RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Randwick Local Planning Panel Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

Thursday 9 August 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                                                                                9 August 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 St Randwick on Thursday, 9 August 2018 at 1:00pm

 

 

Chairperson:                                Annelise Tuor

 

Expert Members:                         Peter Romey; Jan Murrell

 

Community Representatives:          Michelle Finegan (West 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

D59/18      80 Yorktown Parade, Maroubra (DA/244/2017)......................................... 1

D60/18      338-342 Clovelly Road, Clovelly (DA/592/2017)....................................... 89

D61/18      118-120 Garden Street, Maroubra (DA/30/2018).................................... 183

D62/18      58-60 Carr Street, Coogee (DA/116/2014/A)......................................... 259

D63/18      5 Canberra Street, Randwick (DA/437/2017)......................................... 293

D64/18      182 Marine Parade, Maroubra (DA/717/2017)........................................ 349

D65/18      77 New Orleans Crescent, Maroubra (DA/603/2017)............................... 383

D66/18      38 Burnie Street, Clovelly (DA/42/2018)............................................... 463

Miscellaneous Reports

Nil.     

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Kerry Kyriacou

Acting Director City Planning


Randwick Local Planning Panel                                                                                9 August 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D59/18

 

Subject:             80 Yorktown Parade, Maroubra (DA/244/2017)

Folder No:                   DA/244/2017

Author:                   Jonathan Blackmore, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:  Demolition of all structures on site and construction of a 3 storey residential flat building comprising of 9 dwellings including 3 affordable housing units, ground and basement level parking for 12 vehicles, strata subdivision, associated site and landscaping works and boundary fence (variation to building height control).

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                Urban Future

Owner:                        Natasha Peric

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:

 

·           The development contravenes the building height development standard by more than 10%; and

·           The development is subject to SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development.

 

Proposal

 

The applicant proposes demolition of all structures on the site and construction of a 3 storey residential flat building comprised of 9 dwellings including 3 affordable housing units, ground and basement level parking for 12 vehicles, strata subdivision, associated site and landscaping works and boundary fencing.

 

Revisions

Post-lodgement of the application, Council requested that the applicant respond to the Design Excellence Panel’s comments and address the following issues:

 

·           Reduction in wall height – investigate whether it is possible to further step the building to reduce the infringement of the wall height control;

·           Compliance with the maximum height control. Requested a reduction to the extent of non-compliance with the maximum height control;

·           Requested detail of how levels adjacent to side boundaries relate to those on the adjacent sites, particularly on the western side where it appears a portion of the basement protrudes approximately 1.2m above ground level adjacent to the boundary.  Cross sections were requested to indicate how the levels on the subject site and adjacent sites relate in this regard;

·           Details of proposed fencing were requested;

·           Requested the applicant include horizontal circulation associated with foyers and stairwells within the GFA;

·           Requested the percentage of GFA devoted to affordable housing and a FSR calculation under Clause 13(2)(a)(ii) of the SEPP ARH;

·           Requested an assessment against Clause 6.1 of the RLEP 2012, relating to Acid Sulfate Soils.

 

In response, the applicant:

·           Undertook the design changes detailed within the Design Excellence Panel section below;

·           Investigated a skillion roof form to minimise wall height, but argued that the proposed flat roof would have a more desirable outcome in terms of neighbour’s solar access and overall building bulk;

·           Lowered a portion of the 3rd floor level master bedroom to unit 8 by 800mm and deleted the ensuite bathroom to the bedroom to minimise the exceedance of the maximum height control;

·           Provided additional levels and cross sections in relation to proposed and existing ground levels;

·           Detailed proposed fencing;

·           Included horizontal circulation, excluding the base of staircases. Removed ensuite bathrooms and increased the front setback by 200mm to minimise the FSR to comply with the standard;

·           Provided a FSR calculation in terms of the Clause 13(2)(a)(ii) of the SEPP ARH and reduced the floor area of the proposal through the removal of ensuite bathrooms;

·           Provided an assessment in terms of Clause 6.1 of the RLEP 2012.

 

Re-Notification

The revisions did not require re-notification as they did not result in material increases to the size or scale or alter the scope of the proposal. 

 

Site and Locality Description

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Yorktown Parade in between its intersections with Minneapolis Crescent and New Orleans Crescent. The rectangularly shapped site slopes up from its street boundary towards its rear boundary by approximately 5m. The site contains a single storey brick and tile dwelling house with a front setback of approximately 12.3m. A metal shed is located within it north-western corner. Excluding a driveway adjoining the western boundary, the remainder of the site is grassed or landscaped and features several large trees. This side of Yorktown Parade is transitioning to medium density development with townhouse-style development existing on No’s 70, 72-74, 84, 86 and 88 Yorktown Parade and approval given for four townhouses on the adjoining No. 82 Yorktown Parade.  

 

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

 

Submissions

 

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

42 Enmore Rd, Newtown (Architect for Development at No. 82 Yorktown Parade)

Issue

Comment

1.   The large tree [Port Jackson Fig] at the boundary of 80 and 82 Yorktown Parade has not been shown or considered. It was required to be retained for the applicant’s project. The objector spent a lot of time and money to retain this tree.

2.   Expect the design to have been reviewed by the design review [excellence] panel.

3.   The plans do not show the approved design of no. 82 Yorktown Parade accurately.

4.   The proposal is a “monster” relative to the 4 units and 8 basement car parks proposed on the objector’s site.

1.   The tree has been reviewed and considered by the Council’s landscape officer. In brief, its retention is impractical as it would limit the site’s development to just the existing building footprint. The tree is “reluctantly” authorised for removal, subject to three replacement trees. 

2.   The proposal has been reviewed by the design excellence panel and appropriate changes made to reflect their comments.

3.   The approved design of No. 82 Yorktown Parade can be reviewed on Council’s records.  

4.   The proposal is comparable in form and scale to that approved and existing on residential flat buildings on surrounding sites.

 

Key Issues

 

Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to Development Standard

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

 

Standard

9.5m

Proposal

11.3m (lift overrun) 10.3m (parapet)

Variation

Up to 18.95%

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Wall Height – Sub-Section 4.4

The proposal involves wall heights of between 8.2m and 11.3m. The RDCP 2013 sets maximum wall heights for the site at 8m.

 

The proposed non-compliance is not inconsistent with the objectives of the RDCP 2013 and will result in no significant adverse impacts in terms of the character of the area or neighbours amenity. The non-compliance will not result in a non-compliance with the solar access requirements for neighbouring sites. The built form will be well articulated and respond suitably to the slope of the site through the use of a terraced design. Low roof forms have been proposed to minimise the overall bulk of the building. The height and form of the building will not appear dissimilar to existing and approved multi-unit buildings within the context. The main wall lines will be set back sufficiently from side boundaries to minimise bulk and dominance impacts for neighbours.

 

Side Fencing – Sub-Section 7.3

The proposal involves side boundary fencing with heights of between 1.8m and 2.7m. The RDCP 2013 sets maximum fencing heights at 2.2m on a sloping site.

 

The proposed non-compliance is not inconsistent with the objectives of the RDCP 2013 and will result in no significant adverse impacts in terms of the character of the area or neighbours’ amenity. The fencing is not an unexpected outcome on the sloping sites along this section of Yorktown Parade due to the need to provide elevated side access to the rear of the sites in conjunction with basement parking for multi-unit housing. Significant planting on the subject side of the fencing will screen the fence from certain streetscape viewing angles. 

 

Part of the fencing acts as a privacy and safety barrier and is in part unavoidable. However, a condition is recommended to delete the western side boundary fencing adjacent to the non-trafficable gardens.

 

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 for demolition of all structures on site and construction of a 3 storey residential flat building comprising of 9 dwellings including 3 affordable housing units, ground and basement level parking for 12 vehicles, strata subdivision, associated site and landscaping works and boundary fence (variation to building height control) be approved (subject to conditions) for the following reasons:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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


 

Detailed Assessment

1.         Section 4.15 Matters for Consideration

 

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

 

Section 4.15 ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

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

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

Residential R3 Medium Density

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

 

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

 

Acid Sulfate Soils

The proposal is located within of Class 5 Land (identified on the Acid Sulfate Soils Map) that is approximately 350m from Class 4 Land. Pursuant to Clause 6.1(2), development consent is required for works within 500 metres of adjacent Class 4 land that is below 5 metres Australian Height Datum and by which the watertable is likely to be lowered below 1 metre Australian Height Datum on adjacent Class 1, 2, 3 or 4 land. 

 

The applicant has supplied a Preliminary Acid Sulfate Soil Assessment by Greywacke Geotechnics that advises that the watertable will not be lowered below 1m AHD.

 

Therefore, development consent is not required in related to Acid Sulfate Soils.

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

Nil.

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

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

 

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

2.         Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

2.1      State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPS)

 

2.1.1          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. Amended plans were received and an updated BASIX certificate supplied. The proposal therefore satisfies the requirements of the SEPP.

 

2.1.2 State Environmental Planning Policy Affordable Rental Housing 2009 (SEPP ARH)

 

Clause 13 - Floor Space Ratio

The application proposes a gross floor area of 653.1sqm, which represents an FSR of 1.065:1. The existing maximum FSR applicable under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012) is 0.75:1. Clause 13 of the ARH SEPP however provides a bonus FSR of 0.326:1 equating to a total of 1.076:1 (0.75:1 plus 0.326:1). The bonus FSR equates to the proportion of floor area (32.6%) associated with the three units (units 5, 6, 7) allocated as affordable rental housing for a period of 10 years.

 

The proposed GFA is compliant with the maximum permissible floor area.

 

Clause 14 – Standards that cannot be used to Refuse Consent

 

Standard

Proposal

Compliance

Site Area = Min. 450m2

613.3m2

Complies

Landscape Area = Min. 30% of site

45%

Complies

Deep Soil Zone = Min. 15% of the site area.

15.2%

Complies

Solar Access = Living rooms and private open spaces for a minimum of 70% of the dwellings to receive a minimum of 3hours of direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter

77.8% will receive a min. of 3 hours.

Complies

Carparking =

Min. 0.5 space per 1 bedroom dwelling;

Min. 1 space per 2 bedroom dwelling;

Min. 1.5 spaces per 3 bedroom dwelling.

8.5 spaces required, 12 proposed.

Complies

Dwelling Size Min. =

Min. 35m2 for studio;

Min. 50m2 for 1 bedroom unit;

Min. 70m2 for 2 bedroom unit;

Min. 95m2 for 3 or more bedroom unit.

Achieved for all units.

Complies

 

Clause 16A – Character of Local Area

The planning principle in Project Venture Developments Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council can be used as a reference in determining the compatibility of the proposal against the character of the local area.  In the Project Venture matter it was accepted that buildings can exist together in harmony without having the same density, scale and appearance.

 

Context:

The description of the site area and surrounding development, above, provides context of the site.

 

Compatibility of Built Form

The proposed development is of comparable scale to existing surrounding development, it will fit in with the expected future character dictated by the RLEP standards, as well as the detailed RDCP controls that are addressed in more detail in the key issues section of this report.  The variations to these provisions are minor and it is generally considered that the proposed development will still sit comfortably within the site whilst taking advantage of the bonus FSR under the ARHSEPP.

 

It is noted that the ‘Design Excellence Panel’ has not raised any major concerns in terms of streetscape impact. The proposed density of the development is comparable to other apartment developments along this side of Yorktown Parade.

 

The majority of the proposed building is below the 9.5m maximum building height limit. The exceedance of the building height control will not result in a development which is out of character with the context (see clause 4.6 assessment).  

 

The proposed developments density that is FSR is greater than the maximum applicable to sites in the surrounding area. However, the greater FSR is permissible by the SEPP ARH, a higher order social planning policy that aims for greater housing stock of affordable rental housing in NSW.

 

Overall, the proposed development sits comfortably on the site and does not result in any detrimental impact to the character of the immediate neighbouring properties or the character of the local area. The density is socially beneficial as it provides additional affordable rental housing stock that is representative of a sustainable form of development and is comparable to existing development along Yorktown Parade. It is considered that the applicant has reasonably demonstrated that the objectives of the RLEP and RDCP provisions will be satisfied and that the proposed development will be consistent with the emerging character of the area, with higher densities expected in the vicinity in the R3 medium density zone.

 

The proposed development is therefore considered to meet the character test.

 

2.1.3 SEPP 65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment Developments

SEPP No. 65 aims to promote quality design of Residential Flat Buildings. The proposal is subject to the policy as it involves the development of a residential flat building being 3 storeys and more in height. The proposal has been considered by Council’s Design Excellence Panel. The Panel’s comments and assessing officer comments are included under referral comments, below.

 

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

 

Furthermore, written confirmation from a registered Architect is also required to be provided to Council confirming that the design is in accordance with the design quality principles of the SEPP.

 

A Design Verification Statement in accordance with the requirements of SEPP 65 has been received from Eduardo De Oliveira Barata of Urban Future, a registered Architect.

 

The Design Excellence Panel provided comments in June 2017 for the application. The applicant has made amendments to their design to generally response to the Design Excellence Panel comments.   

 

Clause

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

Part 3: Siting the Development

3A-1

Site Analysis

 

 

 

Each element in the Site Analysis Checklist should be

addressed

The submitted development application addresses each relevant section of the site analysis checklist.

Complies.

3B-1

Orientation

 

 

 

Buildings along the street frontage define the street, by

facing it and incorporating direct access from the street (see figure 3B.1)

The building has been orientated to the street frontage and direct access is provided.

Complies.

 

Where the street frontage is to the north or south,

overshadowing to the south should be minimised and

buildings behind the street frontage should be orientated to

the east and west (see figure 3B.2)

Refer to orientation comments below.

N/A

3B-2

Overshadowing of Neighbouring Property

 

 

 

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

Submitted shadowing diagrams demonstrate that adjoining development will received a minimum of 2 hrs solar access on 21 June, in accordance with Sections 3D and 4A.

Complies.

 

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

 

If the proposal will significantly reduce the solar access of neighbours, building separation should be increased beyond

minimums contained in section 3F Visual privacy

 

Overshadowing should be minimised to the south or downhill by increased upper level setbacks

Properties to the south are separated from the site by the road and will not be significantly overshadowed.

Complies.

 

It is optimal to orientate buildings at 90 degrees to the boundary with neighbouring properties to minimise overshadowing and privacy impacts, particularly where minimum setbacks are used and where buildings are higher than the adjoining development

Not practical on the site.

N/A

 

A minimum of 4 hours of solar access should be retained to

solar collectors on neighbouring buildings

The proposal will not impact any existing solar collectors.

Complies.

3C-1

Public Domain Interface

 

 

 

Terraces, balconies and courtyard apartments should have direct street entry, where appropriate

Front apartment has direct street entry.

Complies.

 

Upper level balconies and windows should overlook the public domain

Balconies have been positioned and orientated to overlook the street.

Complies.

 

Front fences and walls along street frontages should use visually permeable materials and treatments. The height of solid fences or walls should be limited to 1m

Height of front fencing not specified. Condition for 1m maximum.

Condition for compliance – 1m max. height.

 

Length of solid walls should be limited along street frontages

Blank frontage walls avoided.

Complies

 

Opportunities should be provided for casual interaction between residents and the public domain. Design solutions may include seating at building entries, near letter boxes and in private courtyards adjacent to streets

Interactions between the front balconies/terrace and the public domain are possible.

Complies.

 

In developments with multiple buildings and/or entries, pedestrian entries and spaces associated with individual buildings/entries should be differentiated to improve legibility for residents, using a number of the following design solutions:

• architectural detailing

• changes in materials

• plant species

• colours

Entries are clearly defined.

Complies.

 

Opportunities for people to be concealed should be minimised

Opportunities for concealment are minimised due to building layout and landscape design.

Complies.

Objective 3C-2

Amenity of the public domain is retained and enhanced

 

 

 

Planting softens the edges of any raised terraces to the street, for example above sub-basement car parking

Planting is proposed to minimise amenity impacts arising from the proposed basement level.

Complies.

 

Mail boxes should be located in lobbies, perpendicular to the street alignment or integrated into front fences where individual street entries are provided

Letterboxes are provided in the front fence.

 

Complies.

 

The visual prominence of underground car park vents should be minimised and located at a low level where possible

No vents associated with the basement are visible from the public domain due to proposed planting.

Complies.

 

Substations, pump rooms, garbage storage areas and other service requirements should be located in basement car parks or out of view

All utilities have been provided within the basement.

Complies.

 

Ramping for accessibility should be minimised by building entry location and setting ground floor levels in relation to footpath levels

Ramping is minimised and generally level access to lift.

Complies.

 

Durable, graffiti resistant and easily cleanable materials should be used

Durable materials proposed.

Complies.

 

On sloping sites protrusion of car parking above ground level should be minimised by using split levels to step underground car parking

The proposal includes a semi-basement car park. Screen planting and podium landscaping is proposed to blend the car park into its context. The above ground portions of the car park will not be significantly visible from the street due to the slope of the site and landscape planting.

Complies.

3D-1

Communal and Public Open Space

 

 

 

Communal open space has a minimum area equal to

25% of the site (see figure 3D.3)

Proposed = 0% - complies on merit due to amenity provided by private outdoor areas and surrounding public parks. 

Complies on merit

 

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

N/A

N/A

3E-1

Deep Soil Zones

 

 

 

Deep soil zones are to meet the following minimum requirements:

 

Site area

Minimum Dimensions

Deep Soil Zone (% of site area)

<650m2

0m

7%

650-1500m2

3m

>1500m2

6m

>1500m2 with sig. existing tree cover

6m

Site area = 607m2

Proposed = 8.8%

 

Complies

3F-1

Visual Privacy

 

 

 

Separation between windows and balconies is provided to ensure visual privacy is achieved. Minimum required separation distances from

buildings to the side and rear boundaries are as follows:

Building height

Habitable rooms and balconies

Non-habitable rooms

Up to 12m (4 storeys)

6m

3m

Up to 25m (5-8 storeys)

9m

4.5m

>25m (9+ storeys)

12m

6m

 

Note: Separation distances between buildings on the same

site should combine required building separations depending on the type of room (see figure 3F.2). Gallery access circulation should be treated as habitable space when measuring privacy separation distances between neighbouring properties.

The proposal provides separation from the western side boundary of between 1.7m and 3m, and between 1.7m and 4.1m for the eastern boundary.

Notwithstanding the inadequate building separation it is considered that the proposal satisfactorily addresses visual privacy by way of side window sill heights, privacy screens, planting and fencing.

 

Where privacy mitigation is required conditions have been included in the development consent to address this.

Complies on merit and through screening/ privacy conditions.

3J-1

Bicycle and Car Parking

 

 

 

For development in the following locations:

·      on sites that are within 800 metres of a railway station or light rail stop in the Sydney Metropolitan Area; or

·      on land zoned, and sites within 400 metres of land zoned, B3 Commercial Core, B4 Mixed Use or equivalent in a nominated regional centre

 

The minimum car parking requirement for residents and

visitors are set out in the Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, or the car parking requirement prescribed by the relevant council, whichever is less.

 

The car parking needs for a development must be

provided off street

Complies – see comments under DCP assessment below.

Complies

Part 4: Designing the Building

4A

Solar and Daylight Access

 

 

 

Living rooms and private open spaces of at least 70% of apartments in a building receive a minimum of 2 hours direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm at mid-winter in the Sydney Metropolitan Area and in the Newcastle and Wollongong local government areas.

It is proposed that 77.8% of apartments will receive a minimum of 2 hours sunlight.

 

At least 70% of POS will receive over 2hrs of direct sunlight in mid-winter.

Complies.

 

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

All apartments achieve sunlight access due to their orientation and multi-aspect design.

Complies.

4B

Natural Ventilation

 

 

 

At least 60% of apartments are naturally cross ventilated in the first nine storeys of the building.

Apartments at ten storeys or greater are deemed to be cross ventilated only if any enclosure of the balconies at these levels allows adequate natural ventilation and cannot be fully enclosed

All apartments achieve cross ventilation.  

Complies.

 

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

All apartments achieve cross-ventilation within the required 18m.

Complies.

4C

Ceiling Heights

 

 

 

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

 

Minimum Ceiling height for apartment and mixed use buildings

Habitable rooms

2.7m

Non-habitable

2.4m

For 2 storey apartments

2.7m for main living area floor; 2.4m for second floor where its area does not exceed 50% of the apartment area

Attic spaces

1.8m at edge of room with a 30 degree minimum ceiling slope

If located in mixed used areas

3.3m for ground and first floor to promote future flexibility of use.

 

These minimums do not preclude higher ceilings if desired.

All apartments will achieve the minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.7 metres.

 

A portion of Units 8 and 9 to have 2.4m floor to ceiling heights. This complies on merit as majority of these units will have 2.7m floor to ceiling heights. 

 

Complies

4D

Apartment Size and Layout

 

 

 

Apartments are required to have the following minimum internal areas:

 

Apartment Type

Minimum Internal Area

Studio

35m2

1 bedroom

50m2

2 bedroom

70m2

3bedroom

90m2


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

 

A fourth bedroom and further additional bedrooms increase the minimum internal area by 12m2 each.

All apartments comply with the minimum size requirements under the ADG.

Complies. 

 

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

All habitable rooms feature a window opening that will not comprise with less than 10% of the floor area of the room.

Complies.

 

Habitable room depths are limited to a maximum of

2.5 x the ceiling height

The habitable rooms meet this requirement.

Complies.

 

In open plan layouts (where the living, dining and

kitchen are combined) the maximum habitable room

depth is 8m from a window

The proposed open plan layouts of the apartments have depths of between 4m to 6m.

Complies.

 

Master bedrooms have a minimum area of 10m2 and

other bedrooms 9m2 (excluding wardrobe space).

All bedrooms exceed the minimum size. Some master bedrooms do not, but provide ample room and a flexible layout, many feature ensuite bathrooms.

Complies on merit.

 

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

All bedrooms have minimum dimensions exceeding 3m.

Complies.

 

Living rooms or combined living/dining rooms have a

minimum width of:

·      3.6m for studio and 1 bedroom apartments

·      4m for 2 and 3 bedroom apartments

All living dining rooms have a minimum width in excess of 4m.

Complies.

 

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

All cross-through apartments are greater than 4m wide.

Complies.

4E

Private open space and balconies

 

 

 

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

All terraced areas at ground floor level meet the minimum dimension requirements. 

Complies.

4G

Storage

 

 

 

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

 

Dwelling Type 

Storage Size Volume

Studio

4m3

1 bedroom

6m3

2 bedroom

8m3

3bedroom

10m3

 

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

The proposal meets the minimum storage volume sizes; this is spread between storage units in the basement and within the apartment.

Complies

 

2.1.4 SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

A BASIX certificate has been submitted in accordance with the requirements of the SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

 

2.2      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

 

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 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 contained in the RLEP 2012 apply to the proposal:

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

1.076:1 (RLEP + SEPP ARH + SEPP 65)

1.065:1

Yes

Height of Building (Maximum)

9.5m

11.3m (lift overrun) and 10.3m (roof parapet)

No

Lot Size (Minimum)

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

Clause 4.6 – Building Height

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

 

Standard

9.5m

Proposal

11.3m (lift overrun) and 10.3m (roof parapet)

Variation

Up to 18.95%

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

In addition, the objectives of Zone R3 are relevant to the proposed development and read as follows:

 

Objectives of Zone R3:

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

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

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

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

·       To protect the amenity of residents.

·       To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

The aims of the RLEP are also relevant and read as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

(f)       to facilitate sustainable population and housing growth,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

CLAUSE 4.6 to CLAUSE 4.3 OF RANDWICK LEP 2012

EXCEPTIONS TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS – HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS VARIATION

 

This Clause 4.6 submission has been prepared to accompany the Development Application for the proposed residential flat building development to No. 80 Yorktown Parade, Maroubra, 2035.

The proposal seeks a variation to the development standards contained within Clause 4.3 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 – Height of buildings of 9.5M, as the proposal exceeds the maximum building height control.

This submission contends that strict compliance with the maximum building height is unreasonable and/or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case and that the variation sought can be supported and that the Clause 4.6 exception to the development standard should be upheld.

  

Figure 1: Randwick building height Map – No. 80 Yorktown is indicated

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards (1)  The ojectives of this clause are as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) the consent authority is satisfied that:

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

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

(5)  In deciding whether to grant concurrence, the Secretary must consider:

(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, and

(c)  any other matters required to be taken into consideration by the Secretary before granting concurrence.

(6)  Development consent must not be granted under this clause for a subdivision of land in Zone RU1 Primary Production, Zone RU2 Rural Landscape, Zone RU3 Forestry, Zone RU4 Primary Production Small Lots, Zone RU6 Transition, Zone R5 Large Lot Residential, Zone E2 Environmental Conservation, Zone E3 Environmental Management or Zone E4 Environmental Living if:

(a)     the subdivision will result in 2 or more lots of less than the minimum area specified for such lots by a development standard, or

(b)     the subdivision will result in at least one lot that is less than 90% of the minimum area specified for such a lot by a development standard.

Note. When this Plan was made it did not include Zone RU1 Primary Production, Zone RU2 Rural Landscape, Zone RU3 Forestry, Zone RU4 Primary Production Small Lots, Zone RU6 Transition, Zone R5 Large Lot Residential, Zone E3 Environmental Management or Zone E4 Environmental Living.

(7)     After determining a development application made pursuant to this clause, the consent authority must keep a record of its assessment of the factors required to be addressed in the applicant’s written request referred to in subclause (3).

(8)     This clause does not allow development consent to be granted for development that would contravene any of the following:

(a)     a development standard for complying development,

(b)     a development standard that arises, under the regulations under the Act, in connection with a commitment set out in a BASIX certificate for a building to which State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 applies or for the land on which such a building is situated, (c) clause 5.4.

 

1. Compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case – clause 4.6(3)(a)

It is considered that strict compliance with the development standard for building height on the site is unreasonable and unnecessary for the following reasons:

 

COMPLIANCE WITH OBJECTIVES OF THE STANDARD

Notwithstanding the non-compliance with the numerical control of the standard (Clause 4.3 of Randwick LEP), the proposal meets the objectives of the standard as demonstrated in Subclause 4 of this submission;

 

In particular the following objectives of the standard have been considered:

 

-        Desired future character

The proposal is for a three storey residential flat building that is compatible with the desired future character of the locality, given that the site is located within the R3 medium density zoning and the proposal is consistent with the density as envisaged by the Randwick LEP. In addition, there is a significant number of residential flat building on Yorktown Parade as well as recently approved No. 98 Yorktown Parade, that are of similar scale to this development proposal, which proves the proposal is consistent with both existing and desire future character of the locality. Importantly, the variation to the maximum building height does not raise any issues with the proposal being compatible with the desired future character of the area.

 

-        Impacts of the development

It is considered that the proposal does not result in unreasonable environmental impacts on the adjoining neighbours, in particular:

 

1.  Overshadowing

As demonstrated in the accompanying shadow diagrams, contained in the architectural drawings, the adjoining neighbours receive minimum 3 hours of direct sunlight in their private open space and north facing living room windows, as required by RDCP.

 

Importantly, the site has a north-south orientation, which means the additional overshadowing due to the additional building height will either be on the roof of the proposed building or on the street, with negligible impact onto the neighbouring properties.

 

2.  Overlooking

The proposal does not introduce any privacy issues to the adjoining neighbours as all the necessary measures have been undertaken in accordance with the RDCP and Apartment Design Guide.

 

3.  Visual Bulk

Given the steeply sloping nature of the site, the proposal is well under the maximum building height at the front and the rear of the site. In addition, the high quality of architectural design as well as high level of articulation and materiality will ensure the visual bulk impact to the neighbours will be minimised. 

 

COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER DENSITY CONTROLS

The proposal complies with the maximum FSR including the bonus for the affordable rental housing, which demonstrates that the proposal is of appropriate density as envisaged by the Randwick LEP. 

 

BETTER PLANNING OUTCOME

Given the steeply sloping nature of the site, the proposal is well under the maximum building height at the front and at the rear of the site, whilst only a portion of the building in the middle of the site exceeding the maximum building height. If the proposal were to comply with the maximum building height, entire development would need to be lowered by 920mm. This is not a practical alternative due to the minimum flood level for habitable areas in accordance with the flood advice prepared by Randwick Council. 

 

DEGREE OF VARIATION

The proposal is over the maximum building height by 920mm at the highest point. The degree of variation is calculated at 9.6% which is minor and could be seen acceptable.

 

MERITS OF THE PROPOSAL  

-        The proposal is well under the maximum building height at the front (by 850mm) and the rear (by 1470mm) of the site, with only one third of the building in the middle of the site exceeding the height limit. This is due to the steeply sloping nature of the Site;

 

-        The variation to the maximum building height is not responsible for any unreasonable adverse environmental impacts, including overshadowing and visual bulk.

 

The above factors demonstrate that strict compliance with the RLEP building height standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstance of the case.

 

2. Sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard – clause 4.6(3) (b)

 

Following points demonstrate environmental planning grounds to justify the variation to the standard:

 

STEEPLY SLOPING NATURE OF THE SITE

The site is steeply sloping down towards the front, by approximately 4.4M, which results in the proposal to be well under the maximum building height at the front and rear of the site, 850mm at the front and 1470mm at the rear, whilst a portion of the building in the middle of the site extends beyond the maximum building height.

 

With respect to the definitions of building height in Dictionary of Randwick LEP 2012, building height (or height of building) means:

 

in relation to the height of a building in metres—the vertical distance from ground level (existing) to the highest point of the building ground level (existing) means the existing level of a site at any point

 

Based on this, we have considered the existing ground level of the site at all the points to calculate the height of the proposed building. As demonstrated in Figures 2 and 3 below, for the purpose of calculating the height of the proposed building, where the proposed building is located within the existing building footprint, the Finished Floor Level (FFL) of the existing dwelling defines the existing ground level and where the proposal extends beyond the existing building footprint the natural ground level defies the existing ground level.

 

 

Figure 2: Existing building footprint in relation to the proposed building

 

 

Figure 3: Maximum building height diagram on the proposed southwest elevation

The above diagrams demonstrate that the proposal is generally within the maximum building height with the exception of small portions of the building that extend beyond the existing building footprint as indicated in Figure 2, and the lift overrun which is unavoidable as it is a mechanical requirement and is not highly visible from the street.

 

If we were to calculate the height of the proposed building from the existing natural ground level outside of the existing building footprint, the proposal would have a maximum height of 10.420M, which is 920mm (9.6%) over the building height limit.

 

In either case, the steeply sloping nature of the site is sufficient environmental planning ground that justifies the variation to the building height, as the proposal is well below the maximum building height at the front and the rear of the site, which ensures the proposal will result in minimum environmental impact, including overshadowing and visual bulk impact to the neighbouring properties.

 

3.     Adequately addressed the matters required to the demonstrative by subclause (3) – clause 4.6(4)(a)(i)

This report has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause 3.

 

4.     The proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out – clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii)

The proposed development is in the public interest as it is consistent with the objectives of the standard and the zone.

 

RLEP 2012 Height of Buildings Objectives:

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

 

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

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

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

 

Below is the assessment of the objectives of the standard:

(a)     The proposal is for a three storey residential flat building that is compatible with the desired future character of the locality, given that the site is located within the R3 medium density zoning and the proposal is consistent with the density as envisaged by the Randwick LEP. In addition, there is a significant number of residential flat building on Yorktown Parade as well as recently approved No. 98 Yorktown Parade, that are of similar scale to this development proposal, which proves the proposal is consistent with both existing and desire future character of the locality. Importantly, the variation to the maximum building height does not raise any issues with the proposal being compatible with the desired future character of the area.

 

(b)    The site is not located within a heritage conservation area, therefore this objective is not applicable

 

(c)     As demonstrated in Subclause 1 of this report, the building height variation does not result in unreasonable adverse environmental impacts including visual bulk, loss of privacy and overshadowing to the neighbouring buildings. Importantly, the steeply sloping nature of the site as well as north-south orientation result in overshadowing and visual bulk impacts to be minimised

 

Consistency with the objectives of the Zone R3 Medium Density Residential 

1   Objectives of 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.

 

Below is the assessment of the objectives of the zoning:

 

•     The proposal includes affordable rental units and provides a mix of apartment types which will deliver housing diversity and affordability for the community, with an appropriate scale and density that is compatible with the bulk and scale of the existing streetscape that contributes to the desired future character of the area

 

•     The proposal protects the amenity of the residents of the proposed building and the neighbouring properties, in particular, as demonstrated throughout this report, the steeply sloping nature of the site as well as it north-south orientation result in the overshadowing and visual bulk impact to be minimised

 

•     As demonstrated in the accompanying architectural drawings, the bulk and scale of the development sits comfortably in the context. The high quality architectural design of the development, combined with a high degree of articulation achieves a built form which will be compatible with the desired future character of the locality. 

 

Council’s Assessment Officer’s Clause 4.6 Assessment:

In assessing the proposed variation against the objectives of building height standard, the objectives of the Zone R3 and aims of the RLEP, it is considered that the submitted justification substantiates that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

The relevant objectives of the clause for maximum building height are to ensure that the size and scale of the development is compatible with the desired future character of the locality and that development does not adversely impact on the amenity of neighbouring land.

 

The non-compliance with the height standard of the RLEP 2012 does not result from poor design, but results, in part, from the slopping nature of the site. The majority of the built form will comply with the height standard and the highest point of the building is a lift overrun, which is generally unavoidable. The applicant has terraced the design to generally respond to the slopping nature of the site.  

 

Significant wall and roof line articulation is proposed and this will be comparable to the existing and approved multi-unit housing developments within the immediate context. The non-compliance will not contribute to a non-compliance with the ADG’s solar access requirements for neighbouring development. The applicant modified the original proposed by reducing the height of the master bedroom to unit 8 by 800mm and through the removal of one ensuite bathrooms from each of units 8 and 9 to minimise the exceedance of the height standard.

 

A condition is recommended to reduce the height of the privacy screening to the third floor level front deck to 1.6m to minimise the exceedance of the height control within this section. 

 

The proposed height is not a departure from the pattern of development along the street. The height non-compliance is located well back from the street and the proposed non-compliant height will not be obviously out of place within context.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is not inconsistent with the objectives of the building height standard and the R3 zone objectives. The relevant objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (Zone R3 – Medium Density Residential) are:

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

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

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

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

·      To protect the amenity of residents.

·      To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

The proposal is not inconsistent with the relevant zone objectives in that:

·      The amenity of residents both in the vicinity and in the broader context of the R3 zone will not be significantly adversely affected by the development associated with the height exceedance.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Comments:

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

 

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

 

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

 

3.       Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013

 

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

 

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

 

3.1    Section B6: Recycling and Waste Management

 

DCP Clause

Control

Proposal

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA/ Conditioned)

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 is within the ground floor car parking level.

Complies

 

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

Suitable separation and diversion from sensitive uses.

Complies

 

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

N/A

N/A

 

(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).

Achieved – garbage chute to garbage area and an easy link to street front for collection.

Complies

 

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

Achieved.

Complies

 

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

Generally achieved – standard BCA and fire safety conditions to ensure compliance.

Complies

 

3.2      Section B7: Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access

 

DCP Clause

Control

Proposal

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA/ Conditioned)

3.             Parking & Service Delivery Requirements

 

Car parking requirements:

·      1 space per 2 studios

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

·      1.2 spaces per 2-bedroom unit

·      1.5 spaces per 3 or more bedroom unit

·      1 visitor space per 4 dwellings

Required = 3 (SEPP) + 8.7 (DCP)

= 11.7 (12) spaces

 

Proposed = 12 spaces

 

Complies

 

Motor cycle requirements:

5% of car parking requirement

Required = 0.3 space

Proposed = 1 space

Complies

4.             Bicycles

 

Residents:

·      1 bike space per 2 units

Visitors:

·      1 per 10 units

Required = 4 spaces

Proposed = 3 spaces

Complies on merit as storage facilities within basement could accommodate a bicycle.

 

3.3    Section C2: Medium Density Housing

 

C2

Medium Density Residential

 

2

Site Planning

 

2.1

Site Layout Options

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

·      Two block / courtyard example

·      T-shape example

·      U-shape example

·      Conventional example

Conventional layout example proposed. Suitable based on site orientation and similar developments completed along this side of Yorktown Parade.

Complies

 

2.2

Landscaped Open Space and Deep Soil Area

 

2.2.1

Landscaped Open Space

 

 

A minimum of 50% of the site area is to be landscaped open space.

Proposed = 43.3%

Refer SEPP 65 controls.

 

2.2.2

Deep Soil Area

 

 

(i)   A minimum of 25% of the site area 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.

Proposed = 8.8%

Refer SEPP 65 controls.

 

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.

Complies with apartment design guideline requirements.

Complies

 

 

For Residential Flat Buildings:

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

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

Complies with apartment design guideline requirements.

Complies

 

2.3.2

Communal Open Space

 

 

 

 

Communal open space for residential flat building is to be:

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

(b)  Designed for passive surveillance.

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

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

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

Refer comments under Apartment Design Guideline assessment.

N/A

 

3

Building Envelope

 

3.1

Floor Space Ratio

 

 

Max. = 1.076:1 (RLEP + SEPP ARH + SEPP 65)

 

 

 

Proposed = 1.065:1

Complies

 

3.2

Building Height

 

 

Max. = 9.5m

 

 

 

 

 

Proposed = 11.3m

Non-compliant – refer clause 4.6 discussion.

 

3.3

Building Depth

 

 

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

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

Building depths between 9.5 and 12m proposed – all are corner dwellings with adequate cross ventilation.

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.

Consistent with this side of the street.

Complies

 

3.4.2

Side Setback

 

 

Residential Flat Building

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

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

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

-    Create articulations to the building facades.

-    Reserve open space areas and provide opportunities for landscaping.

-    Provide building separation.

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

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

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

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

Refer comments under Apartment Design Guidelines, above. 

Refer SEPP 65 controls.

 

3.4.3

Rear Setback

 

 

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

5.5m

Complies

 

4

Building Design

 

4.1

Building Façade

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

Achieved – suitable streetscape orientation. Significant side elevation articulation and appropriate massing. 

Complies

 

4.2

Roof Design

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roof form reflects design of the building and steps with the site orientation.

 

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.

No habitable roof space 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.

Wall heights between 8.2m and 11.3m

Non-compliant – refer key issues discussion.

 

 

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

Achieved for all but small portion of top floor units. Complies on merit due to spacious size of units and small size of non-compliant area.

Complies on merit.

 

4.5

Pedestrian Entry

 

 

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

 Achieved.

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.

Achieved – Pedestrian entry relates to street foot.

 

Pedestrian access into overall design.

 

Direct street access for one applicable unit.

 

Mailboxes conveniently and neatly located within front of site.

 

Canopy to front entry.

 

 

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.

Suitable internal layout and generous internal circulation and common spaces.  Long corridors avoided.

 

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.

N/A

N/A

 

 

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

Max. of 3 units off the core.

Complies.

 

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.

Achieved – suitable utilisation of corners for cross through ventilation.

 

Depths of apartments limited.

 

Adequate natural lighting to kitchens, bathrooms and laundry areas.

 

 

Complies

 

 

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

Achieved.

Complies

 

 

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

Achieved.

Complies

 

 

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

Achieved – Living/dining room positioning.

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.

Achieved.

Complies.

 

 

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

Achieved.

Complies

 

4.9

Colours, Materials and Finishes

 

 

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

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

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

-    Changes of colours and surface texture

-    Inclusion of light weight materials to contrast with solid masonry surfaces

-    The use of natural stones is encouraged.

(v)    Avoid the following materials or treatment:

-    Reflective wall cladding, panels and tiles and roof sheeting

-    High reflective or mirror glass

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

-    Large expanses of rendered masonry

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

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

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

Limited details provided – standard condition for compliance

Condition for compliance.

 

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.

Step site gradient prevents the construction of an adequately sized building without excavations exceeding a depth of 1m. Standard conditions to ensure stability and safety.

 

Natural landform generally preserved/respected outside of the building.

 

Spilt level utilised, in part. 

Complies on merit.

 

 

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 at 0mm setback but not exceeding a height of 2.2m above existing ground levels.

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

Complies with SEPP 65 solar access requirements – see above.

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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.

Complies with SEPP 65 solar access requirements – see 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.

Achieved.

Complies

 

 

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

BASIX certificate submitted with appropriate solar protection measures.

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.

Achieved.

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.

Achieved.

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.

Achieved.

Complies

 

 

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

Achieved.

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.

Achieved.

Complies

 

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.

Majority of side facing windows have 1.6m sill heights.

 

Condition recommended to ensure compliance in relation to several windows.

Condition for compliance

 

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.

Suitable layout to maximise acoustic privacy

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.

No view corridors are impeded.

N/A

 

5.6

Safety and Security

 

 

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

Achieved.

Complies

 

 

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

Achieved.

Complies

 

 

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

Achieved.

Complies

 

 

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

Achieved.

Complies

 

 

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

Achieved.

Complies

 

 

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

Standard condition

Condition for compliance

 

 

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

Standard condition

Condition for compliance

 

 

(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.

Achieved.

Complies

 

 

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

Standard condition

Condition for compliance

 

 

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

Standard condition

Condition for compliance

 

6.1

Location

 

 

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

N/A

N/A

 

 

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

Achieved.

Complies

 

 

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

Achieved.

Complies

 

 

(iv) Entry to parking facilities off the rear lane must be setback a minimum of 1m from the lane boundary.

N/A

N/A

 

 

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

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

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

(c)   Where rear lane or secondary street access is not available, the car park entry must be recessed behind the front façade alignment. In addition, the entry and driveway must be located towards the side and not centrally positioned across the street frontage.

Semi-basement parking proposed.

 

Recessed front entrance, to the side of site.

 

 

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.

 Achieved.

Complies

 

 

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

 Achieved.

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.

Appropriate ventilation proposed.

 

Site subject to flooding limitations – basement protrusion standard does not apply.

 

Landscaping proposed within front yard and adjoining driveway.

 

Safe and secure access to units proposed.

 

Security doors proposed and suitable car park entrance appearance achieved.

 

Complies

 

7

Fencing and Ancillary Development

 

7.1

Fencing

 

 

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

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

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

-    Steel post and chain wire

-    Barbed wire or other dangerous materials

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

Achieved.

Complies

 

7.2

Front Fencing

 

 

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

Achieved.

Complies

 

 

(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.

Unspecified.

Condition for compliance – 1m (SEPP 65)

 

 

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

Unspecified.

Condition for compliance – 1m (SEPP 65)

 

 

(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.

N/A

N/A

 

 

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

Achieved.

Complies

 

 

(vii) Gates must not open over public land.

Achieved.

Complies

 

 

(viii) The fence adjacent to the driveway may be required to be splayed to ensure adequate sightlines for drivers and pedestrians.

Not required due to width of driveway and low height of conditioned fence.

Complies

 

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.

Height of 1.8 to 2.7m proposed.

Non-compliant - refer key issues discussion.

 

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

Achieved within units and basement.

Complies.

 

7.7

Laundry Facilities

 

 

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

N/A

N/A

 

 

(ii)     Provide internal laundry for each dwelling unit.

Achieved.

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.

Achieved with louvres to balconies.

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.

None proposed.

N/A

8.1

Coral Sea Park Estate Controls

 

 

 

(i)      Building materials and external finishes are to be consistent with the dominant themes in the Estate.

 

(ii)      Site area and dimensions, particularly width, are of sufficient size to allow and maintain the existing themes of large rear garden areas and open spaces between buildings to continue.

 

(iii)     Sites have a minimum frontage of 20 metres for development of more than 2 dwellings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(iv)     Open spaces in front of buildings are not fenced off from the street. Where fencing is proposed it is no more than one metre high.

 

(v)     Front setbacks of development must consider consistency with the surrounding buildings. Front façade design must consider compatibility with the form, massing and articulation of existing development.

Proposed materials are consistent with surrounding multi-unit housing development.

 

The proposal involves landscaping around the perimeter of the site and is consistent with the character of the area.

 

 

The site has a frontage of 15.24m. This is consistent with this part of Coral Sea Park Estate, which generally has a higher density and a predominant character containing residential flat buildings.

 

Fencing conditioned to 1m high.

 

 

 

 

sProposed setback to be consistent. Façade design comparable to form and massing of apartment buildings along Yorktown Parade.

Complies

 

4.       Referral Comments

 

4.1 Design Excellence Panel Comments (with assessing officer comments)

 

INTRODUCTION

It was noted that this was a Development Application and the first Panel meeting with the applicant.

 

A copy of the Panel’s Comments are attached, including the nine SEPP 65 Design Quality Principles (if the Application falls under SEPP 65). The Panel’s comments, set out below, are to assist Randwick Council in its consideration of the application, and to assist applicants to achieve better design outcomes in relation to these principles.

 

The absence of a comment under any of the heads of consideration does not necessarily imply that the Panel considers the particular matter has been satisfactorily addressed, as it be that changes suggested under other heads will generate a desirable change.

 

The Panel draws the attention of applicants to the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), as published by Planning NSW (JULY 2015), which provides guidance on all the issues addressed below.

 

This document is available from the Department of Planning Environment.

 

Note:  The Panel members’ written and verbal comments are their professional opinions, based on their experience.

 

To address the Panel's comments, the applicant needs to submit amended plans.  Prior to preparing any amended plans, the applicant should discuss the Panel's comments and any other matter that require amendment with the assessing Planning Officer.

 

When addressing the Panel's comments by way of amendments, if the applicant does not propose to address all or the bulk of the Panel's comments, and wishes to make minor amendments only, then it should be taken that the Panel considers the proposal does not meet the SEPP 65 requirements or Urban Design Excellence & best practice.  In these instances it is unlikely the scheme will be referred back to the Panel for further review.

 

PANEL COMMENTS

This is the first time the proposal has been before the panel. The panel is familiar with the site and the surrounding context.

 

The application proposes to demolish an existing single detached house and construct a three storey residential flat building that steps up with the topography, away from the street. The neighbouring properties both feature single storey detached houses, whilst the broader urban context includes a range of residential flat buildings, terrace and detached housing of varying architectural style. The property to the east, 82 Yorktown Parade, had an approval for 4 townhouses configured across two separated building footprints, with the primary street setback being referenced in the applicant’s design.

 

The Panel has some concerns about the site planning, including boundary conditions and setbacks privacy and overlooking, extent of basement and in relation the quantum and quality of deep soil landscaped areas. The retention of the established conifer at the Yorktown Parade frontage must be investigated as part of the next iteration of the design, and if the removal of the tree is still proposed, clear justification must be provided, including how the impact on the streetscape character can be mitigated.

 

The panel would like to see this proposal in the future once the points below has been satisfactorily addressed.

 

1.       CONTEXT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD CONTEXT

Limited contextual analysis has been provided in the design package, other than consideration of the approved DA at 82 Yorktown Parade, including its street setback and overshadowing impact.

 

In relation to this principle the Panel considers the following points require further consideration in the evolution of the design;

·      Retention of the existing 2 trunk conifer located in the south-eastern corner of the site, adjacent to the street frontage and property boundary with No. 82. It appears the layout of the building could accommodate the retention of this tree, as indicated by the splayed balcony to units 4 and 7.

·      This tree makes a significant contribution to the character of the streetscape and its removal would leave a considerable gap in the tree line. The removal of an equally established tree at the rear of the property is less important, given its relatively limited role in defining the streetscape

·      If both trees are to be removed then the panel would like to see justification and efforts to mitigate the impact through the establishment of a new landscape on the site – made possible by increased landscaped setbacks and deep soil.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The retention of the trees are not practical or warranted as they been assessed by the Council’s landscape officer as being in poor health.

 

2.       SCALE AND BUILT FORM

The site’s steeply sloping topography, sloping down from north to south, has led to a stepped built form that presents as three-storeys to the street frontage. The elevations indicate what appears to be a fourth storey at the rear of the property, however, this is the result of the stepped built form.

 

The panel has a number of comments relating to the stepping of the built form and the impacts it has on the basement configuration and boundary conditions. These include;

·      Reduce the footprint of the basement by either relocating bays 3-7 to the lower level, which may require the extension of the lower basement level towards the street frontage and therefore making the retention of the existing tree problematic, or

·      Losing the lower level of basement, incorporating Bays 8-12 and reducing the footprint along the southern frontage of the site, making it possible to retain the existing tree. The panel recognizes that the reduction in parking may require a reduction in yield, or a redesign of the basement.

Assessing officer’s comment:

The applicant has explored options concerning a basement size reduction or layout change and has demonstrated that it would provide no significant benefits to the amount of landscaping or planting possible on the site. 

 

·      Ground floor plan indicated a retaining wall that runs along the pedestrian footpath to the front door and lobby. This is a poor outcome and could be addressed by lifting the building and losing Unit 1 – see comments below.

·      Unit 1 is a predominately south-facing apartment sitting beneath the bulk of the building, and constrained by the retaining wall along the eastern boundary, and the car park entrance. The panel doesn’t support the inclusion of this unit and suggests a review of the ground floor condition, including where the building sits within the topography and in relation to the neighbouring properties

Assessing officer’s comment:

The ground floor plan has been reconfigured with changes made to the main entry & lobby, communal bin storage area and the ground floor unit (Unit 1). This improves the design of the pedestrian footpath and, through the implementation of highlight windows to the East elevation of Unit 1, providing 1.5 hours of direct sunlight to this unit on the Winter Solstice.

 

·      First floor plan; the paved areas that wrap around the western and eastern boundaries to Unit 2 and 3 are the result of the extensive basement configuration, that runs the full width of the site and limits deep soil at these edges. The panel would like to see the basement reduced in width to allow these paved areas to be replaced by landscaped zones. Should the basement layout remain then the panel would like to see raised landscaped beds the length of eastern and western facades to these units. A minimum 1m soil depth will allow mature trees to be established.

Assessing officer’s comment:

The first floor plan has been amended significantly to reduce hard paved areas adjacent to Units 2 & 3, replacing with screening planter beds. Such planter beds act to soften the side (East & West) elevations of this proposal whilst improving visual and acoustic separation to neighbouring properties.

 

·      Proposed section B-B indicates the lift overrun exceeds the height limit, however, this isn’t shown on the other elevations and sections.

Assessing officer’s comment:

Plans have been updated to show the lift overrun in all elevations and sections.

 

3.       DENSITY

Due to the constrained nature of the site, including the steep topography and existing landscape features, it may not be possible to deliver the proposed dwelling numbers in an appropriate built form. Therefore, a reduce yield should be explored, which includes fewer parking spaces and basement levels. The approved DA on the neighbouring property only delivers 4 dwellings, and whilst this panel did not review this specific scheme, it does provide a useful reference for the appropriate density for sites of this scale and context.

 

Assessing officer’s comment:

The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed density is comparable to that approved on No. 98 Yorktown Parade. The proposal complies with the floor space ratio requirements and the built height exceedance has been minimised post design excellence panel review through the lowering of part of the roof and the removal of an ensuite bathroom.  

 

4.       SUSTAINABILITY

The package does not include adequate analysis of solar access to the units, or the impact of over-shadowing to the neighbouring properties. Further commentary is provided in ‘Amenity’ below.

 

View from the sun or solar insolation analysis is preferred, though the panel would be satisfied with an accurate sun path overlay and wind roses for the area. This information will be required as part of the DA package. Other key considerations raised by the panel include;

 

·      Ceiling fans should be provided in bedrooms and living areas to reduce the need for air conditioning.  They should be clearly shown on the plans.

Assessing officer’s comment: Now proposed on plans.

·      Sliding door security and opportunities for cross ventilation need to be considered. Louvres could be a good solution.

Assessing officer’s comment: Glazed sliding doors to all units have been updated to include a section of operable windows above the doors.

·      Clothes lines should be provided where possible for the ground floor units, and within common areas accessible by the other units in a safe and secure location.

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposal has been amended to provide every unit with private clothes drying area.

·      Roof mounted photovoltaics should be considered. Photovoltaics also help in shading the roof slab.  Unshaded areas are best treated with rigid foam insulation and pebble ballast to reduce heat load in the unit below.

Assessing officer’s comment: Roof-mounted photovoltaics have now been proposed.

·      A rainwater tank should be provided - perhaps as part of the redesigned parking level, or integrated into the rear garden.

Assessing officer’s comment: The original design proposed a rainwater tank.

 

5.            LANDSCAPE

The landscape plan has been prepared by a qualified landscape architect.

 

The site’s landscape area is provided across two levels, which align with the southern (street) and northern (rear) boundaries. This condition will inevitably create a step in the landscape ground plane. The panel believes that the proposed approach should be revised to reduce the impact on neighbouring properties (see comments above), maximise deep soil areas, whilst accommodating more useable spaces. To facilitate this outcome the lower ground (parking) level should be revisited to improve pedestrian access and allow the raised courtyard spaces shown on the upper ground to be dropped to street level – allowing mature trees to be established in these zones.

 

Care and attention must be given to the treatment of the landscaped verges along the edges of the site, retaining walls, and exposed tops and edges of the carpark below.  These are highly visible areas from both the public domain as well as the ground floor units – details of the materials, drainage and planting should be provided.

 

As stated above, the panel recommends a number of measures to reduce the extent of the basement to facilitate greater deep soil along the boundaries of the site. Access to planters adjacent to Unit 3 at the first floor needs to be considered in terms of who is responsible for their maintenance.

 

Assessing officer’s comment:

Deep soil and landscaping have been discussed under point No. 2, above.

 

Planter beds have been positioned and designed for ease of maintenance.

 

6.       AMENITY

Access to the building should be reconsidered to avoid pulling the residents and visitors past a retaining wall along the eastern boundary – this has been addressed above in relation to the basement configuration and lifting the building. Further considerations raised by the panel include;

 

·      The mesh floor provided at the landing outside the lift could allow daylight to travel down through the stair, however, this would require a skylight to provide a source for the light, supplementing the light from the U glass channel façade

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposed development now features a skylight above the mesh floors adjacent to the lift access, whist the glass U-channel façade has been replaced with operable glazed louvres behind a metal privacy mesh screen. These amendments will increase amenity.

 

·      Units 4 & 7, provide a large high-level window to the living and dining room, or an additional window along the northern façade to the kitchen to improve the quality of sunlight to this predominately south-facing apartment

Assessing officer’s comment: Large highlight windows are now proposed to the eastern elevations of units 4 and 7.

 

·      Configuration of balconies for Unit 4 and 7 to be rationalised; increasing the depth and squaring up the balcony off the living room, wrapping the balcony around the western elevation, and removing the balcony off the master bedroom.

Assessing officer’s comments: The shape of the balconies allows for 2 replacement trees to the front setback area. The proposed balconies have been revised to facilitate a minimum depth of 800mm.

 

·      Privacy screens along the eastern and western elevations to the primary living spaces to avoid overlooking (units 2, 3, 5 & 6)

Assessing officer’s comment: All these windows feature 1.7m sill heights – screening not required.

 

·      Detailing of the splayed roof-pitch and high-window to Unit 7 needs to be carefully considered and should be references in a 1:50 or 1:20 scale drawing

Assessing officer’s comment: “Detail F” has been added to show the splayed roof and clerestory windows to unit 7.

 

·      Shadow studies indicate additional impact on the private amenity space of No. 82 (DA approved scheme) prior to 3pm onwards. The ‘Winter Solstice Perspective’ diagrams show the potential overshadowing impact of the approved DA at No. 82 on the western elevation, however, the panel is also interested in the inverse; impact from the proposal on the eastern elevation of the approved scheme at No. 82.

Assessing officer’s comment: Additional shadow diagrams have been provided.

These provide evidence that the DA approved development at No. 82 Yorktown Parade will receive adequate solar amenity to the living area windows on the Winter Solstice. Moreover, these diagrams also indicate that the East elevation of the proposed development at No. 80 Yorktown Parade will receive adequate direct sunlight on the Winter Solstice.

 

·      Access and egress to the bin storage area appears to be circuitous. Investigate whether the door could be flipped to the opposite frontage to enable more direct access from the lobby.

Assessing officer’s comment: Ground floor reconfiguration has resulted in adequate access to the communal bin storage room.

 

·      Investigate how natural ventilation can be provided to landings. The channel glass system does not appear to allow this.

Assessing officer’s comment: Discussed under bullet point 2, above.

 

7.       SAFETY

Satisfactory, however, appropriate window operation and security should be indicated on drawings, and the applicant should revisit the lower ground plan to improve line of sight and connectivity to the lobby.

Assessing officer’s comment: The applicant has now demonstrated this.

 

8.       HOUSING DIVERSITY AND SOCIAL INTERACTION

The principle of additional affordable housing in this location is supported by the panel, however, the site’s capacity to accommodate this scale of development is being questioned.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The scale of the proposal is considered to be suitable for the site.

 

9.       AESTHETICS

Limited information is provided on the proposed materials. The panel is generally supportive of the appearance of the building, in terms of the form, though further resolution and details of the drainage and balconies is requested for DA stage. Further consideration should be given to the following;

 

·      Extension of the U-Glass Channel vertically to the height limit (Proposed Elevation A-A), so it squares off with the roofline for the back portion of the building, instead of the angled cut, which contrasts with the predominately recti-linear form.

Assessing officer’s comment: The applicant has demonstrate that this would shade a clerestory window proposed to unit 7.

·      Elevations do not show downpipes, and the façade details do not address how rainwater is managed. All drawings to show where downpipes are proposed

Assessing officer’s comment:  The rainwater drainage is internal through nominated service shafts for downpipes.  All rainwater management is specified by the Hydraulic Engineer.

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The panel is generally supportive of the proposal, however, we wish to review a further iteration of the application, once the points noted above have been addressed.

 

Assessing officer’s comment:  The applicant has adequately addressed and responded to the Panel’s comments. A further referral to the panel is not warranted.

4.2 Development Engineering Referral Comments

 

General Comments

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

 

Flooding Comments

The assessing officer is advised that the subject site lies within the catchment for the Council commissioned and adopted Maroubra Bay Flood Study.

 

During major storm events the study predicts some minor flooding on Yorktown Parade with Council’s Drainage Engineer determining flood depths of less than 100mm for the 1% AEP or 1 in 100yr flood from the flood model.

This is relatively minor and floodwaters would not be expected to even enter the basement carpark with the entry level on the Yorktown Parade frontage at RL 13.35 AHD. The internal access also contains a crest on the entry ramp at RL 13.55 AHD. This is  sufficient to provide suitable flood protection in relation to the minimum freeboard requirements specified in Table A Sec 5.3 Part B8 of Council’s DCP have been satisfied (being at least double the expected flood depth) A suitable condition has also been included in this report to ensure the crest is transferred to plans prepared for the CC.

 

Parking Comments

Parking Requirements for the development have been assessed as per the rates specified in Part B7 of Randwick Council’s Development Control Plan 2013 and the SEPP (Affordable Housing.

 

The proposed development comprises of 9 x 2 bedroom units with 3 of the units to be dedicated as Affordable Housing.

 

The 3 x 2 bedroom Units nominated as Affordable Housing have been assessed under the parking rates in the  SEPP (Affordable Housing) being;

 

1 bedroom apartment            = 0.5 spaces

2 bedroom apartment            = 1.0 spaces

3 bedroom +                        = 1.5 spaces

 

Parking Required (for the 3 x 2 bedroom nominated units)      = 3 x 1.0 = 3 spaces

 

The 6 x 2 bedrom units not nominated as Affordable Housing have been assessed under parking rates specified in Part B7 of Council’s DCP as follows;

 

1 bedroom apartment            = 1.0 spaces

2 bedroom apartment            = 1.2 spaces

3 bedroom +                        = 1.5 spaces

1 visitor space per 4 units

 

Parking Required (for the 6 units not nominated)   = (6 x 1.2) + 6/4

                                                                    = 7.2 + 1.5

                                                                    = 8.7

 

TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED = 3 (SEPP) + 8.7 (DCP)

                                          = 11.7

                                          = 12 spaces

 

TOTAL PARKING PROPOSED     = 12 spaces (complies)

 

The parking provision is satisfactory.

 

It is noted that 4 of the spaces are provided in a 2 x tandem arrangement. Tandem parking is only supported in residential flat buildings if the affected spaces are allocated to the same unit. The proposed parking configuration will allow at least one space to be provided for every unit with two of the units allocated tandem spaces. One carspace would then remain for visitor parking. This is satisfactory to Development Engineering.

 

Motorbike Parking

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

 

Motorbike Parking required = 0.05 x 6 = 0.3

 

Motorbike Parking provided  = 1 space (complies)

 

Bicycle Parking

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

 

Bicycle Parking Required      = 6/2 + 6/10 = 3.6 = say 4 spaces

 

Bicycle Parking provided      = 3 spaces

It is also noted that the proposed storage areas in the basement are large enough to accommodate a bicycle if required. The Bicycle parking provision is therefore considered to be satisfactory.

 

Carpark Layout

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. A suitable condition has been 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 Yorktown Parade; or

 

ii.    Directly into Council’s underground drainage system located in Yorktown Parade  via a new and/or existing kerb inlet pit; or

 

iii.   To a suitably designed infiltration system (subject to confirmation in a full geotechnical investigation that the ground conditions are suitable for the infiltration system),

 

Geotechnical Comments

The geotechnical investigation submitted with the application undertaken by GreyWacke Geotechnics states that groundwater was encountered at 5-6m below the natural surface on the site.  The excavation for the basement level carpark will be around 3-4m plus any additional excavation for lift well and pump-out tanks.

 

Future fluctuations in the water table shall be accommodated for in the development, it is therefore recommended the basement carpark be fully tanked. A suitable condition has been included in this report.

 

Undergrounding of Site Feed Power Lines

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

 

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

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

 

Tree Management Comments

The inspection of 28 September 2017 revealed two juvenile, 3m tall Cupaniopsis anacardioides (Tuckeroo’s) on the Yorktown Parade, to the east of the existing vehicle crossing, of fair health and condition, which despite their small size are still covered by the DCP due to their location on public property, and are also part of a formal strategy in this street and surrounding area.

 

The existing single width layback and crossing are currently located hard up against the western site boundary, with the Proposed Ground Floor/Semi-Basement Level plan, dwg DA 03_02, showing that the new crossing and entry ramp will be shifted 1600mm further to the east, finishing close to the most-western tree.

 

In order to avoid future safety issues associated with ‘line of sight’, when the tree is larger, conditions require removal of this tree, with the applicant required to pay for a replacement of the same species to be installed somewhere else in the street (given a lack of available space along this frontage), wholly at the applicant’s cost, with the other small tree towards the eastern boundary needing to be protected to ensure its preservation, with relevant conditions provided.

 

In the front yard, along the eastern site boundary, between the southeast corner of the site and southeast corner of the existing dwelling, there are two large and established trees, whose co-joined canopies occupy most of this front setback, and due to a combination of their size and elevated position above street level, are recognisable landscape features in the streetscape.

 

They comprise from south to north, a 15m x 8m Cupressus macrocarpa (Monterey Cypress) which is an over-mature specimen, so while appearing in good health, is in very poor condition, as past topping as a young tree has led to multiple vertical leaders emerging from a common point at ground level, with some having since been lopped again, and as these wounds have not sealed properly, has led to decay and cavities, which now extends right down into the centre of its trunks, between the main branch unions.

 

For these reasons, a re-design to allow its retention is not warranted and will not be pursued as it is assessed as having a short Safe Useful Life Expectancy (SULE), with no prospects of recovery due to a combination of the extent and location of these major structural faults, its old age, and a physical inability to repair itself.

 

It is deemed unsuitable for retention, irrespective of any development works, and is actually seen to pose a threat to the safety of person and property, so the relevant consent for its removal has been included in this report.

 

Immediately to its north, there is a similarly sized Cupressocyparis leylandii (Leyland Cypress, T2) also of good health but poor condition given that its two main leaders are included at about 6m above ground level (which is a structural fault that reduces its stability and safety), with several areas of storm damage and decay also observed throughout its crown.

 

The faults described above present safety issues for both person and property, particularly given its close proximity to the subject dwelling, and was also observed to have been supressed by the larger, more dominant Cypress to its south, now displaying a lean/bias to the north, towards the house, all of which has affected its form, longevity and suitability for preservation.

 

Due to a combination of this species rapid growth rate, large size at maturity, and ability to obscure views and solar access, it is listed as an undesirable species, that is exempt from the provisions of Councils DCP, meaning that the owner could already remove this tree at any time, without needing any form of consent from Council, irrespective of any development, so the same as what was described for the other tree above, this tree also needs to be removed on the grounds of safety, as well as to accommodate works at both the basement and ground levels that is shown for this same area, with the relevant consent for this provided.

 

In recognition of the loss of these two established specimens from this area, and the impact this will have on the streetscape, conditions require that the Landscape Plan be amended to show two replacement trees in this area as compensation, instead of just the one that is currently shown.

 

The stand of three Cocos Palms to the west of those described above, adjacent the entry to the dwelling, are also an exempt species under Council’s DCP due to their low landscape value, so can also be removed.

 

The rear yard contains this sites most significant and valued specimen, being a mature Ficus rubiginosa (Port Jackson Fig), along the eastern boundary, about 7m from the northeast corner of the dwelling, of 12m x 15m, whose crown occupies almost the entire width of the site, overhanging the roof of the existing house, as well as encroaching substantially into the neighbouring property to the east.

 

It is in excellent health, good condition and is covered by Council’s DCP, with its broad and low spreading crown performing a valuable function in the local landscape by providing screening, privacy and amenity between several properties in the immediate area, and as it is an endemic species to the LGA, also benefits the local environment by offering a food and habitat source to native fauna.

 

The issue A architectural plans show two levels of excavated basement, with the northern wall of the Lower Level to be offset 4m to the south of its trunk, which is just outside of its 3.1m SRZ, but would still result in a major encroachment of its 9.6m TPZ, with the ‘Semi-Basement’ level to extend past the tree, all the way to the northeast corner of the site.

 

The first floor plan (dwg DA03_03) also shows that a side access path, retaining walls, changes to existing ground levels and major works associated with construction of the actual units will all be performed in this same area as well.

 

If its retention was sought; due to its sheer size, the exclusion zones required both above and below ground in order to ensure this was successful would be such that it would prohibit any type of development at this site, and in fact, any new work would need to be limited to the existing footprint only, leaving only a narrow strip between the tree and the western site boundary available in the rear yard, which is not practical.

 

Another major factor to be considered for its retention is the extent of clearance pruning that would be required so to avoid the piling rig, building elevations and similar, with its crown having remained largely untouched and unaltered for several decades, which has directly resulted in its low, broad habit, which is the main feature of this specimen.

 

The majority of its branching structure and foliage was also observed to be contained within its western aspect, which is the same area as the works, so this means that the loss of these lower growing branches would have a major, negative impact on its form and habit, which reduces its aesthetic appeal, with the amount required to be beyond what this tree could sustain (potentially 30-50% of its total crown volume).

 

The rise in ground levels from south to north (front to rear) also creates another constraint for its preservation, as any cut or fill, changes to existing grades, excavations for retaining walls/terraces or similar would all involve root damage or disturbance and would also alter existing drainage patters which it has come to rely upon, which would all have an effect on its health, especially given its mature status.

 

Transplanting is not considered to be a reasonable option in this case given the scope of works involved and site constraints, and while this tree is significant within its immediate surroundings, it is not listed in Council’s Significant Register, with any benefits limited to the subject site and immediate surrounds only.

 

If this tree was located in a more favourable position towards the rear boundary or in a site corner, it would be feasible to incorporate it as an existing site feature, with new works able to be designed around it; however, for these reasons outlined above, it cannot be retained for this application, with consent reluctantly granted for its removal, with three replacement trees shown in its place, all of which are endemic to the LGA.

 

Landscape Plan Comments

The Semi-Basement plan shows that besides the eastern half of the front setback, the only other area of deep soil available for substantial planting will be a narrow, 1300mm wide strip between the northern wall and northern boundary, with the Landscape Plan showing that evergreen, native coastal trees and lower screening shrubs will be provided in this area, with additional soil volume to be provided on podium in this area by the provision of a planter box that will extend further to the south, abutting the rear private timber decks.

 

While the amount of landscaped area and deep soil is less than what would normally be provided for RFB, the provisions in the Affordable Housing SEPP allow this, with conditions requiring that this scheme be implemented as part of any approval.

 

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 building height development standard in Clause 4.3 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The concurrence of the Director of the Department of Planning & Environment may be assumed.

 

B.     That the 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. DA/244/2018 for the demolition of all structures on site and construction of a 3 storey residential flat building comprising of 9 dwellings including 3 affordable housing units, ground and basement level parking for 12 vehicles, strata subdivision, associated site and landscaping works and boundary fence (variation to building height control), at No. 80 Yorktown Parade, Maroubra, subject to the development consent conditions attached to this report.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Conditions - 80 Yorktown Parade, Maroubra (DA/244/2018)

 

 

 

 


Conditions - 80 Yorktown Parade, Maroubra (DA/244/2018)

Attachment 1

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Randwick Local Planning Panel                                                                                9 August 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D60/18

 

Subject:             338-342 Clovelly Road, Clovelly (DA/592/2017)

Folder No:                   DA/592/2017

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Demolition of existing structures, construction of a 4 storey residential flat building containing 4 dwellings, basement carparking for 6 vehicles, roof terrace, lap pool at ground level, landscaping and associated works.

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Mr N Duggan

Owner:                        Etleon Pty Ltd

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:

 

·      The development is subject to SEPP 65

·      10 or more unique submissions by way of objection were received.

 

Proposal

Demolition of existing structures (shop top housing), construction of a 4 storey residential flat building containing 4 dwellings, basement carparking for 6 vehicles,  an elevated lap pool at ground level, landscaping and associated works.

Photomontage of proposed development as amended

 

Amended plans:

Council received amended plans on 23 January 2018 and 4 July 2018 in response to issues raised by the Design Excellence Panel (DEP) and Council. The amendments and additional details are summarised as follows:

 

Basement level

·      Add bicycle storage space and motorcycle space

 

Ground

·      Amend solid front boundary fence to include open element.

·      New Street tree

·      New outdoor communal clothes line at south eastern corner

·      Air conditioning units including screens added to middle balconies attached to bed 1 at each level

·      Amended survey showing two trees located on the western neighbour’s property at No. 334-336 Clovelly Road have been removed

 

Level 1:

·      Remove external screens from eastern side maintenance area in front of bathroom and laundry;

·      Balcony squared off at southern end and add maintenance access gate;

 

Level 2:

·      Increase western side setback of living room by 850mm to 4.05m, and add wrap around balcony along western side

·      Remove external screens from eastern side maintenance area in front of bathroom and laundry;

·      Balcony squared off at southern end and add maintenance access gate;


 

Roof:

·      Deleted roof terrace and associated structures. This amendment is an essential consideration in the recommendation made as the proposed roof terrace contains significant size and will adversely impact the streetscape and the amenity of neighbouring properties.

·      New clerestory at rear

 

Each level

·      Increase size of eastern side facing bathroom and laundry windows

·      New kitchen windows facing central courtyard

 

Site Description and Locality

 

The site has a skewed rectangular shape with a 14.34m tappered frontage facing north to Clovelly Road, a 12.88m tappered southern rear boundary, 41.48m western side boundary, a 37.72m eastern side boundary and a total site area of 491.7m2. The site has an effecctive width of around 12.40m.

 

Figure 1: Excerpt of survey showing effective widht of the site.

 

The site has a rising topogrpahy from north (front) to the south (rear) by around 2.7m (7% gradient). The rear neighbour’s land sits a around 2m higher and generally contain habitable ground levels elevated a further 3-4m above their ground levels. This topography and develpoment pattern is characereistic of the surrounding area including a slope from western to eastern side boundaries – see photo 1 below.

Photo 1: taken from the rear of No. 334-336 Clovelly Road (western side neighbour) looking south to the rear adjoining properties showing No. 26-28 Melrose Parade (at left in photo) and No. 30-32 Melrose Parade Melrose Parade.

 

The subject site contains two ground level shops and two apartments at the rear and above. The building has a zero lot alignment along Clovelly Road and along parts of the side boundaries which is similar to the adjoining eastern side neighbours development at No. 344-350 Clovelly Road (white building shown in photo below). No on-site parking is provided. The adjoining site to the west (shown at right of the subject site in photo 2 below) is No. 334-336 Clovelly Road and contains a part 2/3 storey flat building with two floors of apartment located over ground level garage parking facing Clovelly Road.

 

Photo 2: Subject site is the brown brick building. The white building to the left (east) is No. 346-350 Clovelly Road.

 

Further east, No. 352 Clovelly Road (shown in photo 2 above and 3 below) is a recent three storey flat building over semi basement parking . This develpoment is around one storey higher than the commerical/residential buildings locaed on the subject site and eastern neighbours. A roof terrace was sought to this development (DA/674/2014) however it was agreed to be deleted as a condition of consent and formed an essential element in the reocmmendation made. Further, an appeal sought to essentially reinstate the roof terrace however this was dismissed in the Land and Enviornmentla Court.

 

Photo 3: No. 352 Clovelly Road

 

Submissions

 

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

 

·      3/22-24 Melrose Parade Clovelly

·      1/26-28 Melrose Parade Clovelly

·      2/26-28 Melrose Parade Clovelly

·      3/26-28 Melrose Parade Clovelly

·      4/26-28 Melrose Parade Clovelly

·      13/30 – 32 Melrose Parade, Clovelly

·      5/334-336 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

·      Town planner on behalf of 344-350 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

·      344-350 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

·      Business operator - 344-350 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

 

Issue

Comment

Object to the variation to the height standard.

The amended development complies with the height of buildings development standard in the RLEP due to the removal of the roof top terrace and associated structures.

 

Loss of views of landmarks such as Clovelly Hotel and Waverly Cemetery will be catastrophic due to inappropriate building heights

The roof terrace is deleted by the applicant. A view loss assessment is carried out in the key issues section.

 

The amended development complies with the maximum height of buildings development standard in the RLEP.

 

The proposed development is also compliant with the maximum FSR standard in the RLEP.

 

The site complies with the RDCP provisions for site coverage, landscaping, deep soil and setbacks for medium density forms of development.

 

Overall, having regard to the planning principles for view sharing and the high level of compliance with the abovementioned standards and provisions it is generally considered that the proposed development is a reasonable form of development and given the value of the views it is considered that the view loss is therefore acceptable.

 

Oppose the removal of very old buildings with established shops and buildings containing decorative elements that contribute to the history of the area.

The site is not a heritage item nor is it located in a heritage conservation area.

 

The site is opposite the Clovelly Hotel which is a listed heritage item under the RLEP and an assessment of the potential impact is required. The DA was referred to Council’s heritage planner who raised no objections to the proposed development subject to conditions being included requiring an archival recording and a salvage plan for the existing building.

Oppose removal of 50 year old tree in the rear of the site which is home to flora and fauna

Council’s Landscape Officer has assessed the trees within the site and those located on neighbouring properties. Appropriate conditions are included requiring the rear retaining wall be retained in its current location to maintain the support of these trees.

 

There are no objections to the removal of trees within the site for various reasons including the exotic species of trees, relatively poor health of trees and being within 2m of side boundaries.

How does the proposed replacement of two small shops and three flats with four three bedroom units with roof terrace will provide for the housing needs of the community within the medium density environment?

The configuration of each apartment on one level allows for large three bedroom units will allow for flexibility in their use and cater to different social needs of the community.

 

The proposed development will not protect the amenity of neighbouring properties namely those at the rear that front Melrose Parade.

The proposed development has a compliant rear setback and will not result in any significant adverse impacts on the amenity of units that back onto the subject site.

 

Completely oppose the roof terrace

The roof terrace is deleted. It is also noted that a similar development at No. 352 Clovelly Road proposed a roof terrace that was deleted by way of agreement and condition. A recent appeal lodged with the Land and Environment Court seeking to reinstate this roof terrace was dismissed. The removal of the roof terrace is an essential element in the recommendation being made in this application.

Parking  shortfall

Councils Development Engineer raises no objection to the shortfall in one visitor parking space.

 

Parking is provided for each unit and the small number of units means that reliance on visitor parking is lessened.

Driveway is non-compliant being less than 1m from the adjoining site impacting on pedestrian sightlines and safety.

Subject to a reduction in height of the western wall adjoining the pedestrian verge, adequate sight lines and therefore pedestrian safety will be achieved.

Communal open space is short of the required 25% and unacceptable given the short rear setback, location of rear balconies causing privacy impact.

The ADG allows for a merit assessment of the communal open space and is contained in the key issues section of this report.

 

The rear setback is compliant with the 6m required under the ADG which ensures sufficient separation for the purposes of privacy.

 

Whilst there is some overlooking from the sides of the rear balconies, it is considered that the outlook is acceptable on the basis that these rear balconies are shallow, they service low use bedroom’s which contain their own privacy measures.

The building depth exceeds the maximum 10-14m permitted under the RDCP

Acknowledged, however the objective behind the control is that any greater depth must demonstrate that the design solution provides good internal amenity such as via cross-over, double-height or corner dwellings / units. It is considered that the proposed development readily demonstrates that each unit will have very good amenity. Moreover, the proposed development is designed with curves such that it minimise the massing of the development when viewed from neighbouring sites and the public domain.

The proposed wall heights exceed the 12m maximum.

See key issues section of this report regarding external wall heights.

The proposed development does not comply with the separation required under the ADG.

See key issues section under Orientation and Visual privacy.

Insufficient private open space

The POS provided for each unit is compliant.

The density of the development is excessive

The proposed FSR is compliant.

 

Business operator - 344-350 Clovelly Road, Clovelly requests more reasonable conditions be placed on any construction at 338 Clovelly Road such as but not limited to:

 

·      Suitable hoarding and barricades around site to limit the dust and debris.

·      Limiting truck parking in front of the outdoor dining area

·      Reasonable pedestrian access especially over summer and the weekends

·      Limited work on weekends to reduce unbearable noise levels during high volume trading times

Suitable conditions are included.

 

Key Issues

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 65 (SEPP 65) – Apartment Design Guide (ADG)

 

·      3B-2 Orientation  - Overshadowing

 

The ADG requires 6m separation being provided from a boundary for the purposes of solar access and privacy.

 

The proposed development has setbacks less than the 6m required and an assessment of setbacks is carried out having regard to:

 

o Solar access to neighbouring properties and

o Visual privacy

 

o Solar access to neighbouring properties:

 

The Apartment Design Guide (ADG) controls seek a minimum of two hours of direct solar access to the affected neighbour’s (living areas, private open space and communal open space) between the hours of 9am – 3pm, at mid-winter (winter solstice). The ADG also states that where development does not currently receive 2 hours that development not reduce solar access by more than 20%.

 

The proposal will result in less than two hours of solar access to both neighbours’ properties and will result in more than 20% reduction of solar access to the neighbouring properties. Both eastern and western neighbouring properties at No. 344-350 and 334-336 Clovelly Road raised concerns with the proposed setbacks in relation to adversely impacting their development potential and adverse amenity impacts.

 

The ADG also acknowledges that compliance with 6m separation control for the purposes of solar access may be difficult to achieve particularly in relation to side boundaries and narrow allotments in suburban areas that permit medium density residential development and those containing older flat buildings and detached housing.

 

The subject site sits within such an urban setting whereby narrow allotments of around 12-14m are characteristic of the area. As well, in the vicinity of the site there are numerous examples of older RFB’s and other forms of development varying in scale between two, and five storeys with side setbacks less than those required by the ADG. These exhibit narrow pathways between buildings along their side boundaries, whereby side facing living room windows would not currently receive two hours of solar access. Essentially, these narrow allotment widths and existing development of the area clearly don’t allow for 6m setbacks as it would preclude reasonable development of the site.

 

Given the above, it is considered more appropriate to apply the RDCP side setback controls to the proposed development. The RDCP side setback controls that apply to medium density developments requires minimum side setbacks according to the width of an allotment, requiring larger setbacks as the site width increases. For the subject site, the RDCP requires a minimum side setback of 2m.

 

The proposed development complies with the minimum side setback controls in the RDCP and has larger side setbacks than the minimum along various parts of the development. The proposal also complies with the suite of applicable standards for overall building height and FSR in the RLEP and the RDCP controls for front and rear setbacks, maximum site coverage, and minimum deep soil and landscaping areas.

 

The proposal breaches the RDCP control for maximum external wall height, resulting in more overshadowing to the neighbouring properties than if the development were made to comply. Despite this, it is not considered that the development should be made to comply as the proposal contains greater than minimum side setbacks which to a degree alleviates the additional overshadowing. In addition, the wall height breaches are located over the low parts of the site which is an inherent response of built form to the topography in the surrounding area particularly along this side of Clovelly Road and for other sites within the foreshore area.

 

Overall, the proposed development responds appropriately to the topography of the site, its orientation and pattern of development in the area and is compatible with the local character of the area and requiring compliance with the 6m or restricting loss of solar access to no more than 20% control would result in a poorer planning outcome zone.

 

·      3F-1 Visual Privacy

 

The ADG requires for the purposes of visual and acoustic privacy that habitable areas including attached balconies be separated by a minimum of 6m from boundaries and 12m combined separation from habitable areas (including balconies) on neighbouring properties as shown in Figure 3 below.

 

Figure 3: ADG diagram figure 3F-3 showing the application of the visual privacy controls

 

The proposed front, middle and rear balconies are sited less than the 6m from the boundaries and do not comply with the 6m minimum separation control in the ADG.

 

As stated earlier, it is impractical to provide 6m separation as it physically constrains the site. Therefore, it is considered more reasonable to place a greater emphasis on ensuring that development is designed, located and oriented to maximise visual privacy for neighbouring buildings – a key objective for privacy under the RDCP.

 

In the context of the above objective, an assessment of privacy is carried out from the following parts of the development:

 

-      Windows.

-      Roof terrace.

-      Rear balconies.

-      Front balconies

-      Balconies in the middle of the floor plates

-      Rear yard

-      Swimming pool and ground terraces

 

-      Windows.

 

Windows are generally well placed and dimensioned for the purposes of privacy protection.

 

-      Roof terrace.

 

The original proposal contained a roof terrace. The applicant was advised that this would not be supported as its size and location would result in adverse visual and acoustic privacy impacts on the neighbouring properties. That the privacy impacts cannot be ameliorated by requiring additional physical privacy protection measures that would add further size and massing to an already non-compliant and incompatible built form. The applicant amended their application deleting the roof terrace which is a fundamental to the assessment of the Clause 4.6 exception to the height of buildings development standard and compliance with the objectives for the zone and the standard in the RLEP with specific reference to maintaining reasonable privacy relationship between the development and the neighbouring properties.

 

-      Rear balconies.

 

Rear balconies for each apartment are screened restricting sightlines across to the rear neighbours.

 

There is sideways overlooking across to rear yards of No. 334-336 and 344-350 Clovelly Road. No additional privacy protection measures are considered necessary as these balconies are attached to low use bedrooms, and small in area.

 

-      Front balconies

 

Front balconies are the principle areas of private open space for each unit and connected to primary living space. The front balconies over levels 1 and 2 wrap around to the east and the level 3 (top level) balcony wraps around to both side elevations.

 

Level 1 and Level 2 balconies

The balcony wrap arounds to the east will not result in any significant privacy impact as they are shallow, and the development is located in the foreshore scenic protection area where buildings and open spaces are configured to take advantage of the ocean views which is preferable to restricting view lines through physical privacy measures.

 

The balconies at the front are larger in area and will have a direct outlook into No. 334-336’s east facing (ground and first floor) lounge room windows located between 7m and 10m from the front boundary. It is considered reasonable to require added physical privacy screens to restrict this outlook.

 

Adding screens doesn’t unreasonably impact views from this neighbour’s lounges room windows as there are currently no views, they’re in a sideways direction and the windows are located well behind the front building line well within the site.

 

A condition is included requiring a 3.25m long privacy screen along the western side of the level 1 and level 2 front balconies.

 

Level 3 balcony

The addition of a wrap around balcony along the western side of this unit will have an acceptable privacy relationship with the existing orientation of the adjoining neighbour’s development at No. 334-336 Clovelly Road. The outlook from this part of the balcony will be across the neighbour’s roof and an oblique downward view towards the living room of the upper level unit.

 

However, this wrap around part of the balcony has the potential to unfairly restrict the future potential development of this neighbour’s property particularly their ability to orientate a future developments openings eastwards and to take advantage of view lines.

 

To ensure reasonable amenity, a condition is included requiring the wrap around to the western side to be converted into non-trafficable area (similar to the backsplash in front of the kitchen window) and for the front part of the balcony requiring privacy screening along the full western side (for a length of 3.25m). This will also ensure consistency with the privacy screens located on the western side of balconies on the level 1 and 2 below.

 

-      Balconies in the middle of the floor plates

 

Balconies in the middle of each level are attached to low use bedrooms and don’t lend themselves to any significant privacy impacts.

 

-      Rear yard

 

The excavated rear yard is below neighbouring rear yards and will not result in any privacy impacts.

 

-      Swimming pool and ground terraces

 

The western side boundary contains a swimming pool at existing ground levels and ground level terrace. There are no objections to the location of the ground level terrace, or the swimming pool as it adjoins the rear yard of the western neighbour’s property at No. 334-336 Clovelly Road.

 

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP)

 

·      External Wall height (Section 4.4 of Part C2 of RDCP)

 

The proposal has external wall heights up to 11.47m exceeding (by 970mm) the 10.5m maximum external wall height control in the RDCP for Medium Density Residential development that is subject to 12m maximum overall height of building standard in the RLEP. 

 

An assessment is required against the following objectives (in italics) of the control:

 

To ensure that the building form provides for interesting roof forms and is compatible with the streetscape.

 

The wall height controls supplement the RLEP (notably the maximum overall height of buildings standard) to ensure that development provides for a suitable number of storeys and encourages interesting roof forms suitable to the streetscape.

 

The proposal is a contemporary design and the flat roof is consistent with more recent developments in the vicinity of the subject site such as an almost completed development at

 

The encroachments above the maximum wall height control are a response to the natural topography of the site being most pronounced at the front lowest part of the site along Clovelly Road. The streetscape contains several examples of similarly scaled developments such as the more recent construction at No. 352 Clovelly Road and an approved development at No. 300 Clovelly Road (DA/927/2016).

 

Given the topography of the site and the bulk and scale of other development in the surrounding area, it is considered that the degree to which the control is exceeded is minor and the building form has been minimised as far as practical by the following measures:

 

-    The top level has a smaller floor plate and a larger western side setback than the levels below

-    The front balconies are deep and curved, which in combination with the use of full height glazing presents horizontal lines across the façade and lightens the verticality of the development across its façade further alleviating mass

 

Overall, having regard to bulk and scale, the proposal sits comfortably within the site and the adjoining developments.

 

To ensure ceiling heights for all habitable rooms promote light and quality interior spaces.

 

The proposal has 2.7m floor to ceiling heights compliant 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 proposed bulk and scale id considered to be appropriately controlled as demonstrated by the compliance with the following standards and controls/provisions:

 

-    Overall height standard in the RLEP

-    Floor space ratio standard in the RLEP

-    Front, side and rear setbacks in the RDCP

-    Site coverage, Landscaping and deep soil areas in the RDCP

 

The neighbour’s amenity is also considered to be suitably protected in that the impacts on neighbouring properties are similar to those that could be expected from the applicable planning policies, discussed as follows:

 

-    In terms of overshadowing, the north-south orientation of the site means that overshadowing is shared across both eastern and western side boundaries with no single neighbour suffering from excessive overshadowing. The level of overshadowing to both these neighbour’s is acceptable in that the non-compliant elements of walls are minor and largely mitigated by the larger than necessary side setbacks, articulation of stepped in elements and the exhibited narrow side passageways between buildings and their respective side boundaries.

 

-    In terms of the neighbour’s visual amenity, the proposal contains a building form that is largely compliant with the envelope and spatial controls applying to medium density development. The proposals also contains suitable articulation achieved by stepping in elevations, side setbacks that are larger than minimum required under the RDCP and uses a mix of materials. This design  approach is compatible with the fluid architectural form of the RFB at No. 352 Clovelly Road as shown in previous photos

 

-    In terms of the neighbour’s privacy, the proposed walls have any implications in terms of privacy given that the number of storeys are generally consistent with what would be expected on the subject site. Where necessary appropriate conditioning ensures reasonable privacy relationship between neighbouring properties.

 

·      View sharing

 

Loss of outlook and views across to the north taking in Clovelly Hotel and Waverly Cemetery were raised by two objectors within the following properties:

 

-    4/26-28 Melrose Parade (upper level unit)

-    13/30-32 Melrose Parade (upper level unit)

 

An assessment is required against the following view sharing objectives under the DCP:

 

·      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.

 

The aerial image below shows the context of views from each of the above objectors premises. They include views of the Clovelly district, top of Waverly Cemetary, Clovelly Hotel (first floor and roof) and views in an easterly direction to the coast.

 

Aerial view of subject site and view context from 4/26-28 Melrose Parade and 13/30-32 Melrose Parade.

 

To assess whether the extent of view loss that would result from the proposal is reasonable, an analysis has been undertaken with reference to the Land and Environment Court Planning Principle established in the matter of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah (2004) NSWLEC 140:

 

1.     Quality of Views:

 

The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (eg of the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge or North Head) are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views, eg a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.

 


 

Planner’s Assessment:

4/26-28 Melrose Parade

Photo: view from rear balcony of 4/26-28 Melrose Parade.

 

Views:

·      District views: This view is expansive outlook across to the Clovelly district and considered to be a relatively moderate value

·      Direct northerly view shows top of Waverly Cemetery in the background and Clovelly Hotel (first floor and roof): This is a distant (400m) view of the cemetery (as local landmark) and partial view of the hotel (a heritage item) and considered to be of moderate to low value notwithstanding the value to the resident.

·      North easterly view over the top of No. 352 Clovelly Road is of low value given the distance and small portion of ocean view

·      Easterly view across the rear of the subject site is obstructed by the trees on the neihgbouring property at No. 30-32 Melrose Parade as shown in photo below.

Photo: easterly view showing obscured ocean views of trees in rear yard of No. 30-32 Melrose Parade that obstruct views of the ocean.

13/30-32 Melrose Parade

Unit 13 is located at the rear of the subject site and there are three substantial trees in its rear yard that obstruct the direct northerly view across to the Clovelly Hotel. The survey plan below shows the unit relative to the subject site.

 

Survey plan showing affected unit 13/30-32 Melrose Parade relative to subject site, existing trees (T5, T6 & T7) obstruct northerly view lines (shown in blue arrows) across the subject site and view line across the rear of properties to the east is shown in green arrow.

 

Photo: taken from a previuos site visit to unit 13/30-32 Melrose Parade showing from rear balcony an obscured partial view of the Clovelly Hotel (north easterly direction) and direct easterly view taking in unobstructed interfacing ocean wash and headland.

 

Views:

 

·      Partial view of Clovelly Hotel: The view is considered to be moderate to low value as it takes in only partial views of the Hotel

·      Easterly view of interfacing land and ocean is rated as moderate to high value given its interfacing elements however it is limited in value by its distance.

 

2.   Reasonable Expectation of View Retention:

 

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.

 

Planner’s Assessment:

 

The views obtained across the rear boundary are generally considered worthy of preservation subject to the assessment against the planning principle having due regard to the extent of impact and the reasonableness of the development.

 

3.   Extent of Impact:

 

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.

 

Planner’s Assessment:

 

4/26-28 Melrose Parade

The proposed development will have a maximum height (RL35.90) which is at a similar overall height to the RFB at No. 352 Clovelly Road (RL35.975). The photo below shows the approimxate line of the new building relative to No. 4/26-28 Melrose Parade:

 

Photo: showing in red line the approximte height of the proposed development.

 

The extent of impact on views are assessed as follows:

 

·      District views: The extent of the impact is considered minor as the view remains an expansive outlook across to the Clovelly district. However the depth of the outlook is reduced due to the proximity of the site to the affected unit.

·      Direct northerly view shows top of Waverly Cemetery in the background and Clovelly Hotel (first floor and roof): Waverly cemetary: The extent of impact is negligable as it will remain. Clovelly Hotel: The extent of impact is signficant as the only part that will remain in view is the roof.

·      North easterly view over the top of No. 352 Clovelly Road is of low value given the distance and small portion of ocean view. No impact

·      Easterly view across the rear of the subject site: no impact.

 


 

13/30-32 Melrose Parade

·      Partial view of Clovelly Hotel: The view is considered to be moderate to low value as it takes in only partial views of the Hotel obstructed by the existing trees within its own site.

·      Easterly view of interfacing land and ocean is rated as moderate to high value given its interfacing elements however it is limited in value by its distance – no impact therefore no further assessment.

 

Overall, the most impact from the develpoment to both units will be the loss of view of Clovelly Hotel and the district view from unit 4/26-28 Melrose Parade. The direct northerly views from No. 13/30-32 Melrose Parade are currently obscured by vegetation which are not long term elements and therefore an assessment is carried out against the reasonableness of the develpoment.

 

4.   Reasonableness of Proposed Development:

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 neighbors. 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.

 

Planner’s Assessment:

The fundamental question is whether a complying building in terms of building external wall height should be insisted upon given the value and quality of the view retained, the extent of the view and the context of the view. One must also have regard to the distance to the view and the visibility or prominence of the view and from where it is obtained.

 

The partial views of the Clovelly Hotel are of value and interest and experienced from the primary internal and external living spaces of these two units, however they are perceived across the rear of Clovelly Road which have existing and approved developments permitted to similar heights at which the development is sought. The application complies with the applicable planning controls in respect of maximum ratio of building envelope and maximum height in the RLEP. The non-compliant external wall height is pronounced at the front, where if it were made to comply there would be no appreciable benefit of being able to retain any of these district view or partial views of the Clovelly hotel from the rear of these units as the development has a three storey scale above existing ground level at ther ear and consistent with the three storeys that could reasonably be occupied by the 10.5m maximum wall height control in the RDCP.

 

The views retained from these apartments are district views (sans existing obstructing trees) and directly east to the more valuable views of ocean wash on land.

 

Essentially, the degree to which the development would have to be reduced in height would be significantly below the envelope envisaged for medium density develpoment by the RDCP controls and RLEP standards and be at odds with the applicable maximum height limit. Given the context of surrounding development, this will result in a less appropriate built form.

 

Overall, it is considered to be a reasonable design response to the sites topography that is not inconsistent with the existing and likley future scale of medium density development along this side of Clovelly Road. Furthermore, it is a skillful design which has minimised impacts upon adjacent properties by the careful distribution of its massing across the site incorporating larger side setbacks at the top level which minimises adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

 

Given the above, it is considered that the resultant view loss is acceptable in the circumstances.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

That the application to demolish existing structures, construction of a 4 storey residential flat building containing 4 dwellings, basement carparking for 6 vehicles,  lap pool at ground level, landscaping and associated works be approved (subject to conditions) for the following reasons:

 

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

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

·      The proposal as amended and conditioned is consistent with the objectives in SEPP 65 and the design guidance contains in the Apartment Design Guide (ADG).

 

 


 

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 the relevant sections of this report.

 

 

 

 

 

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

Nil.

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

The proposal generally satisfies the objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. See table below and where necessary key issues section of the report.

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

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

 

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

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

The proposed development as amended and conditioned 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 proposed development as amended with specific reference to the deletion of the proposed roof terrace forms an essential element in considering that the proposal will be in the public interest. The proposal is also in the public interest as it upgrades existing housing stock, provides additional housing within an envelope that responds appropriately to the existing site conditions and surrounding area. The proposal will not result in any significant or unreasonable adverse impact on the streetscape character or on the amenity of neighbouring properties.

 

 

2.         Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

2.1      State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPS)

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

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

 

A preliminary contamination assessment report was not provided, however upon a review of previous development consents issued for the site, it is considered that these uses don’t constitute any potentially contaminating activities. Therefore, the site is considered suitable for the proposed residential development.

 

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 BASIX.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality Residential Flat Buildings

SEPP No. 65 aims to promote quality design of Residential Flat Buildings (RFB’s). The proposal is subject to the policy as it involves the alterations and additions to a residential flat building being 3 storeys and more in height containing four or more dwellings. Council’s Design Excellence Panel (DEP) commented on one occasion that the panel is generally supportive of the proposal, subject to the points noted in their comments being addressed.

 

In short, the DEP raised several matters and the amended plans received by Council are considered to have adequately responded to the key matters raised and satisfy the design guidance provided in the Apartment Design Guide (ADG). The amended scheme was not referred to the DEP. Having regard to the ADG, an assessment is carried out against the key design criteria requirements in Part 3: Siting the Development and Part 4: Designing the Building. The ADG provides design criteria and general guidance about how development proposals can achieve the nine design quality principles identified in SEPP 65. Any non-compliance to the design criteria includes a merits based assessment as per the design guidance of the Apartment Design Guide.

 

Clause

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

Part 3: Siting the Development

3A-1

Site Analysis

 

 

 

Each element in the Site Analysis Checklist should be

addressed

 

Site analysis plan provided and considered adequate.

3B-1

Orientation

 

 

 

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

Complies

 

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

NA

NA

 

Where the street frontage is to the north or south, overshadowing to the south should be minimised and

buildings behind the street frontage should be orientated to

the east and west (see figure 3B.2)

The development is located to the north and overshadowing is not considered a major issue given the following site conditions:

·      Orientation of the site where shadows are shared between both side neighbour’s

·      a compliant rear setback and RDCP compliant medium density side setback controls,

·      10.38m external wall height above existing ground levels at the rear is compliant with the 10.5m RDCP control and

·      The neighbour’s land level is elevated by 2m above the ground level of the subject site.

Complies

3B-2

Orientation

 

 

 

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

Solar access will be retained for at least two hours for each apartment.

Complies.

 

Solar access to living rooms, balconies and private open

spaces of neighbours should be considered

Solar access is improved by the development. Two hours are received to living rooms between 9am and 10am to No. 334-336 Clovelly Road. The overshadowing to the development at No. 346-350 Clovelly Road is unavoidable and it is considered unreasonable to apply the 6m minimum setback control having regard to the assessment carried out further below.

 

Rear yards of adjoining properties will also receive two hours of solar access.

Complies, see comments at left.

 

If the proposal will significantly reduce the solar access of neighbours, building separation should be increased beyond

minimums contained in section 3F Visual privacy – requires 6m setback

Proposed development has side setbacks less than 6m however, it is not considered necessary given compliance is achieved and the greater separation would preclude reasonable development of the subject site.

Does not comply with the 6m setback control. See comment at left and assessment comments further below.

 

Overshadowing should be minimised to the south or downhill by increased upper level setbacks

Upper level setbacks are not required from the southern side boundary due to the topography of the site and elevated nature of the rear southern neighbour’s property above the rear of the subject site. Further, the proposed development complies with the RDCP controls for rear setbacks and external wall heights. 

Complies.

 

It is optimal to orientate buildings at 90 degrees to the boundary with neighbouring properties to minimise overshadowing and privacy impacts, particularly where minimum setbacks are used and where buildings are higher than the adjoining development

The proposal has a similar orientation to the property boundary. The front balconies are appropriately orientated to the front boundary.

 

A minimum of 4 hours of solar access should be retained to

solar collectors on neighbouring buildings

Complies.

3D-1

Communal and Public Open Space

 

 

 

Communal open space has a minimum area equal to

25% of the site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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)

Proposed: 23.9% provided at the rear of the site.

 

38% of communal space is provided (excluding the driveway and parking bays in the rear).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does not comply.

 

The communal open space is sufficient given the low number of units and the proximity of open space areas that are suitable for passive and active recreational uses.

 

Overshadowing to the communal open space is unavoidable due to the orientation of the site and urban pattern of development in the area and not a result of inappropriate siting of the development or bulk and scale.

3E-1

Deep Soil Zones

 

 

 

Deep soil zones are to meet the following minimum requirements:

 

Site area

Minimum Dimensions

Deep Soil Zone (% of site area)

<650m2

-

7%

650-1500m2

3m

>1500m2

6m

>1500m2 with sig. existing tree cover

6m

26.5% deep soil zones are provided on site.  

 

Complies

 

3F-1

Visual Privacy

 

 

 

Separation between windows and balconies is provided to ensure visual privacy is achieved. Minimum required separation distances from

buildings to the side and rear boundaries are as follows:

 

Building height

Habitable rooms and balconies

Non-habitable rooms

Up to 12m (4 storeys)

6m

3m

Up to 25m (5-8 storeys)

9m

4.5m

>25m (9+ storeys)

12m

6m

 

Note: Separation distances between buildings on the same site should combine required building separations depending on the type of room (see figure 3F.2 showing separation of 6m plus 6m between habitable components.

The proposed has varying side setbacks that do not meet the minimum provisions in the ADG.

 

Does not comply, see merit assessment comments below

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3J-1

Bicycle and Car Parking

 

 

 

For development in the following locations:

·      on sites that are within 800 metres of a railway station or light rail stop in the Sydney Metropolitan Area; or

·      on land zoned, and sites within 400 metres of land zoned, B3 Commercial Core, B4 Mixed Use or equivalent in a nominated regional centre

 

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

 

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

 

NA see assessment in part B7 of the RDCP.

Part 4: Designing the Building

4A

Solar and Daylight Access

 

 

 

Living rooms and private open spaces of at least 70% of apartments in a building receive a minimum of 2 hours direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm at mid-winter in the Sydney Metropolitan Area and in the Newcastle and Wollongong local government areas.

All apartments will receive two hours of direct solar access during the winter solstice

Complies.

 

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

NA

4B

Natural Ventilation

 

 

 

At least 60% of apartments are naturally cross ventilated in the first nine storeys of the building.

All apartments have cross ventilated.

Complies.

 

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

The middle indent along the western side ensures the merits of this control are satisfied.

Complies.

4C

Ceiling Heights

 

 

 

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

 

Minimum Ceiling height for apartment and mixed use buildings

Habitable rooms

2.7m

Non-habitable

2.4m

 

These minimums do not preclude higher ceilings if desired.

 

Complies

4D

Apartment Size and Layout

 

 

 

Apartments are required to have the following minimum internal areas:

 

Apartment Type

Minimum Internal Area

Studio

35m2

1 bedroom

50m2

2 bedroom

70m2

3bedroom

90m2

5sqm for each additional bathroom

 

Each three bed unit is over 100sqm

Complies.

 

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

Complies.

 

Habitable room depths are limited to a maximum of

2.5 x the ceiling height

Complies.

 

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

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

Complies.

 

Master bedrooms have a minimum area of 10m2 and

other bedrooms 9m2 (excluding wardrobe space)

Complies

 

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

Complies.

 

Living rooms or combined living/dining rooms have a

minimum width of:

·      4m for 3 bedroom apartments

Complies.

 

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

Complies

4E

Private open space and balconies

 

 

 

All apartments are required to have primary balconies as follows:

 

Dwelling Type

Minimum Area

Minimum Depth

Studio Apt.

4m2

-

1 bed Apt.

8m2

2m

2 bed Apt.

10m2

2m

3+ bed Apt.

12m2

2.4m

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Complies.

4F

Common Circulation and Spaces

 

 

 

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

Complies.

 

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

NA

4G

Storage

 

 

 

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

 

Dwelling Type 

Storage Size Volume

Studio

4m3

1 bedroom

6m3

2 bedroom

8m3

3bedroom

10m3

 

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

Ample cupboard space provide storage within each apartment.

Complies.

 

2.2      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

 

The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Zone 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 as amended and conditioned will be consistent with the key standards of the RLEP and will contribute to the streetscape character

 

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

0.9:1

Yes

Height of Building (Maximum)

12m

11.87m (RL35.10) at the front north-western corner where the land is naturally at its lowest point (RL23.23)

Yes

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

Requires consideration under Cl6.7 of the RLEP

The contemporary design, use of materials and finishes will contribute to the scenic qualities of the Foreshore area. The proposed development is also appropriately sited and orientated within the site such that it will create visual interest and will not detract from the views to and from the coast.

Yes

Heritage provisions

The site is located opposite a heritage item identified as The Clovelly Hotel and therefore requires consideration under Cl. 5.10 of the RLEP

Assessment section below. No objections are raised to the proposed development subject to conditions.

Yes

 

Clause 5.10 Heritage Conservation

 

The proposed development is in the vicinity of a Schedule 5 listed heritage item (Item No. I17 fin the RLEP 2012) known as the Clovelly Hotel. A heritage impact assessment as not required on the basis of the following:

 

·      The separation of the subject property and the heritage item by Clovelly Road;

·      The Clovelly Hotel being a large and dominant building. The scale of this Heritage item in terms of width and height means that the new works are appropriate in sitting and scale, and will not overly dominate the hotel in terms of bulk and scale.

·      The buildings in the vicinity of the subject site and those approved by Council are comparable in scale with the new development

·      It is considered that the proposed building is sufficiently set back from the front elevation to mitigate the visual impact. In addition,

 

The proposed works do not visually dominate, compete with, or conceal the original form and massing of the Clovelly Hotel and do not contain any major or prominent design elevations which compete with its architectural features or detailing. The colour scheme, depth of front balconies and use of glass balustrades further lighten the mass along the front.

 

The vistas and views to and from Clovelly Hotel within the street network are mostly from the west travelling towards the coast and from the east travelling away from the coast. Easterly views towards the coast are deviated by the Road that turns to the north, and street views will remain focused on the Hotel elements due to it being on elevated side of the street and it large scale. Views from the coast are also directed towards the Hotel with the subject site only coming into view after moving past.

 

Overall, the proposed developments setbacks and light weight fluid design at the front ensures that the development is appropriately positioned behind the front boundary such that it will not detract from the significance of the heritage item.

 

The existing building is part of the pattern of interwar development on land that was a subdivision from Mundarrah Estate. The commercial shopfronts and façade contain decorative elements that do contribute to the streetscape, and as such, it is considered reasonable to require an archival recording of the property and a salvage plan to be submitted to Council

 


 

Heritage requirements

 

·         An archival recording of the property shall be prepared and submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. This recording shall be in accordance with the NSW Heritage Office 2006 Guidelines for Photographic Recording of Heritage Items using Film or Digital Capture. Two copies of the endorsed archival recording shall be presented to Council, one of which shall be placed in the Local History Collection of Randwick City Library and forwarded to the Randwick History Society.

 

·         A salvage plan shall be prepared and submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.  The salvage plan is required to ensure that materials including fireplaces, architraves, skirtings, windows, doors and remnant components of significant heritage fabric are carefully removed and sold or donated to a heritage salvaging yard to facilitate the conservation of other buildings of a similar period. 

 

3.       Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 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

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 is in the basement

Complies

 

(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.

 

NA

 

(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.

 

 

 

(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:

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

6 spaces provided for residential units.

One visitor space short of required.

See development engineering comments and key issues section of this report.

 

C2

Medium Density Residential

 

2

Site Planning

 

2.1

Site Layout Options

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

·      Two block / courtyard example

·      T-shape example

·      U-shape example

·      Conventional example

Site Analysis provided with DA

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conventional

Complies

 

2.2

Landscaped open space and deep soil area

 

2.2.1

Landscaped open space

 

 

A minimum of 50% of the site area is to be landscaped open space.

 

53.7%

Complies

 

2.2.2

Deep soil area

 

 

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

25%

Complies

 

 

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

Located at front and rear.

Complies

 

 

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

Complies

 

 

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

Deep soil in the rear yard is located on terraced retaining walls.

Does not comply however this is an adequate mechanism given that it terracing follows the natural landform, in order to minimise the height or depth of earthworks at this point of the site.

 

 

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

Contiguous with deep soil zones of properties to the east and west.

Complies

 

2.3

Private and communal open space

 

2.3.1

Private open space

 

 

Private open space is to be:

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

Private open space directly adjoins each living area.

 

The property faces north takes advantage of foreshore views.

 

The communal open space is in the rear yard with a southerly aspect which is unavoidable.

 

 

 

Balconies generally provide reasonable privacy while allowing for views and surveillance of common areas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

Does not comply however this is the most appropriate location for communal open space.

 

See ADG assessment of Privacy

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

See ADG

 

 

For residential flat buildings:

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

 

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

 

2.3.2

Communal open space

 

 

 

 

Communal open space for residential flat building is to be:

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

 

(b)  Designed for passive surveillance.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

Passive surveillance is satisfactory.

 

 

 

 

 

Adequately landscaped and where necessary conditioned.

 

Capable of accommodating suitably facilities. The foreshore location provides additional facilities.

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

Unavoidable southern part of the site.

 

Complies

 

 

 

Complies

 

3

Building Envelope

 

3.1

Floor space ratio

 

 

0.9:1

Complies

 

3.2

Building height

 

 

12m

Complies

 

3.3

Building depth

 

 

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

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

Stepped-in side elevations provide a reasonable design solution

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.

 

3m provided which is considered to be consistent with the future streetscape character.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Landscaping and deep soil is in the front is provided in the front yard.

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.4.2

Side setback

 

 

Residential flat building

 

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

-    12m≤site frontage width<14m: 2m

 

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

-    Create articulations to the building facades.

-    Reserve open space areas and provide opportunities for landscaping.

-    Provide building separation.

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In many instances greater than 2m. The development contains suitable articulation and space between neighbouring properties which reduces overshadowing, improves visual amenity and contributes to the streetscape character.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prescribed condition

 

3.4.3

Rear setback

 

 

For residential flat buildings, provide a minimum rear setback of 15% (between 5.658m and 6.22m) of allotment depth or 5m, whichever is the greater.

Rear setback between 7.2m and 9.1m

Complies

 

4

Building Design

 

4.1

Building façade

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Building addresses Clovelly Road

 

 

Front wall not parallel with street boundary.

 

 

 

 

 

Articulated walls and materials ensure the development has suitable depth perception such that it contains visual interest from street level.

 

The rear section of the western elevation is 11.1m long exceeding the control by 1.1m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No services visible.

Complies

 

 

 

Does not comply, however building is approximately designed relative to the skewed boundary.

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does not comply, however the encroachment is minor and it is considered that on balance the development contains suitable steeped in elements and variations in side setbacks such that it will not present an as overt mass or monolithic structure.

 

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.

Contemporary flat roof including clerestory, composition of materials and fenestration compliments building form and scale

 

The roof form is flat to reduce bulk and scale

 

 

 

 

Proposal is consistent with the modern roof forms in the area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lift overrun is adequately setback behind the building line and integrated within the building roof form

 

 

 

 

The proposed roof terrace was not supported. The applicant submitted amended plans deleting the roof terrace.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

4.4

External wall height and ceiling height

 

 

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

Front (RL35.10):

 

West: 11.47m

East: 11.31m

 

Rear (RL35.30)

 

West: 10.30m

East: 10.57m

 

 

Does not comply – see key issues section

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Complies

 

4.5

Pedestrian Entry

 

 

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

Separate pedestrian entry

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.

-    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.

 

 

 

Entry accessible from Clovelly Road is clearly identified and integrated with the access areas and landscaping.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Suitable weather protection is provided by the floor above.

 

 

 

Can be accommodated within the front fence adjacent to the pedestrian entrance.

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Complies

 

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.

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

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

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

 

 

 

Each unit has multiple aspects.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Each room has a window

 

 

 

 

Open plan layouts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

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.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

4.9

Colours, materials and finishes

 

 

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

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

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

-    Changes of colours and surface texture

-    Inclusion of lightweight materials to contrast with solid masonry surfaces

-    The use of natural stones is encouraged.

(v)    Avoid the following materials or treatment:

-    Reflective wall cladding, panels and tiles and roof sheeting

-    High reflective or mirror glass

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

-    Large expanses of rendered masonry

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

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

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

Schedule provided

 

 

 

Materials and colours are contemporary. The DEP commend the limited palette or materials, slight gradation in balcony opacity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Site modification is greater than 1m, however this is not inordinate when considered in the context of medium density development.

 

 

Rear yard is terraced

 

 

 

 

 

 

The development adopts a suitable response to the site conditions.

Suitable conditions are included to support neighbour’s land.

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

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).

 

Basement and ground level walls are located on the side boundaries

 

The proposed height and location of retaining walls are considered acceptable given the constraints of the sites width, absence of any adverse visual impact and suitable conditions are included to achieve structural stability of neighbouring properties.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies – see comments at left

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

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

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

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

ADG Provisions supersede the RDCP requirements.

Complies with ADG requirements for solar access.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ADG provisions require 50% for two hours

 

 

 

 

ADG provisions require no more than 20% reduction

Complies ADG requires 2 hours to at least 70% of apartments

 

 

 

Does not comply – see discussion of orientation under key issues section of the executive summary section of the report.

 

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, and fanlights above doorways and highlight windows in internal partition walls.

 

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

 

(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.

 

(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.

 

(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.

 

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

All habitable rooms have a window.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.3

Visual privacy

 

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

-    Translucent glazing

-    Fixed timber or metal slats

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

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

Windows are generally suitably located and dimensioned.

 

 

Balconies are oriented to the front and rear. Small balconies are located in the middle floor plate attached to bedrooms.

 

 

NA

 

 

 

 

 

Ground level is well designed in this regard, however as discussed in the key issues section the western side of the front balconies will require additional privacy measures.

 

 

 

 

 

See key issues section above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.4

Acoustic privacy

 

 

 

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

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

 

Subject of standard conditions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

See key issues section of this report

 

5.6

Safety and security

 

 

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

Complies

 

 

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

Complies

 

 

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

Complies

 

 

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

Improved by including open section to the front fence.

Complies

 

 

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

Complies

 

 

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

Small number of units would not generate high visitor numbers. Suitable access gates are provided for the parking and pedestrian entrance.

Complies

 

 

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

Condition

 

 

(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.

Complies

 

 

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

Complies

by condition

 

 

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

Condition

 

6.1

Location

 

 

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

NA

 

 

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

Complies

 

 

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

 

Doesn’t comply however can be conditioned to provide adequate sight lines.

 

 

(iv) Entry to parking facilities off the rear lane must be setback a minimum of 1m from the lane boundary.

NA

 

 

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

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

(b)   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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

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.

Complies

 

 

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

Complies

 

 

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

·      Provide natural ventilation.

·      Use landscaping to soften or screen any car park enclosing walls.

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

Landscaping and appropriate location of open fencing, balustrades and gates will appropriately soften the appearance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

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.

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

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

7.2

Front Fencing

 

 

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

Complies

 

 

(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.

Fencing at the front southern boundary is higher than 1200mm however they have incorporated open elements which is considered appropriate for the site and surrounding area

Yes

 

 

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

Complies

 

 

(iv) Solid front fence of up to 1800mm in height may be permitted in the following scenarios:

- Front fence for sites facing arterial roads.

      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.

Complies

 

 

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

Complies

 

 

(vii) Gates must 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.

Conditioned

 

7.3

Side and Rear Fencing

 

 

a)    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).

A standard 1.8m high fence will be able to be built under the exempt codes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

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)    3-bedroom apartments – 10m3

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.7

Laundry facilities

 

 

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

Complies

 

 

(ii)     Provide internal laundry for each dwelling 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.

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.

AC units proposed to be located on middle balconies

Complies

 

 

4.         Referral Comments

 

Design Excellence Panel (DEP)

 

-                 INTRODUCTION

Attached is a copy of the minutes relating to this SEPP 65 meeting.

The Panel’s comments are intended to assist Council in their design consideration of an application against the SEPP 65 principles. The absence of a comment under a head of consideration does not imply that particular matter to be satisfactorily addressed, more likely the changes are suggested elsewhere to generate a desirable change.

 

Your attention is drawn to the following;

 

-        SEPP 65, including the 9 Design Quality Principles and the requirements for a Qualified Designer (a Registered Architect) to provided Design Verification Statements throughout the design, documentation and construction phases of the project.

-               The Apartment Design Guide, as published by Planning NSW (July 2015), which provides guidance on all the issues addressed below.

 

Both documents are available from the NSW Department of Planning.

 

Note:

The Design Review Panel is appointed by the NSW Minister for Planning, on the recommendation of Council.  The Panel’s written and verbal comments are their professional opinions and constitute expert design quality advice to Waverley Council, the architect and the applicant.

 

1.        To address the Panel's comments, the applicant may need to submit amended plans. Prior to preparing any amended plans or attending additional Panel presentations, the applicant MUST discuss the Panel's comments and any other matter that may require amendment with Council’s assessing Planning Officer.

 

2.        When addressing the Panel's comments by way of amendments, if the applicant does not propose to address all or the bulk of the Panel's comments, and wishes to make minor amendments only, then it should be taken that the Panel considers the proposal does not meet the SEPP 65 requirements.  In these instances it is unlikely the scheme will be referred back to the Panel for further review.

-                  

-                 PANEL COMMENTS

This is a DA submission for the demolition of an existing 2-storey mixed-use building, and construction of a 4-storey residential flat building that features 1 dwelling per level, yielding 4 x 3 bedroom apartments.

 

The existing brick building features ground floor retail with a zero setback to Clovelly Road, and what appears to be first floor residential accommodation, with no on-site parking. The scale and architectural form of the building is matched by the adjoining property, No. 344-350 Clovelly Road. Whilst the loss of ground floor activation and local retail from the site is disappointing from a neighbourhood amenity perspective, the site’s redevelopment for a 100% residential scheme is consistent with the type of redevelopment occurring elsewhere in Clovelly, particularly this close to the coast. This can be seen at No. 352 Clovelly Road, which is currently under construction.

 

This is the first time the panel has seen the proposal, however, the architect (MKD) has clearly outlined the design approach and rationale for the approach to built form, site configuration and landscaping. The panel is generally supportive of the proposal, subject to the points noted in this report being addressed.

 

-                 Principle 1: Context and Neighbourhood Context

The design package includes site and analysis, which is focused on properties immediately surrounding the subject site, including street frontage setbacks, building heights and garage entrances. Potential valuable views from the site to surrounding features have been identified, just as the potential view affectation from neighbouring properties. However, this has not been substantiated by view analysis from potentially affected properties – this is likely to be a point of contention and objection, and is likely to be addressed as part of the assessment process.

 

The relationship with the neighbouring properties, including the change in levels, established landscape and mature trees, and the proposed loss of trees on the site have not been adequately addressed. The site analysis is superficial and lacks detail or critical thought. The panel looks for greater detail and interrogation as part of this process.

 

No commentary has been provided on the loss of ground floor activation or the site’s transformation from a mixed-use building with zero-boundary setbacks to a standalone residential flat building. Whilst permissible, the significance of this change in use and built character should be recognised and considered.

-                 Principle 2: Scale and Built Form

-                 The application proposes a residential flat building with DCP compliant setbacks to the four property boundaries, is generally compliant with height and meets the FSR control (0.9:1). The panel is encouraged that the architect and land-owner are working within the existing controls to deliver a high-quality and aspirational residential outcome that reflects the changing face and demographics of Clovelly.

-                 The rear setback could be improved through changes in the landscape and levels in order to retain the existing trees along the southern boundary, and which currently sit within the neighbours property. This is covered in more detail below.

-                 The relationship to the neighbouring properties also needs to be interrogated in greater detail, including whether the lift-overun has an overshadowing or view impact. Again, this is addressed in greater detail below.

-                  

-                 Principle 3: Density

The redevelopment of the site to deliver four (4) three-bedroom, family sized apartments with off-street parking (minimum of 1 space per dwelling), and generous outdoor amenity space for 2 of the 4 units (roof and ground) is supported by the panel.

 

-                 Principle 4: Sustainability

Air conditioning is proposed, however, no information is provided on the location of the condensers. The panel assumes these will be located on the roof, in which case they should be indicated and considered as part of the over-shadowing and visual analysis.

 

Despite air conditioning being proposed the panel would still like to see ceiling fans indicated on the plans, so that more passive methods of cooling can be promoted, particularly in this coastal location.

 

Further sustainability considerations:

-     All bathrooms on external walls should have operable external windows to reduce the need for artificial ventilation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-     Outdoor clothes drying areas have been shown on the drawings

-     On-site rainwater detention and storage should be considered – location to be shown

-                  

-                 Principle 5: Landscape

A separate landscape plan has been provided by TaylorBrammer, which includes a greater level of detail on the species selection, ground plane materials and boundary treatments.

 

What hasn’t been adequately addressed in detail is the existing landscape features, both within the site and directly adjacent to the boundary, but within the neighbouring properties. The panel would like to see the existing palms on the site relocated to redesigned garden at the south of the site.

 

The panel wants to ensure the existing trees to the south of the site aren’t impacted by the development of the site, which includes the excavation of the rear communal space and retaining walls along the southern boundary. Once suggestion to address this is to terrace the landscape from the southern boundary, reducing the levels area of garden, but securing enough soil to keep the roots safe. This approach may be coupled with assigning this rear space to the ground floor apartment, and only a small area along the eastern boundary being designated for a communal drying zone.

 

The existing trees sitting just outside the western boundary also need to be considered, as the basement car park entrance runs along through their root zone. The retention of the tree within the street verge is also unlikely and should be either removed from the plans or illustrated how the car turning circles will clear the trunk.

 

The provision of a private roof garden for the top-level (3rd) apartment is support by the panel.

 

-                 Principle 6: Amenity

Due to the orientation of the site and provision of setbacks, the panel agrees with the analysis illustrated in drawings A-7.01 and A-7.02.

 

No shadow diagrams were provided as part of the application package, and will need to be addressed to ensure no significant amenity impacts of adjoining neighbours is arising from the proposal. This analysis should also take into consideration the location windows on neighbouring properties and the room being affected (habitable, non-habitable). The 3D photomontage in the drawing set does not show the windows on the neighbouring property just to the west of the site. An understanding should also be provided of the impact arising from the built elements that exceed the current height control.

 

Privacy and overlooking from the southern elevation to the neighbouring properties, and vice versa, has been addressed through the provision of a timber privacy screen. A detail showing the blade size, spacing and orientation of the screen should be provided to better understand its effectiveness and impact on the residential amenity. Relating to this point, the view affectation from the adjoining properties should also be the subject of view impact studies and photomontages. If neighbouring properties haven’t been contacted or visited, this may be a requirement of the planning assessment process.

 

The security, amenity, privacy and impact of the ground floor apartment must be carefully considered, including;

·      Security along the street frontage, and whether visual permeability at the boundary can be achieved to better activate and provided surveillance

·      Noise generated by the private lap pool along the western boundary, and whether this will have an impact on the neighbouring property. Inversely, the privacy of the residents using the pool should also be considered in terms of landscaping and screening

·      The interface between the ground floor bedrooms (2 and 3) and the rear garden can be addressed by assigning the majority of this space to the unit. This enables the dwelling to take ownership and maintain the space, whilst removing the awkward security and amenity issues

-                  

-                 Principle 7: Safety

Satisfactory. Securing the privacy and access to the ground floor apartment is crucial.

 

-                 Principle 8: Housing Diversity and Social Interaction

The Panel supports the redevelopment of the site to deliver 4 x family sized apartments in a location close to amazing amenity and public transport. Opportunities for social interaction in a development of this size are limited to the lobby and basement, which is satisfactory in this context.

-                  

-                 Principle 9: Aesthetics

The proportions of the site with the narrow frontage to Clovelly Road provides a tall northern elevation that’s been successfully addressed through a limited palette or materials and subtle changes in form and balcony depth. The slight gradation in balcony opacity serves a number of purposes; privacy from the street and providing a slightly lighter top floor expression. By wrapping the balconies around the side (western and eastern) elevations, the form is softened and sits easily within the existing streetscape. This is further reinforced by the curved glass, which is an important feature that will hopefully survive the future stages of design development.

 

The introduction of the dark fibre cement panels to the lift core and vertical circulation provides relief to the eastern elevation and point of visual interest from the street. The success of this feature will be the detailing and delivery during construction.

 

Comments on the timber privacy screens to the southern elevation have been noted above. The need for the same timber screens along the eastern elevation is questioned, given the projecting eaves above and window types.

 

The panel isn’t convinced by the stone-cladding wall along the Clovelly Road frontage. Whilst important to secure the privacy of the ground floor apartment, it offers no amenity to the streetscape which once features active retail uses. A more landscaped focus to this frontage is preferred.

 

-                 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The panel is generally supportive of the proposal, subject to the points noted in the report being addressed to the satisfaction of the panel.

 

Planning comment:

The applicant submitted amended plans and a statement addressing the key issues raised by the panel and as such, it is not required to be referred back to the panel. The key maters relate to:

·      Replacement of the street tree which is supported by Council’s Landscape Officer and Development Engineer in relation to turning circles;

·      Clarification that the two trees located at No. 334-336 Clovelly Road have since been removed by the neighbour;

·      View loss assessment has been carried out,

·      Loss of ground floor activation is not a requirement under the permissible forms of development;

·      Front fence is opened up allowing for landscaping to soften the development at street level;

·      Terracing of the rear common open space in order to ensure the retention of the trees in the rear yard of No. 30-32 Melrose Parade

·      Air conditioning units located on balconies in the middle of floor plates;

·      Ceiling fans proposed to bedrooms only;

·      Inclusion of outdoor clothes line;

·      Landscaping is appropriately conditioned by Council’s Landscape Officer

·      Window location ascertained from previous approvals and shown in architectural plans;

·      Privacy and overlooking have been suitably assessed by Council;

·      Landscaped screening of pool;

·      Rear garden retained as communal open space;

 


 

Development Engineering and Landscape Officer

An amended application has been received for the demolition of existing structures & construction of a 4 storey residential flat building containing 4 dwellings, basement carparking for 6 vehicles, roof terrace, lap pool at ground level, landscaping and associated works (variation to height control, at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Amended Architectural Plans by MKD Architects Revision DA-B dated 23/1/2018;

·      Statement of Environmental Effects by Planning Ingenuity dated September 2017;

·      Traffic and Parking Assessment by Transport & Traffic Planning Associates;

·      Detail & Level Survey by MKD Architects dated 19/01/2018;

·      Arboricultural Impact Assessment by Urban Forestry dated September 2017;

·      Landscape Plans by Taylor Brammer, dwg’s LA01 – 04, rev A, dated 14/09/17.

 

General Comments

There are no objections to the development from Development Engineering subject to comments and conditions provided in this report.

 

Drainage Comments

On site stormwater detention is generally not required for this development as the site lies within the lower reaches of the Clovelly catchment which generally makes stormwater detention ineffective. Notwithstanding, in order to protect Council street gutter infrastructure the maximum discharge from the site shall be restricted to a maximum of 25 L/S for all storm events up to the 1 in 20 yr storm.  A stormwater detention system may be required to ensure this amount is not exceeded. A suitable condition has been included in this report.

 

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 Clovelly Road; or

 

i.    To a suitably designed infiltration system (subject to confirmation in a full geotechnical investigation that the ground conditions are suitable for the infiltration system),

 

Parking Comments

Parking Requirements for the development have been assessed as per the following relevant parking rates specified in Part B7 of Randwick Council’s Development Control Plan 2013 Part B7.

·      1.5 spaces per 3 bedroom unit

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

 

The proposed development will comprise of 4 x 3 bedroom units

 

Vehicle Parking Required under DCP            = (4 x 1.5) + 1 space for visitor

 

                                                            = 7 spaces

 

Vehicle Parking Provided                           = 6 spaces

 

Parking Shortfall                                      = 1 space (14.2%)

 

(See Discussion of parking shortfall below)

 

 

Motorbike Parking

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

Due to the low number of units, motorcycle parking is not required under the DCP however it is noted one motorbike space has been provided. This does partially compensate for the 1 space deficiency in vehicle parking.

 

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 under DCP            = 4/2 + 4/10

                                                            = 2.4

                                                            = say 3 spaces when rounded up

 

Bicycle Parking Provided under DCP            = 5 spaces (complies)

                                                           

Discussion of Vehicle Parking Shortfall

The shortfall relates to the provision of visitor vehicle parking only.

 

The site is located within close proximity to a bus stop which serves routes 338,339 Clovelly to City. Route 360 & 362 are also available within 200m walk.

 

The proposed development has a surplus of 1 motorbike space and 2 bicycle spaces which will assist in compensating for the 1 space deficiency in vehicle parking.

 

The proposed development is within close proximity to carshare bays operated by GoGet carshare with the two closest being 290m east of the site (within the Clovelly Beach carpark) and 280m west of the site on Clovelly Rd.

 

The site is situated within 150m of the coastal walk between Bondi and Coogee.

 

In consideration of the above factors Development Engineering will not object to the minor 1 space shortfall in this instance.

 

Carpark Layout

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.

 

Undergrounding of site feed power lines

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

 

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

 

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

 

Tree Management Comments

The inspection of 6 July 2018 confirmed a mature Banksia serrata (Saw Toothed Banksia, T1) within a dedicated tree square on the Clovelly Road footpath, towards the western site boundary, whose true size has been reduced to about 5m due to repeated lopping away from the footpath and overhead wires, then towards the eastern site boundary, there is also a recently installed tree of the same species.

 

Both are covered by Council’s DCP due to their location on public property, with the revised Basement Plan (rev B, dated 19/01/18) showing that the vehicle crossing and entry ramp will be located at the lower end of the site, along the western boundary, which while this is a traditional practice to reduce the amount of excavations required, will place these works in direct conflict with the larger street tree.

 

As it is not significant in anyway, conditions allow its removal, wholly at the applicant’s cost, and as a replacement can be provided a few metres to its east, this will maintain reasonable levels of amenity in the streetscape.

 

The other smaller street tree can be retained in-situ, as other than replacing the concrete footpath upon completion, there are no major external works.

 

While the earlier plans and surveys showed the presence of two trees beyond the western site boundary, located wholly on the adjoining private property at no.336, against the common boundary, it has been confirmed that they have both been physically removed, and no longer exist.

 

Centrally in the rear setback of the subject site, on the western side of the dividing fence, there is a mature, 10m tall Persea americanna (Avocado, T2) which is in good health and condition, is this sites most established specimen, and was observed to provide the occupants with shade as well as performing a screening and privacy function by preventing overlooking into the private open space from the unit complex on higher ground to the south.

 

However, it is an exotic species that does not offer any meaningful benefit to native fauna or the local environment in anyway, so a re-design to allow for its retention is not warranted in this case, especially given its central location and direct conflict with all aspects of the works, and as such, can be removed as shown, and as has been recommended in the Arborists Report.

 

Similarly, while the Howea fosteriana (Kentia Palm, T3) to its northeast, on the eastern side of the dividing fence, is a desirable feature species, it is located within 2m of the existing dwelling, making it exempt from the DCP, meaning it could be removed at anytime, without consent, irrespective of these works, and as it is also in direct with all works, can be removed as shown, along with the other Kentia Palm (T8) further to its southeast, on the eastern site boundary.

 

Towards the southwest corner of the subject site, there is a semi-mature, 6m tall Jacaranda mimosfiolia (Jacaranda, T4) which while covered by the DCP, is a very common, exotic species, of only fair health and condition due to competing leaders and heavy past lopping, and as major excavations and changes in level are shown for this area as part of creating the new area of communal open space, no objections are raised to its removal as shown. 

 

Beyond the rear (southern) site boundary, on the adjoining private property at 30-32 Melrose Parade, halfway across the width of the subject site, there is from west to east, a 6m tall Cupaniopsis anacardioides (Tuckeroo, T6), which is setback the furthest from the common boundary, then to its southwest, a Grevillea robusta (Silky Oak, T5), and then adjacent the southeast corner, another larger Silky Oak (T7).

 

The site survey by Craig & Rhodes, ref 095-16, dated 07/12/16, confirms that all three are located wholly on this neighbouring site, with the existing block wall shown as being contained wholly within the subject site, but does lean into the rear yard the further it goes towards the eastern boundary.

 

Council has a common law responsibility to ensure these trees are not affected in anyway by the works, and while the basement and building are both located well away, significant excavations and changes to existing ground levels will be undertaken just to their north, representing encroachments of their TPZ’s in the order of 30%, which is categorised as major.

 

But it is noted that existing site conditions would have restricted the ability for roots to enter the subject site, as a combination of the ground level where they are growing being approximately 1.5m higher, along with the solid concrete block wall, both acting as physical barriers to root ingress, as has also been concluded by the Arborist Report.

 

As these trees would have grown with a reliance on this wall for structural support to some degree, conditions require that the wall be retained in situ, and will need to be incorporated into the treatment of the terracing shown for the communal open space.

 

T6 is noted as being in good health and condition, with T5 & T7 both being in poor condition due to past heavy lopping which has resulted in poorly formed and attached branches, but as their northern aspects overhang slightly into the subject site, permission has been granted for minimal pruning if needed.

 

Landscape Plans

While the submitted scheme shows a high level of detail and treatment, conditions require that these plans be updated so as to be consistent with the most recent set of architectural plans.

 

Recommendation

 

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. DA/592/2017 for demolition of existing structures, construction of a 4 storey residential flat building containing 4 dwellings, basement carparking for 6 vehicles, roof terrace, lap pool at ground level, landscaping and associated works, at No. 338-342 Clovelly Road, Clovelly, subject to the development consent conditions attached to this report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Consent Conditions - DA/592/2017 - 338-342 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

 

 

 

 


Consent Conditions - DA/592/2017 - 338-342 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

Attachment 1

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Randwick Local Planning Panel                                                                                9 August 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D61/18

 

Subject:             118-120 Garden Street, Maroubra (DA/30/2018)

Folder No:                   DA/30/2018

Author:                   William Jones, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Demolition of existing structures and construction of a 4 storey shop top housing development comprising a ground floor retail premises, 3 office premises, 7 residential units, semi-basement parking, roof terraces and associated landscaped works.

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                Home Pty Ltd

Owner:                        Home Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

Subject Site