams, neighbouring properties will continue to receive compliant solar access in accordance with the development standard.

 

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: As demonstrated above, existing development currently receives compliant solar access, and the proposed development will ensure compliant solar access is maintained.

 

Visual Privacy

Proposed habitable room windows, terraces and upper floor Juliet-style balconies are orientated to the side and rear boundaries. The key affected properties are located to the east of the site, which are situated lower than the subject site on the western side of Pitt Street.

 

The proposed units are provided with east-facing living room windows and elevated terraces. The FFL of the living rooms for units 2, 3 and 4 are at RL 40.75, whereas the FFL of the living room for unit 1 is higher, at RL 41.5 (due to the vehicular basement ramp below).

 

Figure 9. Insert from section through unit 1 (original proposed levels shown in red).

 

When standing within the units looking out, the proposed eastern boundary fence will prevent direct overlooking of the habitable room windows and POS of eastern properties, which are single storey at the western elevations. The distance from the proposed living areas to these properties will also assist in minimising direct overlooking.

 

Despite all units having east-facing terraces, units 1 and 4 have an additional terrace / POS provided at the front and rear of the site in accordance with the development standard. Therefore the east-facing terraces for these 2 units (50% of the development) are not the principal POS, which minimises the number of units that are orientated to the east.

 

It is noted that the heritage item at the rear of the property contains 3 windows on the ground floor that are to a living area. These windows will look into the southern yard for unit 4. No boundary fencing is proposed nor required given the heritage item is located on the boundary. Additional privacy measures are not considered necessary in this instance given landscaping is proposed along the southern boundary that will provide some filtered privacy and the east-facing terrace can be used that is located away from these windows.

 

Upper floor windows / Juliet-style balconies

 

The first floor north, east and west-facing bedroom windows slide open to utilise the batten screens as balustrading, effectively creating Juliet-style balconies. Although the amended design deleted the larger balconies originally proposed, the smaller balconies and bedroom windows will overlook POS and windows of surrounding properties. To avoid this, a condition is recommended so that the batten screening in front of the bedroom windows comprises gaps not exceeding 30mm for the full height of the windows. This will ensure that direct overlooking of adjoining properties will not occur whilst still permitting natural light and ventilation, and adding to the visual interest / articulation of the facades.

 

The rear-facing, first floor balcony off unit 4 will overlook the ground floor living room of the adjacent property to the south. As this balcony contributes to the non-compliant rear boundary setback, conditions are recommended so that it is deleted and the windows are provided with raised window sill heights (1.6m) with fixed obscure glazing permitted below this height.

 

Deep Soil Area

Clause 2.2.2 of Part C2 of the RDCP requires a minimum 25% of the site area (155.5m2) to incorporate deep soil areas sufficient in size and dimensions to accommodate trees and significant planting.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The total area of deep soil landscaping is 133.8m2 = 21%, which does not comply.

 

The objectives of the development standard are as follows:

 

·      To provide landscaped open space of sufficient size to enable the space to be used for recreational activities, or be capable of growing substantial vegetation.

·      To reduce impermeable surface cover including hard paving.

·      To improve stormwater quality and reduce quantity.

·      To improve the amenity of open space with landscaped design.  

 

A variation to the development standard is supported for the following reasons:

 

·      There is sufficient landscaping proposed throughout the development capable of growing substantial vegetation that will provide a visual balance between the building and open space that is consistent with surrounding medium density development.

 

·      Permeable paving is provided where possible to allow water infiltration and on site water detention is proposed that will ensure stormwater is released slowly to reduce quantity.

 

·      The existing vegetation corridor running east / west across the rear of the site will be retained and enhanced.

 

Private Open Space

Clause 2.3.1 of Part C2 of the RDCP requires multi dwelling housing to be provided with an area of useable private open space or courtyard area, at ground and/or podium level with minimal or no level changes with a minimum area of 20 square metres capable of containing a rectangle with minimum dimensions of 3m x 4m.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: Units 1 and 4 are provided with east-facing terraces and additional POS orientated to the north (unit 1) and to the south (unit 4) that complies. Units 2 and 3 are only provided with east-facing terraces that are approximately 17m2, which do not comply. It is noted that a 500mm step in the eastern boundary wall is also required via a recommended condition, further reducing POS to approximately 15.6m2 for units 2 and 3.

 

Landscaped planter boxes are provided either side of the POS for both units, which is unnecessary. Therefore, a condition is recommended to delete the southern planter boxes adjacent to the POS for units 2 and 3 and to replace them with additional paving as part of the terraces. Although the minimum depth of the additional landscaping is less than 3m (2.5m) and cannot technically be counted as POS as part of the 3m x 4m rectangle, as a result of the deleted planter boxes this in conjunction with the whole terrace area would result in 20.6m2 POS.

 

The objective of the development standard is as follows:

 

·      To provide useful areas of private and communal open space for outdoor living and recreation to serve the needs of the residents and enhance their quality of life.

 

A variation to the development standard is supported for the following reasons:

 

·      The area of POS is useful and functional and will serve the recreational needs of residents.

 

·      The POS is capable of containing a rectangle that exceeds 3m x 4m (4.7m x 3.4m proposed).

 

·      The POS will serve as an extension of the living area, which is provided with floor to ceiling heights that exceeds minimum requirements resulting in a sense of openness and providing a highly connected indoor / outdoor area that will enhance the quality of life for residents.

 

Front Setback

Clause 3.4.1 of Part C2 of the RDCP notes that where a development is proposed in an area identified as being under transition, the front setback will be determined on a merit basis.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The subject area is identified as an area under transition, being from lower density development to medium density development. The proposed front setback is 4.1m to the basement (which protrudes more than 1.2m above finished ground level), 4.1m to the ground floor and 3.9m to the first floor. This is generally consistent with the Court approved 3 storey RFB adjacent to the subject site at 5 Llanfoyst Street (DA/283/2017), which has a 4.5m front setback (3m to balconies). A portion of the front setback area is provided with deep soil landscaping, which will help to soften the development and better integrate it with the streetscape whereas the existing garage provides no opportunity for landscaping. Therefore the proposed front setback is in accordance with the transitioning residential area and is supported.

 

Side Setback

Clause 3.4.1 of Part C2 of the RDCP requires a 3m side boundary setback for the subject site.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: A portion of the east-facing, ground floor terraces for units 1, and 4, and the entire east facing terrace for units 2 and 3 are located more than 1.2m above finished ground level (relating to the finished ground level of the basement below), which do not comply with the 3m setback development standard.

 

Figure 10. Insert from basement floor plan.

 

Figure 11. Insert from ground floor plan showing terraces above basement.

 

A portion of the basement level on the eastern elevation is also located more than 1.2m above finished ground level, which does not comply with the 3m setback standard. The western basement elevation is located less than 1.2m above finished ground level and therefore is not factored into the side setback standard. Also, some building elements on the eastern elevation at the ground floor and on the eastern and western elevations on the first floor protrude into the 3m side boundary setback.

 

The relevant objectives of the development standard is as follows:

 

·      To ensure adequate separation between buildings for visual and acoustic privacy, solar access, air circulation and views.

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

 

A variation to the development standard is supported for the following reasons:

 

·      Adequate separation is provided between the proposed building and adjacent buildings to the east and west, providing for visual and acoustic privacy, solar access, air circulation and views.

 

·      Adequate POS and deep soil landscaping is provided that complies with the objectives of the respective development standards.

 

·      The bulk of the building is setback 3m from the side boundary, with the ground floor being setback 3.6m.

 

·      The eastern boundary wall is required via condition to be lowered and the fencing above setback 500mm from the eastern boundary to allow low-maintenance landscaping in-between and to provide better articulation.

 

Rear Setback

Clause 3.4.3 of Part C2 of the RDCP requires a minimum rear setback of 15% of allotment depth (5.5m) or 5m, whichever is the greater.

 

Assessing officer’s comment:

·      Ground floor = 5.5m (complies).

·      First floor = 4.4m, which does not comply.

 

The relevant objectives of the development standard is as follows:

 

·      To ensure adequate separation between buildings for visual and acoustic privacy, solar access, air circulation and views.

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

 

A variation to the development standard is supported for the following reasons:

 

·      A condition is recommended to delete the rear-facing, upper floor balcony, which will increase the rear setback from 4.4m to 5.4m.

 

·      Adequate separation is provided between the proposed building and the adjacent heritage item at the rear of the site, providing for visual and acoustic privacy, solar access, air circulation and views.

 

·      Adequate POS and deep soil landscaping is provided that complies with the objectives of the development standards.

 

·      Council’s Heritage Planner supports the proposed development, noting there will be no detrimental impact to the heritage qualities of the heritage item (refer to Referrals section below).

 

Basement Walls

Clause 6.2 of Part C2 of the RDCP requires external enclosing walls of a car park to not protrude above ground level (existing) by more than 1.2m.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The western basement wall protrudes approximately 1.8m above NGL and the eastern basement wall protrudes approximately 1.6m above NGL (to the FFL of the terraces above).

 

The relevant development standard objectives are as follows:

 

·      To ensure the location and configuration of car parking are integrated with the site planning and building design.

·      To ensure that car parking and access facilities do not visually dominate the property frontage or adversely detract from the streetscape character. 

 

A variation to the development standard is supported for the following reasons:

 

·      The basement walls will not dominate the frontage as they are setback behind the main building façade, which is well articulated and provided with landscaping in the front setback.

 

·      With the inclusion of a ‘step’ in the eastern basement wall and a reduction in the wall height via a condition, sufficient articulation will be provided that will improve the visual amenity for surrounding properties. A reduction in the height of the western basement wall by 300mm is also required via condition that will reduce the dominance of the wall when viewed from the western property.

 

·      Further lowering of the basement is undesirable given the vehicular access ramp will become too steep for manoeuvring bins and some discrepancy for the installation of ceiling services must be considered.

 

Front Fencing

Clause 7.2 of Part C2 of the RDCP requires the following:

 

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposed fencing is illustrated on the submitted elevations and landscape drawings. Although the fencing setback is not directly reflective of other fencing setbacks in the street, as the site is located at the end of a cul-de-sac it cannot be directly compared to adjoining fencing. Considering the existing garage and associated wall is built to the front boundary with a nil setback, the proposed setback will afford opportunities for landscaping in the frontage that will improve the streetscape and is therefore supported.

 

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

 

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposed front fencing comprises a 1.1m high retaining wall with 1m high lapped and capped fencing on top (2.1m total height) associated with the north-facing terrace for unit 1.

 

The objectives of the development standard are as follows:

 

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

·      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.  

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

 

A variation to the development standard is supported for the following reasons:

 

·      The fencing is of a similar style to the front fencing approved for 5 Llanfoyst Street (DA/283/2017), and is considered to be in accordance with the desired future streetscape character.

 

·      The front fencing will complement the proposed building, with a change in levels and materials that appears as an extension of the façade rather than standalone fencing.

 

·      The fencing will not dominate the building nor the streetscape given it is setback 1.1m from the street, with a landscaped swale provided in between as per Development Engineering requirements.

 

·      The fencing is provided to ensure privacy to the POS of unit 1.

 

·      The front façade is a high traffic area with 2 pedestrian accesses and the vehicular access off the street frontage, with windows and POS permitting street surveillance.

 

Side Fencing

Clause 7.3 of Part C2 of the RDCP requires the following:

 

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The eastern and western boundary walls including the fencing atop the eastern boundary wall effectively serve as fences. Sections of the eastern and western side boundary walls and fence exceeds 2.2m above existing NGL therefore an assessment against the development standard is warranted.

 

The objectives of the development standard are as follows:

 

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

·      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.  

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

 

A variation to the development standard is supported for the following reasons:

 

·      The eastern boundary wall reduces in height with the NGL rising towards the rear (south). With the recommended condition to include a step in the wall and a reduction in its height, the resulting wall will be sufficiently articulated and will not result in adverse visual amenity impacts when viewed from adjoining properties to the east.

 

·      The western boundary wall is provided adjacent to the approved vehicular access to 5 Llanfoyst Street and will serve to reduce acoustic impacts to the proposed development whilst preventing direct overlooking from the proposed pedestrian path. However, the height is considered excessive (2.1m from finished ground floor level), therefore a condition is recommended to reduce the height of the western boundary wall by 0.3m to 1.8m. This will ensure privacy impacts from the common pathway will not occur.

 

·      The boundary walls front individual properties to the east and common property that will be highly surveyed from the approved development at 5 Llanfoyst Street to the west, therefore opportunities for graffiti and malicious damage will be minimised.

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

That the application for demolition of all structures on site and construction of a part two and part three storey multi-dwelling housing development comprising 4 dwellings, car parking for 8 vehicles and associated site and landscaped works be approved (subject to conditions) for the following reasons:

 

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

 

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

 

 

 


 

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

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 development standards of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. See table below.

 

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 


 

2.         Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

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

A BASIX certificate has been submitted in accordance with the requirements of the SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004. A condition is provided to ensure compliance with the BAXIX certificate.

 

The revised drawings did not substantiate a new BASIX certificate.

 

2.2      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

The site is zoned Residential R3 Medium Density under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP) 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 provide for the housing needs of the community whilst enhancing the aesthetic character and protecting the amenity of the local residents.

 

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

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

0.75:1

0.78:1 (485.5m2)

Does not comply.

Height of Building (Maximum)

9.5m

9.3m based on the survey plan.

Complies

 

Clause 4.6 – Floor Space Ratio

The proposal seeks to vary a development standard contained within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012). A Clause 4.6 exception has been submitted to Council.

 

Pursuant to Clause 4.4 of the RLEP 2012, the floor space ratio must not be more than 0.75:1 on the site. A floor space ratio of 0.78:1 is proposed.

 

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

Development Standard

0.75:1 (or 466.57m2)

Proposal

0.78:1 (485.5m2)

Exceedance of the Development Standard

4%

 

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

 

Clause 4.6 RLEP Request to Vary Development Standard

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

 

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

Pursuant to clause 4.6(3) of the RLEP 2012, development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant 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 Feb 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 in certain cases.

 

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

 

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 Floor Space Ratio standard are set out in clause 4.4 (1) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

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

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

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

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

 

The applicant’s written justifications for the departure from the standard are as follows:

 

 

Assessing Officer’s Clause 4.6 Assessment:

The non-compliance relates to the provision of an additional parking space in the basement, which is provided in excess of the minimum parking spaces required by the RDCP. It is noted that the bin storage is also not part of the basement and therefore has already been factored into the GFA calculation. In accordance with the RLEP, the additional parking space is not excluded from the gross floor area calculation. Should the additional parking space not be provided the development would comply with the FSR development standard, however it is beneficial considering lack of existing on-street parking.

 

It is considered that the proposal is not inconsistent with the objectives of the standard and the size and scale of proposal is compatible with the desired future character of the locality. Further, the bulk and scale will be comparable to other medium density development and the proposal complies with other key development standards relating to building height, wall height and solar access, and is compliant with the objectives of the setback controls. The proposed additional floor area will not result in additional adverse impacts on adjoining residential properties.

 

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. The proposal achieves the objectives of the Floor Space Ratio (Clause 4.4 of the RLEP 2012), and the size and scale of the proposal is compatible with the desired future character of the locality.

 

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 proposal is consistent with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone and the objectives of the floor space ratio development standard of the RLEP 2012.

 

Consistency with the objectives of the Floor Space Ratio standard:

 

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

 

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The size and scale of the proposed development is compatible with the ‘desired future character of the locality’ as it will be consistent with the size and scale of surrounding medium density development as part of the R3 Medium Density zone. The surrounding area is transitioning from lower density, single storey dwellings with generous open space to larger 2 and 3 storey medium density development. The proposed development presents a 2 storey development to the street, which is in accordance with the streetscape character, is well articulated on all facades and is compliant with key development standards relating to building height, wall height and solar access, and is compliant with the objectives of the setback controls. The proposed development is therefore considered to be compatible with the desired future character.

 

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposed development is well articulated on all facades that will provide visual interest. The proposed development complies with environmental development standards relating to natural light and ventilation and complies with the objectives of POS and with solar access development standard. The development will be in accordance with energy requirements subject to conditions to ensure compliance with the submitted BASIX Certificate and the BCA.

 

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposed development is compatible with the scale and character of the Heritage Item that adjoins the rear boundary, providing a suitable rear boundary setback and presenting a 2 storey form that is less than the height of the heritage item, being submissive and respectful in its design.

 

Figure 13. Insert from eastern elevation.

 

(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.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposed development complies with development standards relating to building height, site coverage, privacy, solar access and views. There will be no detrimental impact upon the amenity of adjoining properties as a result of the proposed development.

 

Consistency with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone: 

 

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

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

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

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

·      To protect the amenity of residents.

·      To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposed development will provide for the housing needs of the community, providing a multi-dwelling, medium density development that will contribute to a variety of housing types in conjunction with the existing surrounding single dwellings and RFB developments. The proposed built form will be compatible with the desired future character as part of a transitioning medium density area and will not contribute to any adverse environmental impacts to surrounding residents. The development is consistent with the zoning objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

 

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

Department of Planning and Environment for development that contravenes a development standard? If so:

 

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

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: 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 Feb 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 in certain cases.

 

Variation from the adherence to the maximum floor space ratio on this occasion is considered to be of benefit to the orderly use of the site and there is a 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

 

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 B6: Recycling and Waste Management

 

DCP Clause

Control

Proposal

Compliance

4.

On-Going Operation

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

Waste storage is provided in the basement, which will minimise odour and acoustic impacts and will not be visible from the street or surrounding properties.

Complies.

 

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

Unobstructed access is provided via the vehicular access ramp to the basement.

Complies.

 

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

Sufficient waste storage can be accommodated in each unit.

Complies.

 

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

 

The bin storage area is not enclosed, will be fire protected in accordance with the BCA and can be provided with lighting and water supply to be demonstrated as part of CC details.

Complies.

 

3.2      Section B7: Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access

 

DCP Clause

Control

Proposal

Compliance

3.             Parking & Service Delivery Requirements

 

Car parking requirements:

·      1space per 2 studios

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

·      1.2 spaces per 2-bedroom unit

·      1.5 spaces per 3 or more bedroom unit

·      1 visitor space per 4 dwellings

According to Council’s Development Engineer (refer to Referrals section below), 7 parking spaces are required and 8 parking spaces are provided, which exceeds the minimum requirement.

Complies.

 

Motor cycle requirements:

5% of car parking requirement

 

According to Council’s Development Engineer, as demand for less than 0.5 motorcycle parking spaces would be generated no motorcycle parking is required.

Complies.

4.             Bicycles

 

Residents:

·      1 bike space per 2 units

Visitors:

·      1 per 10 units

According to Council’s Development Engineer, 2.4 bicycle parking spaces is required and 3 spaces are provided.

Complies.

 

3.3    Section C2: Medium Density Residential

 

DCP Clause

Control

Proposal

Compliance

2.             Site Planning

2.1

Site Layout Options

 

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

·      Two block / courtyard example

·      T-shape example

·      U-shape example

·      Conventional example

The proposed building layout is considered to be in accordance with the conventional example provided in Table 1 of Clause 2 (refer to Key Issues section above).

Complies.

2.2

Landscaped open space and deep soil area

2.2.1

Landscaped open space

 

A minimum of 50% of the site area (311m2) is to be landscaped open space. For multi-dwelling housing a minimum width of 2m of landscaped open space is to be provided.

 

The development control notes that landscaped podium areas not more than 1.5m above existing NGL is included as landscaped open space.

 

The north and east-facing terraces are provided at RL 39.65 and RL 40.18, which are at a maximum of 1.39m above existing ground level based on the survey plan. The east-facing terraces can therefore be included as part of landscaped open space.

 

The total area of landscaped open space with minimum dimension of 2m is 327.4m2 = 52%.

Complies.

2.2.2

Deep soil area

 

(i)   A minimum of 25% of the site area (155.5m2) should incorporate deep soil areas sufficient in size and dimensions to accommodate trees and significant planting.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

The development control notes that deep soil areas cannot be located on basements, retaining walls and the like. A small portion of the northern garden area can be included and the majority of the southern garden area given these are not located directly above the basement level.

 

The total area of deep soil landscaping is 133.8m2 = 21%, which does not comply.

 

Does not comply. Refer to Key Issues section above.

2.3

Private and communal open space

2.3.1

Private open space

 

Private open space is to be:

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

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

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

POS is provided in accordance with the control.

Complies.

 

For Multi dwelling housing:

iv) Each dwelling is provided with an area of useable private open space or courtyard area, at ground and/or podium level with minimal or no level changes; and

 

v) A minimum area of 20 square metres of private open space should be provided at ground and/or podium level capable of containing a rectangle with minimum dimensions of 3m x 4m with minimal or no level changes.

<20m2 POS is provided for units 2 and 3.

Does not comply. Refer to Key Issues section above.

2.3.2

Communal open space

 

Communal open space for residential flat buildings and multi dwelling housing is to be:

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

(b)  Designed for passive surveillance.

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

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

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

The development control does not stipulate that communal open space must be provided. As each unit is provided with sufficient POS, communal open space is not considered necessary.

N/A

3.             Building Envelope

3.1

Floor space ratio

 

0.75:1

 

 

 

0.78:1

Does not comply. Refer to floor space ratio assessment above.

3.2

Building height

 

9.5m

9.3m

Complies.

3.4

Setbacks

3.4.1

Front setback

 

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

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

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

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

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

The subject area is identified as an area under transition from lower density development to medium density development, therefore a merits assessment applies.

Refer to Key Issues section above.

3.4.2

Side setback

 

Multi dwelling housing

 

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

 

-    16m ≤ Width <18m: 3m

 

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

-    Create articulations to the building facades.

-    Reserve open space areas and provide opportunities for landscaping.

-    Provide building separation.

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

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

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

 

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

Portions of the basement, terraces and the ground and first floor do not comply with the 3m setback control.

 

Does not comply. Refer to Key Issues section above.

3.4.3

Rear setback

 

For residential flat buildings and multi dwelling housing, provide a minimum rear setback of 15% of allotment depth (5.5m) or 5m, whichever is the greater.

Ground floor = 5.5m (complies).

First floor = 5.38m, (does not comply).

Does not comply. Refer to Key Issues section above.

4.             Building Design

4.1

Building façade

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

The proposed development addresses the frontage to Llanfoyst Street, incorporating recessed and projecting architectural elements, a change in building materials and landscaping, which will provide visual interest.

 

The front wall is parallel with the street property boundary.

 

All facades are well articulated, with recessed and projecting walls and architectural elements and a change in building materials.

 

The walls are provided with steps in the façade and do not exceed 12m in length.

Complies.

4.2

Roof design

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The revised hipped roof design relates well to the form of the building, which reduces bulk. The roof design is reflective of the pitched roof of the adjacent Heritage Item and is reflective of other roof designs in the locality.

 

Eaves are provided to the east and western facades, which in conjunction with the batten screening will respond well to solar access.

 

The roof is not considered bulky, with the articulation of the facades resulting in a well-proportioned building that responds positively to the surrounding context.

 

Skylights are provided on the western side, which will be partially screened by the batten screens, and will therefore not result in visual amenity impacts when viewed from the approved RBF to the west.

 

Services and equipment are not shown on the drawings. Conditions will ensure compliance with this part.

 

Trafficable roof spaces or rooftop landscaping is not proposed.

 

Complies.

4.3

Habitable roof space

 

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

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

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

-    Wholly contain habitable areas within the roof space.

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

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

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

Habitable roof space is not proposed.

N/A

4.4

External wall height and ceiling height

 

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

The maximum wall height is 7.7m, measured from existing NGL to the underside of the eaves on the eastern elevation.

Complies.

 

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

The kitchen and dining for Unit 1 has 2.4m high ceiling height, which is due to the minimum clearance of the basement access ramp directly below. The living area however steps down to have a 3.1m high ceiling. Given the 2.4m high ceiling is only for a portion of the unit (which complies with the BCA), and the living area will have higher ceilings than the minimum, this is acceptable.

Does not comply. However minor non-compliance is supported.

4.5

Pedestrian Entry

 

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

Separate vehicular and pedestrian access is provided to both each individual unit at ground level and to the basement.

Complies.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

-    Provide weather protection for building entries.

 

Postal services and mailboxes

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

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

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

The front entry is well defined and relates well to the pedestrian access off Llanfoyst Street. Letterboxes and the street ID numbering are integrated with the secured pedestrian entry, which will not clutter the presentation of the building to the street.

Complies.

4.6

Internal circulation

 

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

-     Providing natural lighting and ventilation where possible.

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

-     Allowing adequate space for the movement of furniture.

-     Minimising corridor lengths to give short, clear sightlines.

-     Avoiding tight corners.

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

Ground level access to each unit is external, along the common pathway along the western façade, which provides adequate width.

Complies.

 

(ii)     Use multiple access cores to:

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

-    Articulate the building façade.

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

No more than 4 units are accessed individually at ground level off a single common pathway. Individual basement lift access is also provided to each unit.

 

A separate pedestrian access to the ground floor units and to the basement level is provided, which helps to further articulate the front façade.

Complies.

 

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

Single-loaded corridor only.

N/A

4.7

Apartment layout

 

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

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

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

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

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

All units are dual aspect, with units 1 and 4 having 3 aspects, which will ensure adequate lighting and ventilation to all rooms.

Complies.

 

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

All units include open-plan kitchen, dining and living spaces on the ground floor that open onto terraces. This provides opportunities for flexible room uses and will allow for a variety of furniture arrangements.

Complies.

 

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

All units are provided with individual terraces. Units 1 and 4 are provided with additional POS facing north and south.

Complies.

 

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

Kitchens are adjacent to yet separated from main circulation spaces.

Complies.

4.8

Balconies

 

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

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

POS is provided in accordance with the requirements for multi dwelling housing.

N/A

4.9

Colours, materials and finishes

 

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

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

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

-    Changes of colours and surface texture

-    Inclusion of light weight materials to contrast with solid masonry surfaces

-    The use of natural stones is encouraged.

(v)    Avoid the following materials or treatment:

-    Reflective wall cladding, panels and tiles and roof sheeting

-    High reflective or mirror glass

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

-    Large expanses of rendered masonry

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

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

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

A change in finished colours and materials is proposed that is suitable for the transitioning character of the area.

 

A condition is recommended so that if suitable the existing sandstone base of the dwelling is reused as part of the development or otherwise recycled (condition no. 71).

Complies.

4.12

Earthworks Excavation and backfilling

 

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

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

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

 

Excavation will exceed 1m associated with the semi-basement level only, with excavation limited elsewhere on the site to minimise site disturbance. As demonstrated by Section A, the terraces are located above the basement, therefore there is no fill beneath them.

 

The rear garden area closely follows the existing slope of the land, with minimal fill proposed and the terraces step down with the contours of the site.

Complies.

 

Retaining walls

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

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

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

Retaining walls along the eastern boundary are built to the boundary with a nil setback, which is necessary considering the site constraints.

 

Subject to a condition to lower the height of the eastern retaining wall to match the height of the terraces, both the eastern and western retaining walls will be less than 2.2m above existing NGL and therefore complies.

Complies.

5.             Amenity

5.1

Solar access and overshadowing

 

Solar access for proposed development

 

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

Living areas will receive solar access from 8:00am until after 11:00am to eastern living rooms, and some solar access between 12:00pm and 1:00pm to western kitchen windows.

 

At least 50% of the POS for each unit will receive solar access from 1m above the finished level of the terraces between 9:00am and 12:00pm.

Complies.

 

Solar access for surrounding development

 

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

 

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

 

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

Living areas and POS of neighbouring dwellings will continue to receive compliant solar access in accordance with this part.

Refer to Key Issues section above.

5.2

Natural ventilation and energy efficiency

 

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

All units are dual aspect, with skylights provided that will ensure adequate daylight and ventilation.

Complies.

 

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

Eaves and vertical batten screening is provided to the first floor that will provide appropriate sun shading to the most exposed east and west-facing rooms.

 

Ground floor rooms are setback from the upper level that will receive appropriate sun shading.

Complies.

 

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

All habitable rooms have windows that open to outdoor areas.

Complies.

 

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

All units are dual aspect with habitable rooms provided with operable windows that will ensure adequate ventilation.

Complies.

 

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

All units are naturally cross ventilated.

Complies.

 

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

All kitchens have access to natural ventilation.

Complies.

 

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

The development complies with natural ventilation requirements.

N/A

5.3

Visual privacy

 

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

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

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

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

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

-    Translucent glazing

-    Fixed timber or metal slats

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

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

Habitable room windows, terraces and upper floor Juliet-style balconies are orientated to all property boundaries.

Refer to Key Issues section above.

5.4

Acoustic privacy

 

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

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

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

-    Double glazing

-    Operable screened balconies

-    Walls to courtyards

-    Sealing of entry doors

Upper floor bedrooms are separated from ground floor living areas and circulation areas.

Complies.

5.5

View sharing

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

The proposed development complies with the building height and wall height controls, and is of a similar height to the existing dwelling. It will therefore not unreasonably impact existing views, which are distant horizon water views to the east and not key iconic views.

 

It is noted that the east-facing living rooms of the approved RFB at 5 Llanfoyst Street are provided with privacy screening, which will obscure distant horizon water views.

Complies.

5.6

Safety and security

 

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

Safe and secure access is proposed for pedestrians and vehicles.

Complies.

 

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

A lobby is not proposed.

N/A

 

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

Each unit is secure, with main living room windows fronting secured POS areas.

Complies.

 

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

It is difficult to permit views into the development from the public domain (off Llanfoyst Street) given the minimal street frontage. Views to the main façade of the building however will not be obstructed.

Complies.

 

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

Secured access is proposed.

Complies.

 

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

A secured visitor entry is shown on the submitted drawings.

Complies.

 

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

A condition is recommended to ensure compliance with this part.

Complies.

 

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

The common access pathway is designed with minimal areas for concealment and will be used frequently and provided with sufficient lighting.

Complies.

 

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

A condition is recommended to ensure compliance with this part.

Complies.

 

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

A condition is recommended to ensure compliance with this part.

Complies.

6.             Car parking and access

6.1

Location

 

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

No rear lane or secondary street frontage is available.

N/A

 

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

The basement car park is provided with a relatively short access driveway off Llanfoyst Street, minimising impermeable surfaces.

Complies.

 

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

A 1.5m side boundary setback is provided to the driveway, which is not utilised for landscaping. However, sufficient landscaping is provided in the front setback with the pedestrian access provided along the western side boundary due to the minimal frontage available off the cul-de-sac.

Complies.

 

(iv) Entry to parking facilities off the rear lane must be setback a minimum of 1m from the lane boundary.

No rear lane available.

N/A

 

(v) For residential flat buildings and multi dwelling housing, comply with the following:

 

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

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

(c)   Where rear lane or secondary street access is not available, the car park entry must be recessed behind the front façade alignment. In addition, the entry and driveway must be located towards the side and not centrally positioned across the street frontage.

Car parking is provided underground in a semi-basement. The car park entry is recessed behind the main façade of the building and is located off to the side.

Complies.

6.2

Configuration

 

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

Vehicles can enter and exit in a forward direction.

Complies.

 

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

3.6m driveway width, which tapers towards the street boundary.

Complies.

 

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

(a)   Provide natural ventilation. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Natural ventilation will be achieved via the vehicular access and gate.

 

The external walls of the semi-basement car park protrude more than 1.2m above existing ground level, which does not comply with (c).

 

Safe, secure and direct access is provided for each dwelling.

 

A car park access panel door is proposed, with the retaining walls that form the façade of the car park entry wrapping around into the recess utilising the same façade treatment as the front facade.

 

A condition is recommended to ensure service pipes and ducts are concealed and not visible from the public domain.

 

 

Does not comply. Refer to Key Issues section above.

7.             Fencing and Ancillary Development

7.1

Fencing

 

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

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

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

-    Steel post and chain wire

-    Barbed wire or other dangerous materials

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

 

The applicant has confirmed the following fencing materials / finishes, which are supported:

 

-    Eastern boundary: sandstone finish wall with timber lapped and capped fence above, timber lapped and capped fence adjacent to front setback.

 

-    Western boundary: render and painted boundary wall.

 

-    Front boundary: timber lapped and capped fence adjacent to 1 Llanfoyst St and metal batten fence, screen and gates directly opposite the street frontage.

Complies.

7.2

Front Fencing

 

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

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

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

Proposed front fencing comprises a 1.1m high retaining wall with 1m high fencing on top associated with the north-facing terrace for unit 1.

 

 

Does not comply. Refer to Key Issues section above.

 

(iv) Solid front fence of up to 1800mm in height may be permitted in the following scenarios:

- Front fence for sites facing arterial roads.

- Fence on the secondary street frontage of corner allotments, which is behind the alignment of the primary street façade.

      Such solid fences must be articulated through a combination of materials, finishes and details, and/or incorporate landscaping, so as to avoid continuous blank walls.

Front fencing exceeds 1.8m.

Does not comply. Refer to Key Issues section above.

 

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

Stepping is not proposed as the wall and fence is provided to screen the POS for Unit 1.

Does not comply. Refer to Key Issues section above.

 

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

 

Timber lapped and capped adjacent to 1 Llanfoyst St and metal batten fence, screen and gates directly opposite the street frontage.

 

The metal fencing is reflective of the modern design and is considered suitable given it will be softened by landscaping in the frontage.

Complies

 

(vii) Gates must not open over public land.

Access gates to pedestrian and vehicular pathways will not open over public land.

Complies.

 

(viii) The fence adjacent to the driveway may be required to be splayed to ensure adequate sightlines for drivers and pedestrians.

N/A given the site is located at the end of a cul-de-sac and will not impede sightlines.

N/A

7.3

Side and Rear Fencing

 

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

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

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

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

Section of the eastern and western side boundary wall / fence exceeds 2.2m above existing ground level.

 

No rear fencing is proposed.

Does not comply. Refer to Key Issues section above.

7.6

Storage

 

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

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

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

(a)    Studio apartments – 6m3

(a)    1-bedroom apartments – 6m3

(b)    2-bedroom apartments – 8m3

(c)    3 plus bedroom apartments – 10m3

Council’s Development Engineer advises that storage can be provided in the basement level for each unit at the rear of each parking space without compromising minimum parking widths / lengths.

 

This would equate to approximately 10m3 storage in the basement for each unit, which in conjunction with the storage provided at the ground floor under the stairs is sufficient.

 

Therefore a condition is recommended to ensure basement storage is provided at the rear of each parking space to a maximum depth of 0.9m.

Complies.

7.7

Laundry facilities

 

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

A condition is recommended to ensure compliance with this part.

Complies.

 

(ii)     Provide internal laundry for each dwelling unit.

An internal laundry is provided for each unit.

Complies.

 

(iii)    Provide a separate service balcony for clothes drying for dwelling units where possible. Where this is not feasible, reserve a space for clothes drying within the sole balcony and use suitable balustrades to screen it to avoid visual clutter.

Upper floor balconies that are large enough to permit clothes drying is not desirable for privacy reasons. Clothes drying facilities can be provided at ground level POS in accordance with this part.

Complies.

7.8

Air conditioning units:

 

·      Avoid installing within window frames. If installed in balconies, screen by suitable balustrades.

·      Air conditioning units must not be installed within window frames.

A condition is recommended to ensure compliance with this part.

Complies.

 

4.         Referral Comments

 

4.1    Heritage Planner

The Site

The site is located below the Randwick ridgeline and the land falls from the south west towards the north east corner.  The site is occupied by a single storey brick dwelling elevated on a sandstone base which retains much of its original Interwar Bungalow character.  Distinctive features include dark face brickwork, terracotta roof tiles, shingled projecting bays and leadlight glazing.  A double garage at the front of the site is below the floor level of the dwelling.  Immediately to the south of the site at nos.16 – 18 Milford Street is Nugal Hall, listed as a heritage item under Randwick LEP 2012, and also listed on the State Heritage Register.  Further to the west nos.2 – 4 Milford Street, a Victorian mansion and no.10 Milford Street, a Californian Bungalow, are also listed as heritage items.  The property also adjoins the High Cross heritage conservation area to the south.  The Heritage Division Statement of Significance for the property notes that Nugal Hall is of State significance as an example of an impressive two storey mansion constructed of stone in the Gothic Revival style.  Designed by the Colonial Architect Mortimer Lewis it was constructed in 1853.  It is associated with a number of significant people.  The house sits well in its grounds and is visually important locally.  The Statement of Significance for the High Cross heritage conservation area notes that “in the north-eastern half of the conservation area there are excellent groupings of Victorian and Federation detached and attached houses, and Inter-War period flat buildings. The row of ten Victorian Free Gothic style two storey terraces, Nos 2-20 Mears Avenue, is outstanding. “Nugal Hall”, at No 18 Milford Street, is one of Randwick’s grandest early Victorian houses.” 

 


 

Proposal

The application proposes to demolish the existing dwelling and to construct a new residential flat building.  Due to the fall of the site, the building has a two storey scale to the rear and a three storey scale to the street with the lower ground floor carparking providing a base to the residential levels. 

 

Background

DA/283/2017 for no.5 Llanfoyst Street adjacent proposed a new residential flat building stepping down with the fall of the site and generally comprising 3 and 4 storeys.  This application was subject to a hearing the Land and Environment Court and has not yet been determined.  Draft consent conditions relate to Site stability, Excavation and Construction work; Dilapidation Reports; Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan; Excavations, Back-filling & Retaining Walls; and Support of Adjoining Land. 

 

Submission

The application has been accompanied by a Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by Andrew Starr and Associates Heritage Consultants.  The HIA provides a detailed history of Nugal Hall, noting a number of prominent owners, use as a Red Cross Hospital, division into 5 flats and subsequent reconversion to a single dwelling.  In relation to heritage impact, the HIA notes that the existing house screens Nugal Hall from public view.  The HIA considers that the proposal maintains sufficient curtilage for the heritage item and is of modest scale with similar visual bulk to the existing house.  The HIA considers that the development does not compete with the heritage in terms of height and scale and utilises a sympathetic colour palette what does not compete with the heritage item. 

 

Controls

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

 

Comments

The Statements of Heritage Impact publication prepared by the Heritage Office and the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning sets out a number of questions to be answered in a Statement of Heritage Impact for New development adjacent to a heritage item, including:

·      How is the impact of the new development on the heritage significance of the item to be minimised?

·      How does the new development affect views to, and from, the heritage item?  What has been done to minimise negative effects?

·      Is the new development sympathetic to the heritage item?  In what way (eg- form, siting, proportions, design?)

·      Will the additions visually dominate the heritage item?  How has this been minimised?

·      Will the public and users of the item, still be able to view and appreciate its significance? 

 

The 1890s Waterboard Maps indicate the grounds of Nugal Hall extending to the east as far as Judge Street, with the subject site within the grounds of a property backing onto “Nugal Hall” and extending north to Albert Street.  The original dwelling on this site, a stone house with an east-facing verandah, was located on the site of what is now no.3 Albert Street, now replaced by a residential flat building. 

 

The contours in Council’s e-view system indicate that the site of the subject dwelling is at a similar level as the garden area to the east of “Nugal Hall”.  Nugal Hall is set well back from Milford Street behind a heavily planted front garden, and close to its northern boundary which adjoins the subject site.  The main rooms of “Nugal Hall” were oriented to capitalise on extensive views to the east and south across the Coogee basin and Coogee Bay.  Views towards the primary east and south elevations of “Nugal Hall” are available from Milford Street and from vantage points to the east within the Coogee Basin.  The north elevation of “Nugal Hall” has minimal windows and minimal visibility from the public domain.  The location of the subject site to the north of “Nugal Hall”, together with the level difference between the floor level of “Nugal Hall” and the site, means that the proposal will have minimal impact on views to and from the heritage item.  The separation between the proposed building and the heritage item and its two storey scale to the rear will minimise potential visual dominance.  The simple form of the proposed building will remain secondary to and will not compete with the complex envelope of “Nugal Hall”.

 

The excavation for the basement will be set back from the southern boundary of the site by a minimum of 4.965m, with “Nugal Hall” having a minimal setback from this boundary for around 2/3 of its length.  A Geotechnical Report carried out by JK Geotechnics has been submitted with the application.  The Report notes that the proposed basement will require a maximum excavation depth of approximately 2.8m in the south western corner.  The Report notes that the top surface of sandstone bedrock was inferred for the southern extent of the proposed development at between 0.7m and 0.75m. 

 

The Report identifies the principle geotechnical issues associated with the proposed development to be the need to maintain stability of the excavation and the neighbouring buildings and structures, and the need to control vibrations associated with rock excavations.  The Report provides discussion and recommendations in relation to excavation methods and techniques, drainage, excavation support, retaining walls, footings, on-grade floor slabs and further geotechnical input. 

 

In order to avoid damage to the internal and external fabric of the adjacent 160 year old heritage item, the proposed development should be implemented in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report which has been submitted.  An appropriate consent condition should be included.  It is recommended that the draft consent conditions provided for the proposed development on the adjacent site at no.5 Llanfoyst Street also be included.

 

The finishes board which has been submitted indicate a sheet metal roof, sandstone cladding to the lower ground floor carpark, masonry walls to the ground floor and vertical weatherboard cladding to the first floor, with vertical metal batten privacy screens and horizontal louvred sliding privacy screens.  Details have not been provided of the colours and finishes for these elements and an appropriate consent condition should be included. 

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The Heritage Planner has recommended a number of conditions ensuring suitable material and finishes are submitted to Council for approval, and to protect the adjacent heritage item during construction. The recommended conditions have been included.

 

4.2    Development Engineer

An application has been received for the demolition of all structures on site and construction of a part 2/part 3 storey multi-dwelling housing development containing 4 dwellings and car parking for 8 vehicles, associated site and landscaped works at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Amended Architectural Plans by Brenchley Architects dated 6th March 2018;

·      Statement of Environmental Effects by Genevieve Slattery dated 21st November 2017.

·      Detail & Level Survey by S Dixon & Surveyors date 1st September 2017

·      Geotechnical Report by J&K Geotechnics

·      Amended Landscape Plan, Planting Details & Details Plans by Site Design Studios, page L-01 – 03, dwg no 6025, issue E, dated 29/03/18.

 

General Comments

The engineering issues raised in memo dated 16th February 2018 have been satisfactorily addressed with the amended plans. The basement carpark has been radically redesigned with changes to space layout and ramp grades. 

It is also noted that a drainage swale has been provided along northern side boundary.

 

No further objections are raised to the proposal subject to the comments and conditions provided in this report.

 

Drainage Comments

On site stormwater detention is required for this development.

 

The Planning Officer is advised that the submitted drainage plans should not be approved in conjunction with the DA, rather, the Development Engineer has included a number of conditions in this memo that relate to drainage design requirements. The applicant is required to submit detailed drainage plans to the certifying authority for approval prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

The stormwater must be discharged (by gravity) either:

 

i.    Directly to the kerb and gutter in front of the subject site in Llanfoyst Street; or

 

ii.   Directly into Council’s underground drainage system located in Llanfoyst St and   via a new and/or existing drainage pit; or

 

It should be noted that infiltration for stormwater discharge will not be appropriate, based on the findings of the submitted geotechnical report which has determined the presence of sandstone bedrock close to the surface.

 

Flooding and Council Drainage Pipe Comments

As detailed in previous memo the site lies at the southern end of the Llanfoyst street cul-de-sac. There is an existing kerb inlet pit near the front of the site that is located at the lowest point on the Llanfoyst street roadway. Although the Coogee Bay Flood Study does not predict significant flooding in this location, there is evidence to suggest that any spillover from the road and pit (say from a blockage) during major storm events may enter the subject site & head eastwards adjacent to the northern site boundary. It was requested in previous mem that allowance for such flow be made via a 1m wide swale adjavcent and parallel to the northern side boundary. This has now been provided in the amended plans and is satisfactory. This will need to be maintained into the future.

 

In addition there is 300mm Council pipe close to this boundary that directs flows from the pit in Llanfoyst st and appears to within the neighbouring property to the north (being No.1 Llanfoyst St). The subject property currently proposes to direct their stormwater discharge into this pipeline.

 

To ensure future access to the Council pipe for maintenance & replacement while also ensuring the likely flow path is maintained, a minimum 1m wide drainage easement will be required to be created adjacent and parallel to the northern side boundary between Llanfoyst Street and the eastern side boundary.  A suitable condition has been included in this report.

 

Parking Comments

 

Parking layout

The engineering issues raised in memo dated 16th February 2018 have been satisfactorily addressed with the amended plans. The basement carpark has been radically redesigned with changes to the layout and ramp grades.  Specifically in regards to the issues addressed;

·      The issue with access into the northern carspace of Unit 1 has been addressed in the completely redesigned configuration.

·      The proposed internal driveway has been amended to comply with the driveway configuration specified in previous engineering memo.

·      One visitor space has now been provided

 

The amended layout is generally supportable and will be able to comply with Council’s requirements. Access to the visitor space is not ideal and will require a point turn or two to enter or exit. In the absence of any other issues this is considered satisfactory.

 

Except where varied by the approved plans or conditions of consent, the vehicular access driveways, internal circulation ramps and the carpark areas, (including, but not limited to, the ramp grades, carpark layout and height clearances) are to be in accordance with the requirements of Australian Standard 2890.1:2004.

 

No further objections are raised on parking subject to the conditions provided in this report.

 

Parking Provision

Parking Requirements for the proposed development have been assessed as per the following applicable parking rates specified in Part B7 of Randwick Council’s Development Control Plan 2013.

·      1.5 spaces per 3 bedroom unit

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

 

 

Parking required under DCP    = (4 x 1.5) + 4/4 (visitor)

                                          = 6 + 1

 

Parking required                   = 7 spaces (including 1 visitor space)

 

Parking Proposed                  = 8 spaces (including 1 visor space - complies)

 

Motorbike Parking

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

 

Motorbike Parking Required        = 0.05 x 7

                                             = 0.35

 

As this is less than 0.5 spaces motorbike parking will not be required for this development

                                            

Bicycle Parking

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

 

Bicycle Parking Required            = 4/2 + 4/10

                                             = 2.4

 

Bicycle Parking proposed            = 3 spaces (complies)

 

Alignment Level comments

Alignment Levels have been determined by considering future construction of a 1.3m wide footpath adjacent to the kerb on Llanfoyst Street while also considering the neighbouring driveway at the approved development at 5 Llanfoyst St.

 

Geotechnical Comments

The submitted geotechnical report by J&K Geotechnics indicates the presence of seepage waters on the site which is required to be appropriately managed as part of this development consent.

 

Site seepage will be required to be discharge to Council’ underground drainage system or subject to further geotechnical investigation an infiltration area. Discharge to the street gutter will not be permitted. The basement will also be required to be tanked and waterproofed.

 

Undergrounding of power.

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

 

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

 

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

 

Waste Management Comments

 

Comments on the number of Waste Bins

Appendix 3 in Part B6 of Council’s DCP specifies a waste bin requirement rate for residential flat buildings houses of 1 x 240L  bin per 2 rooms for normal garbage and 1 x 240L bin per 2 rooms for recycling.

 

i.e. Garbage/recycling Bins Required = 2 x 240L each for garbage & recycling (total 4)

 

There are no specific requirements for green waste in Part B6 of the DCP  however as some landscape areas are proposed it is recommended that a minimum of  2 x 240L bins also be provided for green waste.

 

Total Number of BINS required    = 2 (normal) + 2 (recycling) + 1 (green waste)

                                             = 5 x 240L BINS

                      

Total Number of BINS Proposed   = 6 x 240L bins

 

The plans indicate storage for 6 x 240L bin and therefore demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

The Waste Management Plan  submitted for this application also demonstrates compliance with this requirement but lack sufficient detail in other aspects and should not be approved a  part of this consent. An amended WMP shall be required to Council’s Waste management Coordinator prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

Tree Management

The site inspection of 22 January 2018 revealed that despite not being located directly in front of the subject site, further to the north, uphill, in front of no.1, there is from north to south, a mature Lagerstroemia indica (Crepe Myrtle) and a Sapium sebiferum (Chinese Tallowood), which are protected by the DCP due to their location on public property, despite appearing to have been planted by a resident to assist with privacy, and whose western aspects overhang the roadway.

 

While they would not be directly affected by these works, given the restricted access in this street, it is still likely that they may be damaged by secondary impacts such as trucks, machinery and similar during the course of construction, and as such, conditions have been included requiring that if clearance pruning is required, it must be performed prior to commencement, only by Council, and wholly at the applicant’s cost.

 

Similarly, just beyond the northeast corner of the site, in the front yard of no.1, there is a mature, 8m tall Eleaocarpus reticulatus (Blueberry Ash) which is a native species of good health and condition that is valuable to the neighbour/tree owner due to its ability to provide amenity, shade and privacy.

 

Council has a common law responsibility to protect this tree, with the plans showing that the closest works will be excavations for the northeast corner of the basement level at a setback of 4m, with the OSD tank to be offset a distance of 1500mm, and while a strip of deep soil is shown in this same area, along the northern and eastern boundaries, raised masonry planters boxes will also be constructed right onto the common boundaries here.

 

However, the inspection revealed that there is an existing brick fence along the front boundary of no.1, as well as the low brick wall within the subject site, parallel with the northern site boundary, both of which would have acted as physical barriers to re-direct/restrict or even prevent normal, radial root spread.

 

On this basis, no major impact is expected, with only a precautionary type condition imposed in the case where roots are encountered during works, with permission also granted for minimal clearance pruning where needed.

 

The only vegetation within the subject site is a Frangipani in the front setback, against the northwest corner of the existing dwelling, a small Camelia halfway along the western side setback, and a Cotoneaster halfway across the rear boundary, which are all insignificant, so can be removed given their direct conflict with the new footprint and landscaping in these same areas as shown.

 

While the dense group of weeds/screening shrubs located wholly in the rear yards of those adjoining private properties to the east in Pitt Street, close to the common boundary, were observed to assist with privacy, comprising Umbrella Trees, Date Palms, and Oleanders; they are all of low value, and would not be affected anyway as all works associated with the eastern wall of the basement level will be offset a distance of 3m from this boundary, which is to the west of the existing in-ground pool which would have already prevented root growth into this area, so no impact is expected from this component, with only clearance pruning to be required.

 

The same as described above also applies to those beyond the western site boundary, on higher ground, wholly within no.5, being from north to south a Citrus and a Crepe Myrtle, with both given permission for removal as part of DA/283/2017 for no.5 anyway.

 

The large Camphor Laurel beyond the western site boundary, wholly in the rear yard of no.5, is located on higher ground, and is sited at such a distance from the works that its root plate would not be affected, and while consent was also granted for removal of this tree as part of DA/283/2017 due to its extremely poor condition, its eastern aspect does overhang into the subject site, so conditions have been provided allowing pruning where necessary.

 

Landscape Comments

The Landscape Plans have been amended from the original submission, to include additional screen planting along the western site boundary, as well as a slight increase in deep soil/lawn at the rear area of common open space, with conditions in this report requiring that this plan be revised further to include a combination of additional accent/feature species, as well as appropriately selected and located trees throughout the site.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: It is noted that the stormwater plans should not be approved as part of the drawing set. All of the recommended conditions have been included.

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That the RLPP 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 floor space ratio development standard in Clause 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The concurrence of the Director of the Department of Planning & Environment may be assumed.

 

B.     That the RLPP grants development consent under Sections 4.16 and 4.17 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 725/2017 for demolition of all structures on site and construction of a part two and part three storey multi-dwelling housing development comprising 4 dwellings, car parking for 8 vehicles and associated site and landscaped works at No. 2 Llanfoyst Street, Randwick subject to the development consent conditions attached to this report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

RLPP Development Consent Conditions (medium density residential)

 

 

 

 


RLPP Development Consent Conditions (medium density residential)

Attachment 1

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Randwick Local Planning Panel                                                                                   12 July 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D57/18

 

Subject:             130A Marine Parade, Maroubra (DA/198/2017)

Folder No:                   DA/198/2017

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Demolition of existing dwelling, construction of a part 3 part 4 level residential flat building comprising 3 dwellings and a semi-basement car park for 5 car spaces, and associated works. (variation to floor space ratio control).

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                Mr G Marcolin

Owner:                        Mr G Marcolin & Mrs A M Marcolin

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 


 

Executive summary

 

The application is referred to the Randwick Local Planning Panel (RLPP) as:

·      10 unique submissions by way of objection were received

 

Proposal

Demolition of existing dwelling, construction of a 4 storey residential flat building comprising 3 dwellings including semi-basement car parking for 5 vehicles and associated works.

Amended plans received by Council on 16 May 2018 incorporate the following amendments and shown in the following three figures:

·      FSR reduced from 1.07:1 down to 0.98:1. Note: lobby area is included in the calculations.

·      Height reduced by 600mm (from RL22.22 to RL21.62) to ensure the building is below the 12m maximum height permissible under the RLEP and for the most part compliant with the 10.5m maximum external wall height control in the RDCP;

·      Increase in setbacks at the front, sides and rear to be generally more consistent with the predominant setbacks and consistent with the varying front setbacks along Marine parade.

·      Re-arrange lower level parking, waste bin and pathways to improve functioning

·      Reduce land levels and associated fencing along the perimeter to minimise visual mass as viewed from neighbouring properties.

 

Figure 1: Context Street elevation. The reduced height achieves a more consistent height line with the more recent developments along Marine Parade.

Figure 2: This eastern elevation shows a 600mm reduction in height to a maximum of between 10.74m and 10.99m at the front elevation facing Marine Parade (RL21.62 – RL10.88/RL10.63), reduced rear yard levels (RL11.35) and increased front setback setting back the bedrooms (note rear setback has also been increased as shown in figure below).

 

Figure 3: The pink shading shows the increase in front, side and rear setbacks. A realignment of the building away from the eastern side has also been undertaken.

 

Site Description and Locality

 

The site consists of a single allotment with an irregular skewed shape containing a two storey dwelling.. The site has a skewed front southern boundary to marine parade of 13.2m, a rear boundary of 12.84m and as a result differing eastern and western side boundaries of 28.55m and 25.115m respsectivley. The total site area is 345.2sqm.

 

Topographically, the site falls around 2m from the higher rear part of the site down to the lower front (gradient of around 7%). This graident where the front yards are the lowest areas within each allotment is characteristic of other sites along this side of Marine Parade. This has driven develpoment to include above ground parking or semi basement parking.

 

The other salient part of this site is that the rear yard level sits higher than the land level of the adjoining rear yard of No. 130B Marine Parade and generally similar to the land level of the rear yard at No. 132 Marine Parade. The lower level rear yard of No. 130B Marine Parade is from deep excavation carried out as part of the devlepoment of the older three storey Residential Flat Building (RFB).

 

Adjoining the site to the west is a part 1 part 2 storey dwelling at No. 132 Marine Parade (shown in photo 2) which is largley underdevelpoed given the zoning allows for medium density develpoment with stanards of 12m and 0.9:1 GFA. Photos 1 & 2 show the front of both of these adjoining dwellings. Further below photo 3 shows the part four part three storey RFB at the corner of Marine Parade and Bond Street.

 

Other surrounding development is generally characterised by multi storey residential flat buildings (RFB’s) which is the predominant form of development permissible in the R3 Medium Density Residnetial zone.

 

The photos below show various aspects of the immediate streetscape.

 

Photo 1: looking northerly direction showing the subject site at left (yellow rendered two storey building) and neighbouring flat buildings to the east at No. 130B (three storeys), 128 (four storeys) and the streetside corner portion of 126 Marine Parade –four storey flat building – also shown further below).

Photo 2: Looking westerly the subject two storey dwelling at right, neighbouring part one part two storey dwelling at No. 132 Marine Parade; front side elevation of a part three part four storey flat building at no 134 Marine Parade; athe side elevation of No. 136 Marine Parade – a four storey flat building.

Photo 3: Looking westerly to the corner of Marine Parade and Bond Street showing No. 126 Marine Pardae – a fourt storey flat building

 

Photo 4: 134 Marine Parade

 

Adjoining the rear, are prpoerties fronting Bond Street. Topographically, they sit on higher ground level than the properties in front along marine parade. Photo 3 shows the difference in levels between Bond Street and Marine Parade. Directly adjoining to the rear is No. 47 Bond Street containing residnetial flat building. Adjoining the corners at the rear are properties containing a child care centre at No. 47 Bond Street used as a child care centre and 45 Bond Street a multi storey residntetial flat building.

 

Opposite the subject site is Maroubra foreshore shown in photo below showing oceans interface with the headland and Maroubra Beach.

 

Photo 5: View opposite the site showing the Maroubra Foreshore, beach and interfacing headland at left.

 

Relevant history

 

Develpoment consent was issued for a part three part four storey residential flat building in 2003 (DA/935/2003);

 

Development consent was issued in 2005 for a part three part four storey flat building in DA/729/2005; below is an excerpt of the approved develpoments eastern side elevation which shows a similar built form to the proposed development. It is important to note that the similarity is achieved by the reduction in hegiht of the develpoment.

                          

Figure 3:Previously approved developoment on the subject site showing a part three part/four storey built form above existing ground levels.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

1.  2/456 Maroubra Rd, Maroubra

2.  10/43 Bond Street, Maroubra

3.  Submission on behalf of 49 Bond Street

4.  49 Bond Street, Maroubra

5.  46 Broome Street, Maroubra

6.  8/11 Hereward Street, Maroubra

7.  132 Marine Parade x 3 (one submission relating to the original proposal and another following notification of the amending plans)

8.  Town Planner on behalf of 132 Marine Parade x 2 (one submission relating to the original proposal and another following notification of the amended plans)

9.  Town Planner on behalf of 130B Marine Parade, Maroubra


 

 

Issue

Comment

Relating to rear allotment containing a child care centre at No. 49 Bond Street:

·      Noise and vibration may affect the ability for the children to sleep and play through this;

 

·      Dust and other environmental factors

 

 

 

 

 

·      Smoking and potential language of building staff

 

 

 

·      Overshadowing to the outdoor area.

 

 

·      Standard construction noise and vibration conditions apply to the development;

 

·      Standard construction site management conditions apply to the development including the use of appropriate fencing and management dust.

 

·      All workers on site shall at induction to the site be advised that there is a child care centre at the rear of the site and as such they should exercise appropriate etiquette (see condition 28);

 

·      The site is to the south of the child care centre and therefore loss of solar access is not a concern having regard to the RDCP controls;

View loss from neighbouring developments (Ground level unit at No. 130B Marine Parade; 132 Marine Parade;

10/43 Bond Street and 49 Bond Street;

The view loss from the proposed development is considered acceptable – see key issues section of this report.

 

 

 

The proposed development is inconsistent with the objectives of the RLEP and the RDCP and does not meet the following controls standards:

·      Landscaped open space

·      Deep soil

·      Side setback

·      External wall height

·      FSR

 

The amended application now complies with the majority of the RDCP controls except for external wall height and a portion of the eastern side setback which are considered acceptable as discussed in the key issues section of this report.

Despite the FSR being lowered, the proposed development seeks an exception to the FSR which is discussed further below.

Assurance that asbestos if evident on site is managed appropriately

A suitable condition is included requiring compliance with asbestos handling and disposal requirements.

Negative impact on parking along Bond Street during construction

The proposed development is subject to a Construction Traffic Management plan requiring a work zone in front of the site. Notwithstanding, Bond Street is a public Road and may be used for parking.

Request that the child care centre is deeply consulted throughout the assessment process and before development conditions are set. This is necessary to ensure proper plans are in place to:

- protect the children's health and safety

- minimise disruption to our operations such as no noise or vibrations to occur during children’s sleep time

All relevant matters raised have been considered in the assessment of the application.

 

In particular conditions of consent are included to limit noise and vibration nuisance to acceptable standards. The site management condition is also included requiring the proponent of the development to notify the child care centre when demolition works are being carried out.

Please ensure no cranes encroach over our airspace at No. 49 Bond Street

A suitable condition can be included (see condition 28).

Insufficient parking spaces for the number of dwellings proposed

The parking complies with the vehicle rates required under the Part B7 of the RDCP.

The Child Care centre should be informed of the work schedule for the week ahead

This is considered an onerous requirement. As indicated earlier, subject to compliance with relevant conditions, the proposed development will not result in any significant adverse impact on the amenity of the child care centre. The relevant conditions relate to:

 

·      Construction site management

·      Construction Traffic Management

·      Asbestos management and disposal

·      Noise and vibration management

It is considered that a building of similar height and scale to that proposed, which complied, or more closely complied, with the maximum 0.9:1 FSR development standard would achieve a smaller building footprint than proposed

Noted. Whilst the development continues to exceed the maximum FSR standard applicable to the site, the applicant has demonstrated that the amended proposal will satisfy the relevant objectives of the standard and the zone.

Front building setback and parallel alignment to the front southern boundary is inconsistent with established front setbacks and street façade orientation of the existing buildings along this section of Marine Parade

The front setback as increased at the south eastern corner (bedrooms) and realigned to be more parallel with the frontage is considered to be consistent with the curvature of the frontage and building alignment along this slightly curved frontage of this part of Marine Parade.

Privacy and overlooking from side balconies

Amended plans have reduced the privacy impact from these balconies. Additional conditions are also included relating to the usability of the raised ground levels along the side boundaries and privacy screening design requirements.

The accessibility to parking spaces should be assessed

The parking layout as amended has been assessed by Council’s Development Engineer and where relevant appropriate conditions are included.

Overshadowing

The proposed development does not result in non-compliant levels of overshadowing to the neighbouring properties.

Light overspill from open stairs in the rear

A suitable condition is included requiring the lighting to not cause any unreasonable light nuisance through demonstrated positioning of louvred screens.

Finished rear yard ground levels/retaining wall/boundary height in relation to ground levels behind unit 1 of 130B marine parade will be excessive.

The amended scheme reduces the rear yard levels to below existing such that a 1.6m high fence atop the finished ground level will achieve a 2.4m fence above the rear yard of No. 130B Marine Parade.

 

Whilst still higher than a standard 1.8m high fence, consideration has to be given to the fact that there is already a significant variance in ground level, a consequence of the significant excavation carried out as part of the development of No. 130B Marine Parade and the proposed fencing along this side boundary represents an improvement to the privacy of No. 130B Marine Parade where the existing low side fence provides no privacy protection.

Development does not comply with the required front setbacks.

Noted, see discussion of front setbacks in the key issues section below.

The colours and materials are inappropriate along the foreshore area.

A suitable condition is included.

Requested that side boundary fencing be provided to 1.8m above ground level.

The existing boundary fence is around 1.8m along the rear yard of the eastern side boundary. The proposed development provides reduced ground levels in the rear yard and raised levels along the side, associated with the roof of the carpark and planter box above. The retaining wall and planter above will provide an appropriate barrier and as this area is non-trafficable with a sizable depth it will achieve appropriate privacy protection.

Owners of 132 Marine Parade be advised of Council’s position prior to determination of the application.

The application is referred to the Panel for determination and those that have made submissions will be notified of the meeting.

 

Key Issues

 

The identified non-compliances are discussed in detail below.

 

Clause 4.6 exceptions to development standards – Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

The proposed development exceeds the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) development standard in Clause 4.4 of the RLEP. The floor space ratio of the development is 0.98:1 exceeding the maximum 0.9:1 FSR standard - a variation of 9.1%.

 

The applicant has submitted an exception to the development standard as required under Clause 4.6 of the RLEP and discussed in the section further below.

 

In brief, it is considered that the applicant has generally provided well-founded arguments that the maximum standard for the FSR should not be strictly applied. It is important to note that this is largely a result of a reduction in floor area through an increase in the rear setback, an increase in the front setback and a reduction in the height of the development by 600mm.

 

The floor area is distributed appropriately within the site relative to neighbouring properties amenity and will contribute to the existing and future streetscape character, key objectives of the FSR standard and the R3 Medium Density Residential Zone. The distribution of floor area is reflected by the well-articulated and stepped in elements of built form providing appropriate spatial separation between neighbouring properties. As well, the use of contemporary cladding integrates well with the mixed era and architectural language of developments along this part of Marine Parade as well as the wider foreshore area.

 

Overall, the proposed development, as amended is considered to satisfy the key objectives of the FSR standard and the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

 

External wall height

Part C2 of the RDCP provide controls and objectives for medium density development states that where the site is subject to a 12m building height limit under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP), the maximum external wall height is 10.5m.

 

The proposal complies with the 12m height limit, but as can be seen in the figure below, breaches the 10.5m limit, with the maximum external wall height being 10.99m above ground level (RL21.62-RL10.63) at the front south eastern corner of the development.

 

Figure 5: Eastern elevation showing external wall height.

 

An assessment is required against the following objectives for external wall heights under Part C2 of the RDCP:

 

-    To ensure that the building form provides for interesting roof forms and is compatible with the streetscape.

 

-    The proposed roof is flat is generally consistent with the predominant roof forms in the area. In terms of streetscape compatibility, the 600mm reduction in height minimises the encroachment above the maximum to 4.6% maximum. This encroachment is minor when considered in the context of the streetscape which contains examples of RFB’s whose walls similarly encroach above the maximum wall height provision such as that at No. 126 Marine Parade (shown in an earlier photo.

 

-    The encroachments can for the most part be construed as fitting into a parapet associated with a roof.

 

-    The design of the development alleviates the encroachments with stepped in walls behind the front balconies and along the side elevations which is considered to break up the massing as viewed from the street and neighbouring properties;

 

-    The proposed height of the development does not dominate but rather fits in well with the bulk and scale of other medium density developments along this stretch of Marine Parade as shown in Figure 1 earlier.

 

-    To ensure ceiling heights for all habitable rooms promote light and quality interior spaces.

 

The proposal has 2.7m floor to ceiling heights which complies with the minimum required under the Apartment Design Guide (ADG). The proposal also meets the solar and cross ventilation guidelines contained in the ADG.

 

-    To control the bulk and scale of development and minimise the impacts on the neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing, privacy and visual amenity.

 

-    The encroachment is considered to be minor and it is considered that the proposal as amended responds appropriately to the site given the natural topography which falls down from the rear down to the front

 

With respect to the bulk and scale of the development and minimising the impact on neighbouring properties:

 

-    The non-compliant walls are a small volume of the upper level and has been minimised as far as practical in amended plans received by Council. The bulk and scale of the development is considered appropriate for the site in that it fits in with the bulk and scale of other developments in the street, it is well below the maximum overall height, it generally meets the average side and rear setback controls and sits comfortably within the site and the adjoining developments.

 

-    The impacts on neighbouring properties are similar to those that could be expected of the applicable planning controls, discussed as follows:

 

-    The level of overshadowing to both the eastern and western neighbour’s is acceptable in that the non-compliant elements of walls are minor largely mitigated by the larger than necessary side setbacks associated with the kink in the middle of the side elevations and the north-south orientation of the site means that overshadowing is shared across both side boundaries with no single neighbour suffering from excessive overshadowing. The shadow cast on the adjoining properties to the east and west would be similar to that of a compliant building particularly given the 10.57m external wall height at the rear of the development is closer to compliant and the increased rear setbacks;

 

-    In terms of the neighbour’s visual amenity, the proposal demonstrates suitable articulation with stepped in elevations inclusive of contemporary cladding provides a contemporary design. This design  approach is considered to be compatible with the framed architectural language of the RFB at No. 134 Marine Parade and the fluid development at No. 126 Marine Parade shown in previous photos

 

-    The proposed wall height non-compliance does not result in any implications in terms of privacy given that the side elevations contain appropriately treated windows and where necessary subject to appropriate conditioning.

 

The proposed wall heights as reduced satisfy the objectives for the wall height control.

 

Retaining walls

The DCP states that where it is necessary to construct retaining walls at less than 900mm from the side or rear boundary due to site conditions, retaining walls must be stepped with each section not exceeding a maximum height of 2200mm, as measured from the ground level (existing). In this case, the retaining walls are incorporated as part of the boundary fence.

 

The originally proposed retaining walls and fence attained a height of between 2.6m and 3.3m adjoining 132 Marine Parade and No. 130B Marine Parade and considered excessive having regard to the neighbour’s visual amenity.

 

The applicant has submitted amended plans rearranging the side elevations and lowering the rear yard level such that the maximum height of fencing and walls are around 2.4m except for with a small section of the western side fencing that attains a height of 2.6m which is due to the slope and drop down in land levels. This is still above the 1.8m height for a standard side boundary fence.

 

An assessment against the objectives is required against the objectives of the control which are:

 

-    To maintain or to minimise change to the natural ground levels.

 

132 Marine Parade

 

There is little level difference between the two properties, however the amended application rearranges the side courtyard deleting roofs, providing non-trafficable areas and lowering rear yard level which will allow for a standard a 1.8m high fence along the shared side boundary.

 

130B Marine Parade

 

At the outset, an existing ground levels variance exists between these properties where no. 130B marine Parade sits well below the subject site. This variance is a consequence of excavation as part of the development of No. 130B Marine Parade. As well, an existing 1.5m high side fence does not provide any privacy protection. The amended application reduces the variance in land levels minimising massing of the retaining wall and fence as well as improving privacy protection.

 

The height of this fence is required to be at 1.6m above the finished ground level (from RL11.345 to RL12.945) which will limit the fence as viewed from 130B Marine Parade to around 2.4m in height which is a better planning outcome having regard to both achieving reasonable privacy between neighbours as well as minimising visual impacts.

 

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

 

In relation to the retaining walls and built form along the sides of the building, the length of the retaining walls are minimised through the provision of a part open car park arrangement with the enclosed retaining section being limited towards the rear of the site where the land is at its highest. The open elements are at the lowest front half of the site and are non-trafficable negating the need to provide any substantial fencing atop of these areas. Suitable conditions are included to reduce height of fencing along these non-trafficable areas. The retaining walls and fencing opposite the sides of the building are considered acceptable in relation to ensuring no unreasonable impacts on the adjoining properties.

 

In relation to the rear yard, as noted above the proposed development as amended is considered to achieve a good planning outcome in relation to visual massing and privacy between the two neighbouring properties.

 

-    To enable the provision of usable communal or private open space with adequate gradient.

 

The proposed retaining walls and fencing provides a usable area of private open space for the rear unit and the communal open space in the rear yard.

 

-    To ensure earthworks do not result in adverse stormwater impacts on the adjoining properties.

 

The proposed development is subject to standard conditions relating to stormwater management.

 

Front setback

The RDCP states that the front setback must be consistent with the prevailing setback line along the street. Notwithstanding, the front setback generally must be no less than 3m to allow for suitable landscape areas to building entries. The relevant objectives under the RDCP for front setbacks read as follows:

 

·      To define the street edge and establish or maintain consistent rhythm of street setbacks and front gardens that contributes to the local character.

·      To ensure adequate separation between buildings for visual and acoustic privacy, solar access, air circulation and views.

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

 

In terms of the street edge and rhythm of street setbacks, the aerial below shows that buildings are askewer of the front boundary whereby they are aligned towards a south westerly direction askewer of the front boundary aligned on an east–west axis. The south westerly direction of buildings is to take advantage of the views of Maroubra Beach and headland. These alignments result in varying front setbacks dependent on the front boundary alignment relative to Maroubra Beach

Figure 6: Aerial view of developments along Marine Parade.

 

The original development had a setback of between 3.7m from the eastern corner of the building and 6.1m from the western corner of the building to the front boundary, which was considered inconsistent with the predominant front setbacks along the street.

 

·      126 Marine Parade: Generally a nil setback at ground level with upper levels setback

·      128 Marine Parade: ground level front setbacks between 1m and 8m and upper levels front setbacks between 4.6m and 11.3m. Note the balconies at the front are partially enclosed with louvres on the sides containing characteristics of bulk and have a setback of between 4.5m and 9m

·      No. 130B Marine Parade is setback between 4.6m and 8.5m form the front boundary.

·      132 Marine Parade is a single dwelling and has a front setback from the south eastern corner much greater than the predominant setbacks of developments along this stretch of Marine Parade.  As such, it is not considered that this represents a good indicator of the predominant front setbacks.

·      134 Marine Parade runs parallel to the front boundary and is setback 6.84m from the front boundary (note front terraces have been enclosed by DA/62/2016)

·      136 – 1368 Marine Parade has a front setback between 5m and 5.5m

 

With the encroachment of the wall height control, it was considered that this would result in the development dominating the site and would therefore detract from the streetscape character.

 

The applicant subsequently amended their application on two further occasions, the first of which realigned the layout of the development improving the western front setback. This was not accepted as satisfying the objectives.

 

The second set of amended plans, increased the front setback from the eastern part of the development in combination with a 600mm reduction in the overall height of the development. The proposed development as amended now has front setbacks of between 4.7m at the eastern side and 7m at the western side of the front elevation. In combination with the reduced height of the development, it is considered that these front setbacks will maintain the rhythm of street setbacks and ensure adequate separation for visual and acoustic privacy, solar access, air circulation and views.

 

Whilst the proposed development is still proposing shorter front setbacks than No. 132 Marine Parade to the west, (the subject of several submissions focusing on this aspect of the development), it is considered that the western neighbours front setback is larger than normal and this is associated with a underdeveloped property in that it is a two storey dwelling in amongst the predominant medium density built form that are sited closer to their respective front boundary’s.

 

Overall it is considered that the proposed front setback as amended satisfy the relevant objectives under the RDCP.

 

Side setbacks

The RDCP states that a 2m side setback control applies for a site with a width of between 12m and up to 14m.

 

The proposed development has varying side setbacks due to the angled side elevations of the development. Whilst the majority of the development complies with the RDCP control, the development encroaches into the 2m minimum side setback control include at the western side elevation opposite No. 132 Marine Parade by virtue of a diagonal peak of wall and at the eastern side elevation at the rear of the proposed development, associated with the access stairs and entry set back 1.5m from the side boundaries.

 

An assessment is required against the following objectives of the control:

 

·      To define the street edge and establish or maintain consistent rhythm of street setbacks and front gardens that contributes to the local character.

 

The encroachments are minor occurring well away from the front and will not detract from the local character

 

·      To ensure adequate separation between buildings for visual and acoustic privacy, solar access, air circulation and views.

 

Western side setback

There are no objections to the encroaching western side setback as its limited to a small angled peak of the wall with the majority of the western wall returning within the site and well away from this side boundary well in excess of the RDCP control.  The separation of the development from the western side boundary is considered to satisfy the relevant objectives having regard to streetscape character and protecting the amenity of neighbouring properties.

 

Eastern side setback

The proposed eastern side setback at the rear occurs over a longer section of wall, however it remains relatively short length of wall and moreover this is a lightweight structure comprised of slated semi open elements which minimises its massing and creates visual interest.

 

The relatively open screening does not create any adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring property having regard to access to light and ventilation. The proposed development is adequately sited having regard to its impacts on neighbouring properties direct solar access. This the development at the rear is eastern elevation and it is considered that there would be a benefit to the neighbouring properties amenity in terms of access to light and ventilation if the development did provide a compliant side setback along this part of the site. This is particularly important given the unit opposite is set below the proposed ground level of the subject site.

 

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

 

The proposed development provides compliant deep soil and open space areas throughout the site.

 

Rear setbacks

The RDCP states that a minimum 5m setback is required for medium density develpoment or 25% of the length of the site whichever is greater. The proposed devlepoment as amended with an increased rear setback of between 4.77m and 5.29m does not meet the minimum 5m setback control in the RDCP for a portion of its site.

 

It is important to note that the RDCP also states that the rear setback may be varied where the site is of an irregular shape. The subject site is irregular and it is considered that the proposed rear setback is satisfactory for the following reasons:

 

·      The increased rear setback is on average consistent with the predominant rear setback of adjoining development which is also generally consistent with the predominant rear building line of other flat buildings along this side of Marine Parade most notably No. 130B Marine Parade, 134 Marine Parade, 136-138 Marine Parade and 140 Marine Parade.

·      The combined increase in rear setback, reduction of the heigh tof the develpoment into a three storey built form achieve adeauate spatial separation between the develpoment and neighbouring properties having regard to visual amenity, access to daylight and fresh air.

 

View sharing

An assessment of view loss has been undertaken from neighbouring properties as the RDCP states that where view loss is likely to occur, an assessment is required against the relevant RDCP objectives and the planning principle for view sharing in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 140.

 

The objectives are:

 

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

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

·      To ensure developments are sensitively and skilfully designed to maintain a reasonable amount of views from the development, neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

 

It is noted that submissions have been received from the following properties raising view loss issues:

 

·      132 Marine Parade

·      130B Marine Parade;

·      10/43 Bond Street

 

The following paragraphs provide a four-step analysis of view loss established in the planning principle for view sharing in the NSW Land and Environment Court case Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 140

 

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

 

The existing views currently available to the neighbouring properties in question are described below:

 

132 Marine Parade

Photo 5: Taken from front elevated terrace in front of living room (note: living rooms extend along the full frontage of the dwelling).

Photo 6: View from living room located furthest away from the subject site. The view is in an easterly direction across the side boundary of the subject site. The submission notes that the proposed front setback is inconsistent with the predominant front setback and will obstruct views.

 

Photo 7: Taken from within lounge room closest to the subject site. Looking in a south easterly direction the view is of the headland. Not shown is the wider view of Maroubra Beach shown in the earlier photo from the terrace.

 

130B Marine Parade

Photo 8: Taken from behind the ground level front terrace.

 

Current views: The current views obtained from the ground level terrace at No. 130B Marine Parade show an unobstructed view to the south west across the front of the existing building on the subject site (yellow rendered building), further south westerly (moving left in the photo from the subject building) a view along Maroubra Beach and in a more easterly direction is a wider view of the not shown.

 


 

10/43 Bond Street

Photo 9: Top level apartment.

 

Photo 10: south easterly view across the subject site (terracotta tiled roof). The view is across the top of the subject site and No. 132 Marine Parade shown left of the subject site. The view takes in the interface between the ocean and the headland from a rear top level sunroom.

 

Photo 11: The view is of the ocean and partial view of Maroubra Beach at left of the development at No. 134 Marine Parade. This view in combination with the view shown in the earlier photo demonstrates an expansive view of the headland and partial view of Maroubra Beach.

 

49 Bond Street

The views from 49 Bond Street run diagonally across the rear of the site and the proposed development. As the rear of the development is fully compliant with the external wall height and no other parts of the development will affect view loss it is considered that the proposed bulk and scale of the development is acceptable having regard to the potential for view loss from this single storey building. No further view loss assessment is considered necessary.

 

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

 

132 Marine Parade

Elevated front terrace

·      Views across the front boundary of the subject site;

·      Standing and sitting views;

Lounge rooms

·      Views across the front setback and side boundary of the subject site;

·      Standing and sitting views;

130B Marine Parade

Front terrace

·      Views across the front setback of the subject site

10/43 Bond Street

Sunroom

·      Views diagonally across the rear of the subject site.

 

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

 

Location

Extent of impact

132 Marine Parade

Terrace

Using the balustrade as a reference point in the survey and shown in photo below, the proposed development will be located left of the electricity pole behind the balustrade. The views retained will be expansive taking in the ocean, interfacing wash with the headland and Maroubra Beach. No further consideration of view loss from this part of the site is considered necessary.

Lounge rooms

The proposed development will be 5.5m closer to the front boundary and will likely obstruct the view left of the middle door frame across the side boundary of the subject site.


 

Lounge room closest to the subject site.

The proposed development providing for a 4.4m front setback will be located in line with the closest part of the balustrade cutting out part of the ocean view retaining the headland view and Maroubra beach not shown in the photo.

130B Marine Parade

 

Front terrace

The proposed development will be 1.2m closer to the front boundary than the existing building. At this angle the proposed development will have a negligible impact to the view of Maroubra Beach. Whilst at a more acute angle there will be greater loss of views along Maroubra Beach this is limited to a small part of the terrace and not significant when compared with the retained expansive and highly valuable views of Maroubra Beach, the headland and ocean not be affected by the proposed development

 

10/43 Bond Street

Rear sunroom

The photo below, as a reference point the top of the existing triangular parapet (RL20.54 from survey) of No. 130B Marine Parade is used to ascertain the wall height of the proposed development at this point and therefore the extent of impact. At this reference point the proposed development, has a wall height of 9.83m above ground level and below the maximum wall height permitted. The proposed development will obstruct the views of the headland interfacing with the water wash which is a similar impact on views caused by the development at No. 134 Marine Parade whereby it obstructs views of the water line along Maroubra Beach from the rear facing kitchen window. This view loss is considered significant.

 

 

As shown in Step 1, the above view loss is similar to the view loss caused by the development at No. 134 Marine Parade. Note No. 134 Marine Parade is on lower land level than that of the subject site – a characteristic of the natural topography along this side of Marine Parade.

 

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

 

132 Marine Parade and 130B Marine Parade

 

The key aspect of this part of the development as it pertains to view loss relates to the front setback of the proposed development which is raised in the submission by the applicant and their representative. The proposed front setback is considered suitable for the site and will not detract from the character along Marine Parade as discussed in an earlier section of this report. Moreover, the proposed front setback is not considered responsible for any significant loss of views from the neighbouring properties’ and is therefore considered to satisfy the reasonableness test under the planning principle.

 

10/43 Bond Street

 

In order to fully retain the views of the interfacing water with headland from this unit it is anticipated that because of the diagonal sideways views across the middle of the site, any reasonable redevelopment of the subject site would result in a similar impact and this is verified by the previous approval as shown in figure 3 of this report.

 

In addition, the planning principle acknowledges the difficulties in protecting these types of views across side boundaries as often being unrealistic.

 

Overall, the proposed development as amended is considered reasonable having regard to the relevant matters for consideration under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and satisfies the planning principle for view sharing.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

That the application to demolish existing dwelling, and the construction of a 3 level residential flat building over semi-basement car parking comprising 3 dwellings and 5 car park spaces with associated works. Amended plans increasing the rear setback, reconfiguration of lower ground floor and alignment of side elevations at upper ground, second and third floor level 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 requirements of Clause 4.6 have been met and that the FSR in Clause 4.4 of RLEP 2012 can be varied.

 


 

 

Detailed Assessment

1.         Section 4.15 matters for consideration

 

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

 

Section 4.15 ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

The site is zoned Residential R3 Medium Density under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

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

 

Foreshore scenic Protection Area

The RLEP 2012 contains provisions that seek to ensure development is appropriate for the location and does not detract from the scenic qualities of the coast.

 

The most pronounced elements affecting the foreshore scenic protection area relate to the massing and selection of materials.

 

The amendments made to the development reducing the massing and incorporating setbacks at the front bedrooms are considered to have suitably minimised the massing of the development as viewed from the foreshore.

 

There are no major objections to the selection of materials however a condition is included to allow for further details to be submitted post determination.

 

Overall, the proposed development will not dominate the site and will contribute to the qualities of the foreshore scenic protection area.

 

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 in Section 3 of this report and where relevant key issues section.

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 proposed development is suitable for the site.

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

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

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

The proposal generally satisfies the objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. See table in Section 3 of this report.

 

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) requires Council to consider whether the site is suitable in its current state, contaminated state or following the completion of remediation works for the purposes for which development consent is being sought. The site has historically been used for residential purposes and 935/2013

 

The site has been historically used for residential purposes and there are no known uses which may have potentially contaminated the site.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (BASIX) 2004

In accordance with the SEPP BASIX all new housing in NSW is required to meet a designated target for energy and water reduction. A BASIX Certificate was submitted with the application, which indicates that the proposal meets the required reduction targets. The proposal therefore satisfies the requirements of the SEPP.

 

2.2      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

The site is zoned R3 Medium 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 generally be consistent with the existing and desired streetscape character and will not result in any significant or unreasonable adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties.

 

The following Clauses of RLEP 2012 apply to the proposal:

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

0.9:1

0.98:1

No, see exception to the development standard below.

Height of Building (Maximum)

12m

10.99 (RL21.62-RL10.63)

Yes

 

a)  Request to vary development standard - Floor Space Ratio

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

 

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

Development Standard

0.9:1 (310.68sqm)

Proposal

0.98:1 (339sqm)

Excess above RLEP Standard

9.1% (28.32sqm)

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

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

 

The concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure must also be obtained for development that contravenes a development standard. However, pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 18–003 (dated 21 February 2018) the concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Environment under clause 4.6(3) & (4) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed in certain cases.

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

The applicant has provided the following arguments (addressing both the objectives of the standard and the R3 medium density zone) in support of the Clause 4.6 exception:

 

 

 

 

 

Officer’s assessment of the Clause 4.6 exception

The amended proposal whilst reduced from the originally proposed 1.08:1 continues to exceed the maximum floor space ratio standard seeking an FSR of 0.98:1 exceeding the standard by 9.1%. This lower exception sought to the standard is a result of an increase in the rear setback, an increase in the front setback and including the rear lobby area as part of the FSR calculations which were previously omitted. Notwithstanding, the main considerations are whether the additional floor area across the whole of the site satisfies the key objectives of the FSR standard and the R3 zone.

 

These objectives are assessed as follows:

 

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

 

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

 

Provided. The generous size of the three apartments provides for the housing needs of the community within the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

 

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

 

The proposed development provides only one type of housing - two bedroom apartments 110sqm in area which are a larger than the minimum 75sqm required for 2 bed and 2 bath units under the Apartment Design Guide (ADG). Whilst the ADG is not technically applicable however it does provide guidance on minimum apartment sizes. The generous apartment sizes provides greater amenity which to a degree provides housing choice.

 

It is also considered that providing larger two bedroom apartments is more readily suitable for the site constrained by its small allotment size rather than rather than two one bedroom units on each level which would have potentially put increased pressure on the setbacks, potential impacts on the neighbours amenity and ultimately streetscape character.

 

Further still, the two bedroom apartments also place less demand on parking than that created by one bedroom or three bedroom apartments. 

 

Overall, the size and layout of the proposed two bedroom apartments display a high level of amenity, functionality and flexibility that will provide for the housing needs of the community.

                                  

•      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.

 

Within the visual catchment of the site there are buildings of various architectural styles, eras and built forms. The architecture of the building inclusive of the stepped inside elevations creates a contemporary built form with a sense of depth and openness as viewed from both the neighbouring properties, within the streetscape and further afield from along the Foreshore Scenic Protection area. The proposed built form is an appropriate redevelopment of the subject site, as it responds well to the context of the neighbourhood in the foreshore scenic area, particularly given the mix of architectural styles and the varying bulk of other developments within the surrounding area such as No. 126, 128, 134, 136-138 and 140 Marine Parade shown in figure 4 below.

 

Figure 4: Context Street elevation. The reduced height achieves a more consistent height line with the more recent developments along Marine Parade.

 

The proposed development will contribute to the desirable contemporary elements of the existing and future streetscape character.

 

•      To protect the amenity of residents.

 

The amenity of residents having regard to privacy, solar access, visual amenity and views are considered to have been suitably minimised and the proposed density of the development will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on the future occupants or the neighbouring residents.

 

•      To encourage housing affordability.

 

The degree of affordability is to a large extent dictated by the highly valuable location of the site and as indicated earlier, it is considered that the proposed development provides good housing choice.

 

The key objectives of the FSR standard are listed as follows:

 

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

 

The RDCP generally envisages a three storey built form with habitable roof level above/ or reduced floor area at the top level however at the front the proposal provides a four storey building at the front with a top level extending vertically from the level below.

 

Having regard to the existing and future size and scale of developments in the locality, it is considered that the proposed size and scale is consistent with other medium density developments along this side of Marine Parade that present as four storeys with the exception of some underdeveloped properties and older medium density housing stock.

 

Compliance with the relevant controls relating to site coverage, landscaped open spaces, front setbacks, stepped side elevations, and maximum overall height standards are fundamental in justifying that the proposed development will both contribute to and be compatible with the desired future character of the area.

 

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

 

The proposed development contains well-articulated elements supported by good distribution of floor area, setbacks and massing along all elevations. Providing only one apartment on each level inclusive of short depths of building elements along the side elevations achieves good cross ventilation and access to daylight reducing reliance on artificial means of heating, lighting and ventilation.

 

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

 

The proposed development does not detract from contributory buildings in a conservation area or any heritage items.

 

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

 

The amenity of neighbouring properties are considered to have been reasonably protected having regard to the developments visual bulk, visual and acoustic privacy measures, does not cause unreasonable loss of views, and does not result in any unreasonable levels of overshadowing to the neighbouring properties. 

 

Overall, with respect to the objectives of the floor space ratio standard and the R3 Medium Density Residential zone, it is considered that the amendments made to the application, including reduction of wall heights, increased front, and rear setbacks and the levels of articulation provided along the side elevations that the applicant has appropriately justified that the strict compliance with the floor space ratio development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

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

 

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

As discussed above, the proposal achieves satisfactory compliance with the planning objectives for the locality. It sits comfortably within the site and the medium density residential character of Marine Parade and surrounding streets.

 

In summary, the applicant’s written request highlights the merits of the proposal both in terms of its articulation and amenity afforded for future occupants. It is also important to consider that the amendments made by the applicant to the application have minimised impacts on neighbouring preppies whilst not still maintaining the high level of amenity of the units.

 

Overall, it is considered that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

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

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the aims of the RLEP 2012, the objectives of the standard and the objectives of the R3 zone in that the floor space provided achieves good amenity within the units both in terms of natural light and ventilation, and will present well within the streetscape character. The proposed development does not result in any unacceptable and unreasonable impact on the amenity of residents

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Comments:

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

 

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

 

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

 

Overall, the amended layout is considered to be suitable for the site, and the applicant’s written justification for contravening the floor space ratio standard is considered to be well founded and therefore supportable;.

 

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.

 

B6 Recycling and Waste Management

 

DCP Clause

Control

Proposal

Compliance

4.

On-Going Operation

 

 

 

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

The waste storage area and associated planter are located between the front building line and boundary. A condition is included requiring relocation behind the front building line.

Yes – see comment left

 

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

The waste storage area is the subject of condition.

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

Storage available in kitchen.

 

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

 

Capable of complying

Condition to comply

 

B7

Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access

 

3.

Parking & Service Delivery Requirements

 

 

Car parking requirements:

1 space per 1-bedroom unit (over 40m2): 3 x 1b = 3

1.2 spaces per 2-bedroom unit: 3 x 2b = 6

1 visitor space per 4 dwellings: 6/4 = 1.5

 

Total required = 8.1 spaces

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 spaces provided

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

Motor cycle requirements:

5% of car parking requirement

 

None required

N/A

 

4.

Bicycles

 

 

Residents:

1 bike space per 2 units

Visitors:

1 per 10 units

Bicycle spaces provided in lower ground level

Yes

 

C2

Medium Density Residential

 

2

Site Planning