RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Randwick Local Planning Panel  Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

Thursday 13 September 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                                                                        13 September 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Randwick Local Planning Panel  Meeting

 

Notice is hereby given that a Randwick Local Planning Panel Meeting of the Council of the City of Randwick will be held in the Council Chamber, 1st Floor 90 Avoca Street Randwick on Thursday, 13 September 2018 at 1:00pm

 

 

Chairperson:                               Garry West

 

Expert Members:                         Julie Savet Ward and Heather Warton

 

Community Representatives:          Mio Margarit Chow (North Ward)

 

Quorum:                                    Three (3) members

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of RLPP by Councillors and members of the public

Privacy warning;

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

Development Application Reports

D68/18      16 Figtree Avenue, Randwick (DA/356/2017)............................................ 1

D69/18      2 St Marks Road, Randwick (DA/739/2017)........................................... 103

D70/18      89 Robey Street, Maroubra (DA/252/2018)........................................... 145

D71/18      171 Todman Avenue, Kensington (DA/618/2017).................................... 179

D72/18      54 Dutruc Street, Randwick (DA/256/2018)........................................... 233

D73/18      8 Norton Street, Kingsford (DA/703/2016) (Deferred)........................... 289

D74/18      10 Daintrey Crescent, Randwick (DA/636/2017)..................................... 323

D75/18      8 Clyde Street, Randwick (DA/553/2017).............................................. 393

 

 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Kerry Kyriacou

Director City Planning


Randwick Local Planning Panel                                                                        13 September 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D68/18

 

Subject:             16 Figtree Avenue, Randwick (DA/356/2017)

Folder No:                   DA/356/2017

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building converting 4 x three bedroom dwellings into 4 x two bedroom dwellings and addition of a new one bedroom dwelling with roof top terrace. The proposal also seeks new balconies, associated site and landscaping works and strata subdivision of the development.

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                MHN Design Union

Owner:                        Mr R Kogan

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=7293102e-054a-4f27-beca-e0330ba4d431&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

Executive summary

 

The application is referred to the Randwick Local Planning Panel (RLPP) as:

 

·      The development is subject to SEPP 65

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

 

Proposal

 

Alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building converting four three bedroom flats into four two bedroom flats and addition of a new one bedroom dwelling with roof top terrace. The proposal also seeks new balconies, associated site and landscaping works and strata subdivision of the development.

 

The application originally proposed a three bedroom apartment at the top level. The amended by plans received 27 October 2017 and 30 July 2018 are in response to matters raised by Council and by the Design Excellence Panel (DEP) and include:

 

·      Reduce footprint of the proposed level 2 apartment replacing a three bedroom unit with a one bedroom unit plus study. The shift westward will be more consistent with the streetscape and minimises overshadowing and visual amenity impacts on the neighbouring property.

·      Relocate outdoor communal open space from rear north-eastern corner to the northern side of the building. Fundamental to the value of this outdoor space is the conversion of the undercroft space into a semi open communal space that is accessible from within the building.

·      Add one (1) open car parking bay to the rear providing a total of four parking spaces on site – 3 in the rear yard and one undercroft parking garage.

·      Relocate pedestrian entry path from southern side (alongside driveway) to northern side boundary. Note: This is a Design Excellence Panel (DEP) recommendation.

 

Note:

The reduction of floor area and shifting of the upper level westward towards the front means that the development is now compliant with the 9.5m maximum height of building standard in the RLEP and the variation to the FSR development standard is reduced from 0.86:1 to 0.76:1 achieving near compliance with the 0.75:1 maximum standard.

 

Site Description and Locality

 

The site is rectangular in shape with a frontage of 12.19m, a side depth of 40m and a total site area of 487.3m2. The site is located on the western side of Figtree Avenue and contains a part two part three storey residential flat building (RFB) built circa 1961. The existing RFB contains four x three bedroom dwellings and two single garages at the rear of the building. The variation in storeys is a result of the sites topography which slopes down to the rear having a gradient of around 6% - a difference of approximately 2.4m from front to rear. This topography and resultant variation in storeys is endemic to the built form in the surrounding area.

 

Adjoining the site to the north and south are split level single dwellings located at No. 14 and 18 Figtree Avenue respectively. Further southward are two older style RFB’s at No. 10 and 12 Figtree Avenue which have a three storey scale towards the front of the site at the street frontage and a four storey scale at the rear. Other dwellings and RFB’s along Figtree Avenue also exhibit variations in massing of between two and four storeys as shown in the photos below.

 

Figure 1: Aerial view of subject site and surrounding area.

 

Photos of the subject site and surrounding area:

 

Photo 1: Subject site shown from the street frontage and from the rear showing the two existing parking spaces on site. Note Photo at left also shows the southern neighbouring property is No. 18 Figtree Avenue.

 

Photo 2: Rear of the subject site looking northward showing the existing garden bed and camphor laurel tree located at the rear of No. 14 Figtree Avenue.

 

Photo 3: Photo at left is the front of No. 14 Figtree Avenue and at right are the pair of three storey flat buildings at No. 10 and 12 Figtree Avenue.

 

Photo 4: Photo of semi-detached dwellings on the opposite side of Figtree Avenue and two four storey flat buildings at the southern end of Figtree Avenue.

 

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:

 

·      6 Figtree Avenue, Randwick

·      10 Figtree Avenue, Randwick

·      1/12 Figtree Avenue, Randwick

·      2/12 Figtree Avenue, Randwick

·      3/12 Figtree Avenue, Randwick

·      3/12 Figtree Avenue, Randwick

·      13 Figtree Avenue, Randwick

·      14 Figtree Avenue, Randwick

·      17 Figtree Avenue, Randwick

·      11 Figtree Avenue, Randwick

·      16 Figtree Avenue, Randwick

·      18 Figtree Avenue, Randwick

·      20 Figtree Avenue, Randwick

·      21 Figtree Avenue, Randwick

·      22 Figtree Avenue, Randwick

·      24 Figtree Avenue, Randwick

·      31 Figtree Avenue, Randwick

·      45 Figtree Avenue, Randwick

·      25 Market Street, Randwick

·      29 Market Street, Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

The proposed development is inconsistent with the objectives of the R3 medium Density Residential zone

The amended development is considered consistent with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential Zone. See assessment throughout this report.

Parking demand will significantly increase and results in a shortfall.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Existing deficiencies should not be possible as an excuse to not provide the total required parking spaces on site.

 

 

 

The proposal provides four parking spaces - two more than that currently provided on site. Several submissions suggest the rear and front yards be used for parking, however no parking is approved in these parts of the site. In fact, the rear part of the site is used to access the garages and the front yard cannot sustain an appropriately sited parking space.

 

Part B7 of the DCP states that “where development comprises an extension, modification or change of use to an existing development, Council will generally only require that additional parking be provided to cater for the additional demands arising from increases in floor space or changes in use”.

 

The proposal provides two additional parking spaces on site which is greater than the 1 space demand created by the proposed additional one bedroom unit. This parking provided on site achieves a good balance between the provision of parking, landscaping, communal spaces and permeable surfaces within the subject site.

Landscaping – little to no contribution to deep soil landscaping

Currently there is little deep soil or permeable areas on site. The proposal is for alterations and additions rather than a new development which lessens the capacity for the site to provide additional deep soil and landscaped areas. Nonetheless, the proposal as amended increases deep soil landscaping and permeable areas on site which contributes to the streetscape character, improves the visual amenity of neighbouring properties and reduces stormwater runoff.

Bulk:

 

The FSR is exceeded by 11% which is a significant amount

The amended application reduces the FSR on site to a variation of 1.3% above the maximum under the RLEP. It is also noted that the subfloor WC which is an essential element for the purposes of communal open space amenity does not contribute to bulk and scale is counted as floor area and if it were exclude the variation the development would be compliant.

The proposed development exceeds the maximum 8m external wall height limit.

The non-compliant wall height is considered acceptable as it is largely a consequence of the sites topography. As well, the smaller footprint of the upper level relative to the level below, larger side setbacks than the minimum required under the RDCP for the medium density residential development also minimise the impacts on the neighbouring properties – a key objective for the medium density zone and the objectives of the control.

Building depth:

 

The penthouse exceeds the maximum apartment depth permitted under the RDCP.

The penthouse apartment has a depth of 13.6m which is compliant with the 14m maximum control in the RDCP. The length is also broken up with stepped in elements and all habitable rooms have a window to the outside ensuring the unit has sufficient internal amenity and does not present as a dominating element within the streetscape or from neighbouring properties.

Front setback:

 

The front courtyard and balconies will dominate and will not be in keeping with the streetscape and will cause noise pollution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The setback measured to the outer face of the building elevation is 4.3m and to the front balcony at first floor is 2.44m from the front boundary which is less than the 3m required under the RDCP.

 

Ground level front courtyard:

The front courtyard allows for a 700mm strip of landscaping across the front. As the area ground level courtyard is significantly greater than the minimum required under the ADG, a condition is included requiring the courtyard to have a 2.7m front setback and for this area to be landscaped. This condition will allow for landscaping across the front of the site softens the interface between the building and the front boundary along Figtree Avenue. The requirement for a 2.7m setback maintains an ADG compliant area of open space for the ground level unit. (15sqm = 2.4 x 6.4).

 

First floor balcony: A condition is included requiring the first floor level balcony to be setback a minimum of 3m from the front boundary. The front balconies are lightweight structures which don’t dominate the building or the front elevation of the development.

This structure will directly impose on the right to amenity and aesthetic requirements for a streetscape that incorporates heritage buildings and significant trees

The nearest heritage item is No. 17 Gilderthorpe Avenue located around 100m south of the site. It is also noted that Figtree Avenue is not located within a Heritage Conservation area. The proposed development is not considered to have any detrimental impact on the significance of the heritage item. Notwithstanding, the amended application inclusive of conditions reduces the footprint at the upper level and integrates with the overall scale of the development.

Overshadowing

 

Overshadowing to solar collectors at No. 18 Figtree Avenue located south of the subject site.

The amended application sufficiently reduces overshadowing to the southern neighbour’s north facing windows and roof plane such that there is no appreciable difference between the existing shadow and shadows caused by the proposed development. Moreover, the amended development is largely compliant with the standards in the RLEP for height and FSR.

Overshadowing

 

Overshadowing to the northern neighbours property at No. 14 Figtree Avenue during summer.

 

 

During the winter solstice between 8am to 4pm, the sun angle does not traverse through this property and therefore there will be no additional shadowing.  The additional shadowing during summer is before 8am and occurs over a very small part of this neighbour’s rear yard.

Landscaping and daylight:

 

Objection to the height of landscaping along the northern side of the site and its impact on access to daylight

A condition is included limiting the northern side landscaping to a selection of species that attain a maximum height of 2.2m at maturity and a canopy that does not encroach over the boundary shared with the neighbouring property opposite at No. 14 Figtree Avenue (Condition 2e).

Sustainability:

 

Is sustainability regarding water storage and energy efficiency being addressed

 

 

The application includes BASIX certificates ensures water and energy targets are being met.

Waste:

 

There is insufficient room for garbage bins

 

 

The internal room at the subfloor level contains sufficient space for garbage bins. A condition is included requiring access along the driveway and deletion of bins along the rear boundary (Condition 2c).

Colours and materials:

 

Material and finishing is unclear

 

 

A suitable condition is included requiring the materials and finishes to be submitted as part of a suite of information to be satisfied prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development.

Privacy

 

Front balconies intrude on the privacy of dwellings opposite.

 

 

Penthouse terrace will result in privacy impact

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposed windows will overlook the neighbouring properties particularly the skylight located at No. 14 Figtree Avenue.

 

 

 

 

 

There are no privacy concerns from the front balconies as they overlook the street.

 

The amended plans maintain a 34sqm roof terrace over three times the 8sqm minimum required for a one bedroom dwelling under the ADG. Its size and proximity to the northern edge of the building also means it has the potential to result in noise nuisance and overlooking. To reduce the capacity for large groups of people using the terrace, a condition is included requiring a reduction in the size to a maximum depth of 3m from the western elevation (Condition 2(h)).

 

Ground and first floor windows:

 

The ground and first floor bathroom and study room windows opposite No. 14 Figtree Avenue have the capacity for overlooking, however additional privacy protection measures are not considered necessary for the following reasons:

 

·      They are largely in a similar location to existing windows,

·      The windows service low use rooms and

·      The bathroom window will contain its own privacy protection measures.

 

Level 2 windows:

 

The north facing kitchen and a dining room window have the capacity to overlook the skylight at No. 14 Figtree Avenue. Therefore, a condition (2b) is included requiring additional treatment to restrict direct sightlines.

Air conditioning:

 

Adverse noise impacts

 

 

There is no indication of AC units sought as part of this development application. A condition is included prohibiting the installation of air conditioning units unless they meet the criteria under the SEPP - Exempt and complying Development Codes 2008.

Underestimation of the development cost of works

A suitable condition is included requiring an updated Quantity surveyors report based on the amended plans.

It is vital that landscaping along the northern side boundary does not interfere with a sewer that runs along the southern side of No. 14 Figtree Avenue.

Noted.

There is limited indication of terracing along the northern side of the site.

The amended plans show the pedestrian walkway along the northern side of the site that runs half way along the building. The wall is sufficiently setback from the northern side boundary and will have a height that is generally consistent with the height of a standard side boundary fence ensuring no material impact to the existing fence along this part of the side boundary shared with no. 14 Figtree Avenue.

The landscaping has the potential to result in major impact on the Camphor Laurel tree located at the south western corner of the neighbouring property at No. 14 Figtree Avenue

Council’s Landscape Development Officer has reviewed the amended application and recommended conditions to ensure that the proposed development will not result in any significant detrimental impact on the health of the Camphor Laurel tree located on the neighbouring property.

 

Key Issues

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012

·           Clause 4.6 exceptions to development standards

 

The proposed development exceeds the development standards in Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio of the RLEP maximum FSR of 0.75:1. The floor space ratio of the development has been further reduced to 0.76:1 exceeding the maximum floor area by 4.87sqm representing a variation of 1.3%.

 

The applicant submitted a Clause 4.6 exception to the development standard pertaining to previously amended development that proposed an FSR of 0.798:1. An assessment of the Clause 4.6 exception is carried out in the detailed assessment section further below having regard to the amended application.

 

In short, the amendments subsequently made to the application are near compliant with the FSR standard and now comply with the height of building standard in the RLEP. It is considered that the floor space ratio should not be strictly applied to the development as the proposal satisfies the objectives of the standard and the R3 medium density zone in which the site is located for the following reasons:

 

The proposal minimises adverse impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring properties in terms of both visual amenity and overshadowing by locating the upper level further forward towards the front building line.

 

The location of the upper level contributes to the streetscape character and appropriately integrates the added bulk with the levels below by having a reduced footprint from the front and side elevations. The upper level is predominately designed as a habitable roof space as envisaged under the RDCP for medium density development. Although level 2 is located towards the front western boundary, it will be consistent with the existing built form of other medium density developments along Figtree Avenue most notably at No. 10 and 12 Figtree Avenue.

 

Overall, as discussed in the Clause 4.6 exception to the FSR development standard, it is considered unreasonable and unnecessary to strictly apply the RLEP standard for floor space ratio as the proposed development is considered to satisfy the objectives of the standard and the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Zone.

 

Randwick Development Control Plan 2013

·           External wall height

 

The RDCP states that where a development is subject to a 9.5m maximum height of buildings standard, an 8m maximum external wall height control applies.

 

The proposed external wall heights vary across the site ranging from 8.43m at the front and a maximum 8.46m taken from the underside of eaves at the southern elevation at the rear to the underside of the slab of existing ground level.

 

The RDCP requires an assessment against the following objectives:

 

Objectives:

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

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

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 external wall heights satisfy the above objectives for the following reasons:

The level 2 floor area has a smaller footprint and larger side setbacks than the level below, it’s stepped in walls and use of a mixed materials presents the top level as a subservient differentiated built form thus avoiding presentation of the top level as a full storey above which is encouraged by the RDCP for Medium Density Residential development.

The proposed wall heights which gradually increase over sloping lower land levels will be compatible with other existing flat buildings and other development along Figtree Avenue.

The proposal will be compatible with the streetscape and the external wall height is a minor departure from the 8m maximum external wall height control/provision under the RDCP.

If the development were required to comply, the upper level would have to be removed entirely, due to the constraints of minimum floor to ceiling heights, which would result in a development whose bulk and scale that is well below that envisaged under the RLEP and RDCP and as noted earlier below the scale of other developments along Figtree Avenue.

The impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties such as overshadowing, visual bulk, privacy and views are considered to have been minimised as far as practical having regard to the provisions in the ADG and RDCP as discussed throughout this report.

 

Overall, the amended design scheme contains appropriate articulation along the front, side and rear elevations avoiding extensive sheer walls in vertical and horizontal manifestations helping to counteract additional overshadowing and adverse visual amenity impacts on neighbouring properties as well as contributing to the streetscape character. Despite the variance to the external wall height control, the RDCP objectives for the height control will be satisfied and is therefore considered acceptable.

 

SEPP 65 - Apartment Design Guide (ADG):

·           3B-2 Orientation  - Overshadowing

 

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 the winter solstice (mid-winter). The ADG states that a 6m setback control applies for the purposes of providing solar access within the site and on neighbouring properties.

 

The proposal is sited closer than and 6m to the side boundaries and will result in a reduction of solar access to the southern neighbour’s property at No. 18 Figtree Avenue.

 

An assessment is required against the design guidance in the ADG. The ADG 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 containing older flat buildings and detached housing.

 

The pattern of development on east-west subdivided sloping sites, containing narrow pathways at side boundaries, makes southern properties namely No. 18 Figtree Avenue particularly vulnerable to overshadowing. This existing pattern of development in the area displays setbacks that are more consistent with the RDCP side setback controls that apply to medium density development. As such, it is considered more appropriate to apply the RDCP side setback controls to the proposed development. The RDCP applies larger setbacks as the site width increases and requires a minimum 2m side setback for the subject site which has a width of 12.19m.

 

The proposed development has side setbacks that vary between 2.19m and 3.91m and complies with the 2m minimum side setback controls in Part C2 of the RDCP.

 

Whilst there are non compliant elements such as FSR and external wall height, it is important to consider that these are minor non-compliances and largley as a result of site conditions rather than any inordinate bulk or scale when compared with the existing and the likley future medium density develpoment within Figtree Avneue. In particular, the amended developments FSR is near compliant with the RLEP standard, and shifting the top level further forward to the front (away from the lower land levels) minimises the variation to the RDCP wall height control. In addition, the larger  top levels larger side setbacks also minimise uneccessary overshadowing and visual bulk along the side elevations. Further still, the removal of the existing roof at the rear, allowing for the proposed roof terrace, results in greater levels of solar access to the southern neighbour’s north facing first floor bedroom windows during parts of the winter solstice.

 

Overall, the extent of the additional overshadowing is minor and does not arise due to poor or unsympathetic urban design. The proposal has responded appropriately to the exiting site conditions and subdivsion and development pattern by locating the upper level closer to the front, incorporating staggered walls and larger side setbcaks than those required under the RDCP. Therefore, the proposal as amended will comply with the design guidance for 3B-2 Orientation in the ADG.

 

·           3F-1 Visual Privacy

 

The ADG requires for the purposes of visual and acoustic privacy of neighbouring properties 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 figures 3F-3 below.,

 

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

 

The proposed ground and first floor balconies and level 2 unit have side setbacks that do not comply with the 6m minimum separation control in the ADG. As considered earlier under Orientation, it is considered impractical to provide 6m building separation as it would physically constrain and sterilise development of the site. As such, it is considered more reasonable to place a greater emphasis on ensuring the new development is designed so that is occupants and neighbours enjoy reasonable visual and acoustic privacy relationship, which may be addressed through physical measures.

 

An assessment of visual and acoustic relationship between the proposed development and the neighbouring properties is carried out for the following aspects of the development:

 

Level 2 windows

Level 2 rear roof terrace

Ground and 1st floor level front and rear balconies

Ground and first floor level windows

Lowering and screening of the northern side pedestrian path

Level 2 windows

 

Level 2 windows are well placed and dimensioned in that they generally allow for an outlook across the neighbouring properties rather than directly into habitable living spaces. However, the north facing dining room window has a low sill height and may allow for a direct line of sight through a skylight of No. 14 Figtree Avenue.

 

A condition is included requiring this window to be treated with fixed obscured glazing to a height of 1.6m above the internal floor level alternatively contain external screening to restrict overlooking into the neighbours skylight.

 

Level 2 rear roof terrace

 

The roof terrace has a considerable length and area allowing for large groups of people to use this area for entertaining purposes potentially resulting in significant noise impacts on neighbouring properties. The large area also limits the development potential of the neighbouring properties. The terrace also has an area that is over three times the size of the minimum size required under the ADG for a one bedroom unit.

 

Therefore, a condition is included requiring a reduction in size of the terrace to minimise the associated impacts.

                                                

Ground and 1st floor level front and rear balconies

 

Front balconies

The front balconies will generally overlook the street and front yards and do not pose any significant privacy intrusion into the neighbouring properties or those opposite.

 

Rear balconies

The rear balconies have an outlook into the rear yards of the neighbouring properties and as such will require suitably designed northern and southern side privacy screens to restrict direct overlooking. Whilst there will still be some overlooking it is not considered that this is inconsistent with the mutual overlooking occurring at the rear of properties along this side of Figtree Avenue.

 

Ground and first floor level windows

 

The ground and first floor bathroom and study room windows have the capacity for overlooking across to opposite windows at No. 14 Figtree Avenue. Despite this, additional privacy protection measures are not considered necessary for the following reasons:

 

-    They are largely in a similar location to existing windows,

-    They service low use rooms and

-    The bathroom window will contain its own privacy protection measures

 

The northern elevation contains ground and first floor level kitchen windows that have an outlook onto No. 14 Figtree Avenue. A condition is included requiring this window to be appropriately treated with obscured glazing to a height of 1.6m above the internal floor level or for external privacy screens to be applied to restrict direct overlooking to the north.

 

Northern side pedestrian path

 

The northern side pedestrian path has the capacity for overlooking and any screening has the potential to result in excessive massing opposite no. 14 Figtree Avenue. A condition is included requiring the passageway to be lowered, a 1.6m high screen to be placed along its northern edge and for suitable landscaping which will ensure suitable privacy for the neighbouring property at No. 14 Figtree Avenue.

 

Overall, it is considered that the proposed development will not result in any significant adverse privacy impacts on the neighbouring properties subject to relevant conditions being included in the recommendation.

 

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 carry out alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building including new second storey addition comprising of a new two bedroom dwelling with roof top terrace, new balconies, strata subdivision, associated site and landscaping works be approved (subject to conditions) for the following reasons:

 

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

 

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

 

·      The requirements of Clause 4.6 have been met and that the FSR in Clause 4.4 of RLEP 2012 can be varied.

 

·      The approval incorporates the following amendments to the development that are fundamental to the granting of consent:

 

Reduction of the Gross floor area

Upgrading of landscaping throughout the site.

 

 


 

Detailed Assessment

1.         Section 4.15 matters for consideration

 

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

 

Section 4.15 ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

See 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 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 will be 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 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 not considered that the premises have been used for any potentially contaminating activities. Therefore, the site can be made suitable for the proposed development.

 

·           State Environmental Planning Policy - Affordable Rental Housing 2009 (ARHSEPP)

The building has not been strata subdivided and the development relates to an existing residential flat building containing four three bedroom units and requires consideration under Part 3 Retention of Affordable Rental Housing under the ARHSEPP.

 

Under Clause 49(2), the consent authority in determining a development application is to determine whether the building is a ‘low rental residential building. For the purpose of this determination, the applicant provided the following data:

 

·      Rental information for 24 months between July 2016 to June 2018

·      Lease agreements for three of the four units 1, 3 and 4 showing $810.00 per week during the 2nd twelve month period.

 

Assessment:

A comparison has been undertaken of the median rental for each twelve month period with median rental level contained in the Rent and Sales Reports (From July 2016 to June 2018) published by Housing NSW an agency of NSW Department of Family and Community Services.

 

Quartiles

Median

Unit 1

Unit 2

Unit 3

Unit 4

Mar 2016

850

662

552

724

719

June 2016

873

662

552

724

719

Sep 2016

880

662

552

724

719

Dec 2016

840

662

552

724

719

Mar 2017

850

662

552

724

No record

Jun 2017

900

Vacant

552

Vacant

Vacant

Sep 2017

840

810

No record

810

810

Dec 2017

880

810

No record

810

810

 

Analysis:

It shows that all four three bedroom units have been rented at levels below the published median quartiles for Randwick and defined as low rental dwelling:

 

“low-rental dwelling means a dwelling that (at any time in the 24 month period prior to the lodgement of a development application to which this Part applies) was let at a rental not exceeding the median rental level for that time (as specified in the Rent and Sales Report) in relation to a dwelling of the same type, having the same number of bedrooms and located in the same local government area.”

 

Pursuant to the ARSEPP, an assessment is required to ’take into account the guidelines and clause 50(2) of the ARSEPP. Specifically, an assessment is required to consider under Cl 50(2) (a) whether there is likely to be a reduction in affordable housing on the land to which the application relates.

 

Given the above, it is considered that the proposed development will genuinely result in the loss of affordable housing. As such, further assessment against the remaining matters for consideration under Clause 50(2) of the ARSEPP is considered necessary. The ARHSEPP allows a contribution to offset the loss of affordable housing which is calculated as follows.

 

Contribution

If a condition is to be imposed under this clause, the amount of the contribution is to be calculated in accordance with the following formula:

 

C = L x R x 0.05

 

where:

 

C is the contribution payable.

 

L is the total number of bedrooms in a low-rental dwelling and boarding rooms that will be lost by the proposed development.

 

R is the replacement cost calculated as the average value of the first quartile of sales of strata properties in the local government area in which the development is to take place, as specified in the 4 most recent editions of the Rent and Sales Report.

 

L = 12 bedrooms x 0.358 (12 bedrooms will be lost. Applying the 35.8% owner occupancy rate (2016 census data for Randwick)

R = ($750k (June 16) +$765k (Sept 16) + $760k (Dec 16) + $775k- March 17)/4 = $762.5k. Replacement cost of strata titled apartments for the last four published sales reports.

 

Contribution payable (C) = $163,785 (4.296 bedroom lost (12 x 0.358 owner occupancy rate (2016 Census data) x ($38,125.00 ($762.5k (R) x 0.05))

 

A suitable condition is included.

 

Having regard to the remaining clauses in the ARSEPP, the proposed development is a suitable form of development whereby the contribution will appropriately offset the impacts associated with the loss of low rental housing in the area.

 

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

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

 

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

 


 

·           State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality Residential Flat Buildings

SEPP No. 65 aims to promote quality design of Residential Flat Buildings. 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 two occasions and their comments are contained in the referral comments included in the referral comments section of this report. In short, the panel raised several matters regarding the original scheme relating to 9 design principles. The amended scheme was also commented on with the majority of these matters being substantially addressed. The

 

Having regard to SEPP 65 and an assessment is carried out against the key design criteria requirements in Part 3: Siting the Development and Part 4: Designing the Building of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG). 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. As the proposal seeks alterations and additions to the existing

 

Clause

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

Part 3: Siting the Development

3A-1

Site Analysis

 

 

 

Each element in the Site Analysis Checklist should be

addressed

 

 

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

The main bulk of the development is located to the north and east which assists with minimising the impacts of overshadowing to the southern neighbours property at No. 18 Figtree Avenue.

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)

NA

NA

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

 

Complies, see key issues section.

 

Where an adjoining property does not currently receive

the required hours of solar access, the proposed building ensures solar access to neighbouring properties is not reduced by more than 20%

The ground north facing windows of No. 18 Figtree Avenue doesn’t receive solar access during mid-winter and the proposed development does not alter this outcome.

Yes

 

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

minimums contained in section 3F Visual privacy

Solar access will not be significantly reduced by the amended scheme

Not required.

 

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

The amended development has sufficiently minimised overshadowing to the north facing first floor bedroom windows of the southern neighbour’s dwelling at No. 18 Figtree Avenue. See discussion in key issues section of report.

 

Cutting out the rear roof replacing with the penthouse terrace results in more solar access to the bedroom windows at No. 18 Figtree Avenue.

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 existing building is orientated 90 degrees from the property boundary.

Complies.

 

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

solar collectors on neighbouring buildings

The building will impact the roof form of neighbouring buildings however these are largely under developed properties and notwithstanding, at least four hours will be afforded to a portion of the roof of the adjoining buildings.

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)

 

 

 

 

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: 22.5% (110sqm) of open space is provided (excluding the driveway and parking bays in the rear).

 

After 1pm, direct solar access is available to the communal space along the northern side of the site and the loggia area under the building.

Does not comply, refer to comments below

 

 

Complies.

 

Comments: Despite not complying with the minimum 25% required by the ADG, the area of communal open space along the northern side of the building and within an undercover loggia area is considered to satisfy the design guidance provided by the ADG. In particular, the communal open space satisfies the ADG design guidance for the following reasons:

 

·      The communal open space is now consolidated into a well-designed easily identified and usable area, which is in contrast to the low value existing outdoor areas that are mostly concreted hard surface areas with limited landscaping.

 

·      The outdoor space is connected to an internal/external space (loggia) which provides flexible recreational opportunities for residents.

 

·      The internally accessible communal open space provides valuable breathing space between the apartment building and the neighbouring properties and the amended communal space is supported by the DEP.

 

·      In addition, a condition is included requiring the front yard to be converted into communal open space which will assist with ensuring that the front yard and landscaping is communally managed rather than be allocated for exclusive use by the owner of the front unit.

 

Developments achieve a minimum of 50% direct sunlight to the principal usable part of the  communal open space for a minimum of 2 hours between 9 am

and 3 pm on 21 June (mid-winter)

The communal open space will receive at least two hours solar access during the winter solstice.

 

The location of communal open space provides a good balance between competing demands for parking and amenity of residents.

Yes

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

16.6% deep soil zones are provided on site.

 

This area is made up:

 

·      Conditioned deep soil along the rear boundary;

·      Conditioned increase in deep soil at the front commensurate with a reduction of  ground level courtyard;

·      Deep soil between the pedestrian access and boundary;

·      Deep soil in communal open space.

 

Not included is the 97sqm area in the rear parking bay areas that are permeable which despite not being included in the deep soil area calculations will serve to minimise stormwater runoff.

Yes

 

3F-1

Visual Privacy

 

 

 

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

buildings to the side and rear boundaries are as follows:

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 upper level has varying side setbacks that do not meet the minimum provisions in the ADG.

 

Does not comply, see merit in the key issues section of this report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

N/A 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 for two hours 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 ventilation.

Complies.

 

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

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.

Ground level: 2.77m

1st floor level:2.65m

2nd level: between 2.4m and 2.74m

Complies on average.

Comment: The proposed development does not meet the minimum floor to ceiling height required under the ADG. The proposed floor to ceiling heights are considered to satisfy the design objectives under the ADG as the shortfalls are compensated by the raked ceiling at level 2nd, level 1 is an existing floor level and each apartment has multiple aspects ensuring good access to light and ventilation. Moreover, the proposed development is also an adaptive redevelopment of the site.

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

2 bedroom apartments = b/w 75sqm and 79sqm

1 bedroom apartment = 64sqm

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 contain a window opening for the purposes of light and will not have an area less than 10% of the floor area of the room.

For the purposes of ventilation, all apartments have multiple aspects.

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 8 metres depth of a habitable room window.

Complies.

 

Master bedrooms have a minimum area of 10m2 and

other bedrooms 9m2 (excluding wardrobe space)

Bedrooms will achieve the minimum area requirements in 9.699m2 for ground and 1st floor level and the second floor level apartment has a master bedroom that complies.

Does not comply. The room size of each bedroom is greater than 9sqm and only marginally short of the 10sqm required and largely compensated for by the larger living rooms.

 

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

All bedrooms have a minimum dimension of 3 metres.

Complies.

 

Living rooms or combined living/dining rooms have a

minimum width of:

·      4m for 2 and 3 bedroom apartments

Complies.

 

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

NA.

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.

Area:

The apartments have the following balcony sizes:

·      Two bedrooms: 10.40sqm

·      One bedroom: 34sqm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

The ground floor apartment (unit 1) comprise a private open space with a total area greater than 15sqm as conditioned.

Complies.

4F

Common Circulation and Spaces

 

 

 

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

Each core will provide entry to a maximum of 2 apartments.

Complies.

 

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

Not applicable.

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 subject site includes ample cupboard space to provide storage within each apartment.

Complies.

 

2.2      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

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

 

The objectives of the zone are:

 

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

 

The internal reconfiguration of existing units and the new units will provide good levels of amenity which will service the housing needs of the community within a medium density development which is generally consistent with that envisaged for the zone and the surrounding area.

 

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

 

The proposed development provides for two bedroom units on site over ground and level 1 largely dictated by the envelope and internal area of the existing building. The refurbishment and configuration of the four existing units will provide housing choice that is closer to the current provisions in SEPP 65 and the ADG.

 

The proposal one bedroom unit at the second floor level has a high level of amenity in relation to solar access, ventilation and room dimensions.

 

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

 

Not applicable

 

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

 

The proposed upper level as amended integrates with the two storey built form below and is consistent with the envelope envisaged in this R3 zone. The upper level continues to step in from the side elevations and provides a shallower front balcony than the levels below ensuring subservient bulk to the two storey scale below. The upper levels reduced footprint is also consistent with the objectives for habitable roof space for medium density residential development in the RDCP.

 

In particular, the upper level is designed with larger side setbacks than the levels below, near compliant external wall heights and takes up only 53.6% of the storey immediately below which is well below the 65% maximum DCP control. Further, the distinct fenestration and staggered walls ensure the upper level does not merely present as a vertical extension of the levels below but rather as a habitable roof form.

 

·      To protect the amenity of residents.

 

The amendments to the proposed development including a reduction in floor area, and recommended conditions will suitably protect the amenity of residents.

 

·      To encourage housing affordability.

 

The proposed development does not provide affordable housing, however it will provide housing choice. The degree of affordability is largely dictated by improving the amenity and liveability of existing housing stock closer to current standards of acceptability under SEPP 65.

 

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

 

Not applicable.

 

The following Clauses of RLEP 2012 apply to the proposal:

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

0.75:1

0.76:1

No, see assessment of Cl. 4.6 exception below

Height of Building (Maximum)

9.5m

9.235m measured from central ridge (RL62.195 – to the underside of the slab RL52.96 existing ground level)

Yes

 

4.6    Exceptions to Development Standards

 

Floor Space Ratio

The proposal contravenes the maximum 0.75:1 floor space ratio development standard contained in clause 4.4(2) of RLEP 2012. The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012. The variation is summarized in the table below:

 

Proposed gross floor area

370.34sqm (0.76:1)

Maximum permissible gross floor area

365.47sqm (0.75:1)

FSR exceeding RLEP standard

4.87sqm (1.3%)

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

a)     To ensure that development does not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual privacy, overshadowing and views

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 buildings are well articulated and respond to environmental and energy needs,

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Officer’s assessment of the Clause 4.6 exception

 

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?

 

1.   Consistency with the objectives of the Floor Space Ratio standard in the RLEP:

The objectives of the Floor Space Ratio standard 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 buildings are well articulated and respond to environmental and energy needs,

 

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

 

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

 

Assessment:

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

 

The proposal as amended complies with the above objective for the following reasons:

 

•        The development will provide a suitable scale to the streetscape and the bulk and scale is an appropriate response to the characteristics of the sloping site and surrounding developments. The proposal will have the appearance of a part two part three storey building form within the existing streetscape.

 

·              The proposed bulk and scale responds to the topography of the site locating floor area closer to the higher end of the site and less bulk where the land falls away to the rear. Locating the additional unit at the western front end of the site and ensuring a compliant overall height results in less overshadowing and visual bulk relative to neighbouring properties and therefore achieves a better planning outcome.

 

·              The variation to the floor area does not represent a significant variation to the numerical standard in the RLEP.

 

·              The upper level is generally consistent with the RDCP provisions for habitable roof space for medium density residential developments. The additional FSR will generally remain compliant with the suite of building envelope controls and objectives the RDCP. In this respect, the proposed habitable upper level takes up only 52.9% of the floor below which is substantially less than the 65% maximum under the RDCP 2013.

 

The front of the development has an external wall height of 8.43m which only marginally encroaches over the 8m maximum external wall height control in the RDCP and well below the 9.5m maximum height of buildings standard. The greater than minimum side setbacks ensures that additional impacts such as overshadowing are appropriately minimised.

 

The proposed development upgrades and distributes landscaping including uses that will improve the amenity of the site, and neighbouring buildings and will contribute to the streetscape character.

 

The overall bulk and scale from street level presents as a part two part three storey development which although exceeding the FSR standard, will be compatible with the existing and desired future character of the locality

 

·      The distribution of floor area towards the front, in line with the levels below, is also consistent with that of existing buildings on similarly sized allotments at no. 10 & 12 Figtree Avenue.  The forward location of the upper level is consistent with the character of these existing developments and as noted earlier minimises impacts on neighbouring properties.

 

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

The proposed development as amended will appear as a part two part three storey development and the building height will be generally similar to the ridge height of the existing roof.

 

The additional visual bulk is integrated with the levels below and by stepping in from the sides, it will present as a subservient element to the levels below. The development does not extend above the height of the existing ridge line and staggered side setbacks provides suitable articulation that delineates the building form of the upper level from the levels below.

 

Each apartment contains an open plan living spaces and have multiple aspects to the outdoors translating into very good levels of light and ventilation thereby reducing reliance on artificial means of lighting and energy needs.

 

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

The subject site is not located in close proximity to any adjoining heritage items or heritage conservation areas and will remain suitably scaled within the existing streetscape.

 

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

The non-compliance to the maximum floor space ratio development standard will not result in any significant amenity impacts to the neighbouring dwellings and is acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The development will not result in any adverse visual bulk, scale impacts from the existing streetscape given the existing building will have greater side setbacks than the existing and greater than the RDCP controls.

 

·      The subject site is orientated in an east/west aspect making the southern neighbour’s property at No. 18 Figtree Avenue particularly vulnerable to overshadowing and visual bulk. These vulnerabilities are felt across all southern properties. The proposed development as amended by reducing floor area and redistributing bulk towards the east ensures three hours of direct solar access between the hours of 8am to 4pm, 21 June as per the RDCP2013 to the neighbours roof plane and upper level north facing habitable bedroom windows. The overshadowing to the neighbour’s ground level north facing windows will not be increased. The removal of the roof at the rear will result in more solar access to the northern and eastern elevation of No. 18 Figtree Avenue. The development will comply with the RDCP controls and objectives for solar access and overshadowing. 

 

·      The proposal as conditioned will maintain reasonable levels of visual privacy to the neighbouring buildings. Certain levels of mutual overlooking already occur due to topography of the site and largely unavoidable.

 

·      The immediately adjoining dwellings do not appear to presently enjoy any significant scenic or city skyline views. The proposed built form is also similar to the existing roof profile therefore the proposal will not appear to contribute to any unreasonable view loss. 

 

·      The additional floor area above the standard does not result in any additional parking demand than that which would occur as part of a compliant development. It is important to note that the parking demand has been reduced by the amended application.

 

2.   Consistency with the objectives of the R3: Medium Density Residential Zone are as follows: 

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

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

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

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

·      To protect the amenity of residents.

·      To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

Assessment:

The above objectives are assessed as follows:

 

The residential flat building is a permissible form of development in accordance with the land use zoning maps as per the RLEP 2012.

 

The design scheme will provide a part two part three storey scale from Figtree Avenue and does not result in any inordinate visual bulk and scale impacts from the streetscape.

 

The breach to the maximum permissible floor space ratio does not give rise to any unreasonable adverse environmental impacts to the neighbouring dwellings ensuring a reasonable level of amenity with regards to visual privacy, overshadowing and views.

 

The development represents an improvement to the appearance and amenity of existing housing stock and meets additional housing demand within the local community.

 

The proposed FSR is also appropriately integrated with the existing building forms within the streetscape which is largely dictated by the sloping topography of the site and existing urban pattern of development on these east-west orientated sites.

 

Additional discussion of the zone objectives is contained in the RLEP section of this report further above.

 

Overall, the proposed FSR is considered to satisfy the above objectives of the zone and strict compliance with the numerical standard is considered unreasonable and unnecessary.

 

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

There are sufficient environmental grounds to permit the variation. The following assessment demonstrates that there are sufficient environmental grounds to permit the FSR variation:

 

·      The development will have the appearance of a part two part three storey development from Figtree Avenue and the new additions will integrate well with the existing building and will be generally consistent with the envelope envisaged by the FSR and height standards as well as the suite of design requirements under the RDCP. 

 

·      The floor area is distributed appropriately towards the front over higher land and further from the rear over lower land level, thus minimising the appearance of bulk as viewed from neighbouring properties. This also minimises overshadowing to the southern neighbours dwelling at No. 18 Figtree Avenue.

 

·      The side setbacks are greater than the minimum side setbacks required under the RDCP.

 

·      The proposed one bedroom unit provides a high level of amenity and requiring a reduction of 4.87sqm will not result in any appreciable benefits to the neighbouring properties which as assessed is considered to be suitably protected.

 

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

 

·      The proposal also upgrades landscaped areas surrounding the site.

 

The variation to the floor space ratio development standard will not contribute to any significant adverse environmental impacts to the neighbouring properties or within the streetscape.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

·      Consistency with the State and Regional Planning Policies

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

 

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

 

·      The Variation is within the Public Interest

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

 

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

 

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 desirable planning and urban design outcome.

 

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

 


 

B6

Recycling and Waste Management

DCP Clause

Control

Proposal

Compliance

4.

On-Going Operation

 

 

 

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

As per existing – waste storage area along the western rear boundary is conditioned to be deleted retaining the existing waste storage area in the basement 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.

 As per existing

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.

 

 As per existing

Complies

 

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

 

 As per existing

Complies

 

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

 

 As per existing

Complies

 

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

 

 As per existing

Complies

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

4 spaces provided where 2 currently exist.

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

Existing conventional example.

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.

 

 

Existing situation which is improved in terms of usability and interface with the neighbouring properties and the streetscape.

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.

Does not comply however the ADG provisions in terms of area overrides the RDCP provisions.

 

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

 

Complies

 

(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.

 

Complies

 

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

 

Existing situation is that a driveway is located in the rear yard. The proposal improves the existing situation.

2.3

Private and communal open space

2.3.1

Private open space (POS)

 

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.

Provision of privacy screening at the front is not supported as it is considered to detract from the appearance of the built from at the front.

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.

A ground floor courtyard and new balconies.

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.

Proposal will upgrade and provide dedicated communal open space areas at the northern side of the building. This is a marked improvement.

Complies

3

Building Envelope

3.1

Floor space ratio

 

0.75:1

 

0.76:1

No Clause 4.6.

3.2

Building height

 

9.5

 

9.235m

No Clause 4.6.

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.

Maximum 17.3m 13.8m to upper floor addition

Does not comply, however the building contains suitable stepped in elements such that it does not result in any unarticulated walls greater than 14m and the proposed upper level contains very good internal amenity.

3.4

Setbacks

3.4.1

Front setback

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

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

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

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

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

The existing front setback is maintained. The large size of the ground level courtyard and associated fencing is unnecessary and detracts from the openness located at the front of properties along Figtree Avenue and the desired character. The courtyard area is greater than the 15sqm minimum size required in the ADG and located in close proximity to the front boundary and considered to detract from the openness across the front of the site. Further, it is considered more appropriate to retain a sizable area of planting across the front as common property in the interests of maintaining common control of planting rather than allowing the majority of the front yard to be the subject of individual interests of unit 1.

 

As suitable condition is included.

Subject to condition the proposed front setback will comply.

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

Complies

3.4.3

Rear setback

 

For residential flat buildings, provide a minimum rear setback of 15% (5.985m) of allotment depth or 5m, whichever is the greater.

10.202m

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.

The proposal represents an opportune upgrade to the existing building enhancing its presence along Figtree Avenue that will contribute to the streetscape character.

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.

The proposed upper level provides a hipped roof form which is generally consistent with the hipped and gable roofs along Figtree Avenue.

 

The shallower roof pitch achieves a more desirable planning outcome ensuring that the development presents as a part two part three storey development which is consistent with the mass of developments envisaged under the RDCP and the RLEP provisions and standards respectively.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

The upper level one bedroom unit is alternate to the two bedroom units below.

53%

 

 

 

The floor area is contained within the existing footprint

 

The upper level presents as habitable roof space. The floor area is designed and distributed to respond to the east-west orientation of the site and existing pattern of development along Figtree Avenue. The massing along the side elevations are suitably articulated and divided limiting the building depth of each section to less than 14m.

 

Windows at the front are consistent with the upgraded windows and openings of the levels below.

 

Computer generated imagery is provided on the SEE.

Complies

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.

8.43m at the front;

8.48m maximum at the side elevation.

Does not comply, see key issues section of report.

 

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

A functional ceiling height is provided to the upper level.

Supported on merit.

4.5

Pedestrian Entry

 

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

Located at northern side providing a dedicated entry that is safer than the existing pedestrian entry collocated with the southern side driveway.

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.

See comment above

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Existing to be upgraded

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.

The proposal improves the amenity of existing units.

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.

The proposal improves the amenity of existing units.

Complies

 

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

 

Complies

 

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

 

Complies

 

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

 

Complies

4.8

Balconies

 

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

 

Complies

 

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

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.

 

Conditioned.

5

Amenity

5.1

Solar access and overshadowing

 

Solar access for proposed development

 

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

All units will receive excellent light.

Complies

 

(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.

 

Complies

 

Solar access for surrounding development

 

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

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

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

See key issues section

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.

Basix Certificate accompanies the application and proposal represents an improvement in natural light and ventilation to existing units.

Complies

 

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

 

Complies

 

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

 

Complies

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

 

See assessment in ADG table and key issues section.

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

See assessment in ADG table.

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 significantly affected.

Complies

5.6

Safety and security

 

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

Proposed development will activate a greater level of casual surveillance.

Complies

6.1

Location

 

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

NA

7.2

Front Fencing

 

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

Front fence is low lying; increased setback of courtyard behind contains a palisade open style fence with landscaping between the front boundary and courtyard.

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.

A 1.8m high fence is provided to the side boundaries.

 

A screen is required along the northern side of the new passageway. This is conditioned to be 30% open and to ensure no direct line of sight into neighbouring dwelling habitable room windows opposite.

 

 

 

 

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)    Studio apartments – 6m3

(a)     1-bedroom apartments – 6m3

(b)     2-bedroom apartments – 8m3

(c)    3 plus bedroom apartments – 10m3

Adequate space exists within each dwelling.

Complies.

7.7

Laundry facilities

 

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

A clothes line is located along the northern side boundary in the communal open space area.

Complies

 

(ii)     Provide internal laundry for each dwelling unit.

 

Complies.

 

4.         Referral Comments

 

Design Excellence Panel (DEP) – 2 referrals

Referral 1:

 

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 Randwick 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

It is noted that this is a third proposal for this site with previous reviews undertaken in October 2013 and in December 2016. This is the first Panel meeting with this iteration of the design. The proponent did not attend the meeting.

 

This DA proposal seeks to upgrade an existing 4 unit, 2 storey residential flat building (of no merit) and add a new apartment on a new top level. Variations to height and FSR controls have also been proposed. While the Panel supports in principle the upgrading of such dated buildings in line with RCC’s successful policy initiative, the Panel considers that this proposal requires revision to be considered as a viable proposal for consideration.

 

Proposed improvements to the building include new balconies, internal layouts, façade/window treatments and associated site and landscape works.

 

The Panel has visited the site and is familiar with the area.

 

The nominated architect’s NSW registration number is not shown on the drawings.  This is a mandatory ARB and SEPP 65 requirement.

 

1       Context and Neighbourhood Character

Figtree Avenue is a quiet cul-de-sac street away from through-traffic.  It is characterised by a memorable canopy of fig trees.  The current residential buildings in Figtree Avenue include single residences and 2-4 storey residential flat buildings.

 

The area is has highly desirable amenity with proximity to recreation, shopping, education and medical facilities. It is 300m to Frenchmans Rd Shops. The area is also reasonably well serviced with public transport.

 

The building to the south of the site has had poor quality additions done in the past, however it does not appear that any of the rooms rely entirely on northern winter sunlight - this will need to be demonstrated by the Applicant for the DA submission.

 

Comment: This building does not rely on the north facing windows at ground level as they are currently overshadowed by the existing building during mid-winter. The first floor level north facing windows are bedrooms. Solar access is available to the living spaces from the rear east facing openings.

 

The existing building lacks any distinction, and is completely framed by a concrete apron, with no landscape area at all. Therefore the property is ideal for improvement, and in so doing both its amenity and urban presence can be greatly improved.

 

A clearer analysis of street setbacks in Figtree Avenue would help in the assessment of the proposal.

 

Comment: The front elevation is not changing however the proposal seeks additional courtyard at ground level and balconies at first floor level.

 

2       Built Form and Scale

Previously the Panel commented that; the addition of a part third level towards the east of the existing flat building is considered to be appropriate within the street context.  The addition of a ground floor terrace and upper balconies to the eastern elevation vastly improves the scale and engagement with the street.

 

However this proposal still adds an additional level across most of the existing volume, albeit with setbacks from the roof edge, likely continuing to cause overshadowing of the southern neighbour.

 

Comment: This has been resolved by shifting the development slightly closer to the front and reducing the footprint of the development.

 

The proposal has issues that would require some redesign, including;

-   The entry sequence, although it follows the existing layout, is very poor relying on the narrow driveway. Considering the extent of renovation being proposed, a more generous lobby area should be provided at the entrance, possibly by removing a studio from the southeast ground floor apartment to allow better sightlines across the driveway and provide a place for people to wait.

-   The drawings are unclear about the configuration of the common stair on the south side of the building.

-   The cantilevered balconies themselves, do not look credible, and lack both structural reality and spandrel separation.

-   The new top floor lacks sufficient integration with the overall mass of the building, and would impose multiple impacts on the neighbour’s.

-   What is the response to acoustic separation between floors?

-   The illustrations of the shadows are uninformative as to the impacts on nearby windows and elevations of adjacent affected properties should be provided.

 

Comment: The entry has been relocated to the northern side where it will greatly improve safety and amenity for future occupants without any significant adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties. Access through the southern side has been blocked off. The new top level is closer to the front and better integrates with the existing building form, as well as the proposed new openings and balcony. Elevation shadows have been provided showing the difference in shadows cast on the northern elevation of the neighbouring dwelling at No. 18 Figtree Avenue.

 

3       Density

The proposal exceeds the built form controls for this site:

 

-   Exceeds FSR by 42m

-   Height control exceeded on one side of the site due to split site designation

-   Exceeds allowable wall height

While improving the building could be supported as a more efficient use of urban land, there is no merit-based argument for exceeding the FSR.  Improvements to the appearance of a building do not in itself constitute a public benefit that one should expect as a mitigating gesture when seeking additional FSR or height. Investigate compliant design with less GFA and greater sensitivity to overshadowing to the south.

 

Comment: The degree to which it exceeds the maximum FSR standard has been reduced, as has the degree to which the development has exceeded the height of buildings standard; The mitigating gestures include shadow diagrams that demonstrate that along with improving amenity the proposal ensures compliant levels of solar access to the southern neighbour’s roof and first floor north facing windows. The proposal also achieves greater solar access during the afternoon period.

 

4       Sustainability

While the thin section provides good natural daylight and cross ventilation to the existing dwellings, details of sun shading devices need to be provided. 

 

Solar panel zones on the roof should be considered.

Given the extent of building and pavement site coverage water harvesting should be considered

It is noted that a drying yard has been provided per previous Panel comments.

How has parking been calculated?

It is noted that a window has been added to the common stair per previous Panel comments.

It is noted that ceiling fans have been provided in all habitable rooms and are now clearly shown on the plans per previous Panel comments.

The roof design could incorporate small areas of north facing ventilating clerestory windows for winter sun.

 

Comment: The proposal does not include solar panels however it is noted that the development is accompanied by a BASIX certificate which demonstrates sustainable measures to be employed in the proposed development and there does not appear to be any significant impediment to providing solar panels in future. The use of water harvesting method has not been genuinely considered by the applicant notwithstanding, the proposal does incorporate additional permeable area and landscaping which will both reduce the water runoff and make better use of existing stormwater.

 

5       Landscape

A landscape design prepared by a landscape architect was submitted per previous Panel comments.  While any landscape would be an improvement on the existing barren condition, the landscape submission requires further development. Given the limits of the existing site and building coverage it is noted that the proposal does not meet ADG guidelines for soft landscape areas or deep soil planting areas. Measures should be considered to mitigate this. Key items of consideration for landscape include:

How will balcony / roof plants be maintained?

It should be noted that the turn table will require excavation. How will this affect roots?

Ways of greening the car parking, driveway areas and private courtyard areas need to be considered. This could include permeable pavement or reinforced grass pavers.

The shared common space is particularly poor, directly next to the parking area, and should be relocated or improved.

 

Comment: The planting on the roof terrace will be increased by condition and maintained as part of the landscape management plan. The excavation for the turntable has been conditioned by Councils Landscape officer with the intent to ensure the survival of the root system of the camphor laurel in the rear yard of the northern neighbour’s site at No. 14 Figtree Avenue. The greening of the rear yard is by condition requiring the landscaping within a 2m section of land between the rear boundary and the carparking area. The communal open space is relocated to the northern side and additional landscaping details have been submitted and considered suitable subject to conditions.

 

6       Amenity

The interior planning has been improved from the previous submission.

 

Cross ventilation requirements are met.

Solar access requirements are met.

Details of privacy screens need to be provided. How will they be operated from inside the building?

The bin area is now exposed to neighbour’s, can this be concealed?

Provide sun screening to west facing full height openings on ground floor or demonstrate appropriate shading by the balcony above.

What is the purpose of the basement toilet? This was not in previous submissions.

 

Comment: Privacy screens are conditioned for the rear balcony. The bin area is deleted from the rear yard and not required as the existing bin area has sufficient space to meet the requirements requiring 4.5 bins.

 

7       Safety

The proposal increases surveillance of the street.

Bin removal looks convoluted and will likely take place through the driveway.

Considering the extent of renovation being proposed, a more generous lobby area should be provided at the entrance, possibly by removing a studio from the southeast ground floor apartment to allow better sightlines across the driveway. There is currently no room for pedestrians to observe driveway movements safely.

Access and NCC advice and compliant fire treatment for windows, spandrel separation, stair compliance and the like needs to be shown in the further submissions.

The conflation of the pedestrian entry and the vehicle driveway is problematic - options should be explored.

 

Comment: The bin area is existing and there are limited opportunities to provide additional waste management area that would not impact on either landscaping, parking or amenity of neighbouring properties. The existing entrance has been relocated from the south to the north which ensure removes the conflicting uses. Fire safety is a prescribed requirement.

 

8       Housing Diversity and Social interaction

The intensification of such well-placed sites is socially beneficial.

 

9       Aesthetics

The addition to the top is not an “inhabited roof,” but rather a whole new level.

Roof addition looks too heavy with its dark finishes and overhang.

Roof addition needs to be better integrated with lower levels. This can be achieved with material continuity or overlapping of building surfaces among other techniques.

Metal Planter boxes: What type of finish do they have? How are they drained; will they drip and stain the building or go into drain pipes indicated?

 

Comment: The upper level has been reduced in length and width ensuring that the area it takes up of the storey below is reduced such that it meets the maximum provisions in the RDCP for habitable roof space. The colours and materials have been improved including shifting the development further west.

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

While the improvement of an existing substandard residential flat building is to be encouraged, in the Panel’s opinion this scheme needs modification to be further considered including: 

Investigate compliant design with less GFA and greater sensitivity to overshadowing to the south; for example, changing penthouse to a more modest two-bedroom unit with a much more generous roof terrace.

The bulk of the roof addition should occur to the east of the main roofline of 18 Figtree Avenue. Any addition to the west of this line should seek to retain the existing roofline to the south of the ridgeline to reduce shadow impacts to 18 Figtree Avenue. This may be accomplished by shifting the bedrooms to the west and placing living areas to the east where current built form controls allow additional bulk.

Improve aesthetics to show improved integration between the roof addition and the existing building.

Consider using lighter colours to reduce the apparent mass of the roof addition.

Given extent of redesign, provide improved pedestrian lobby space at the ground level potentially by removing a study.

Improve the landscape and sustainability outcomes by considering the use of porous paving surfaces in the parking and terrace areas as well as water harvesting initiatives.

Architects number is still missing from the drawing set.

 

Comment: The amended application was referred to the panel and the following comments were received:

 

Referral Comments 2:

 

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 Randwick Council, the architect and the applicant.

 

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.

 

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

It is noted that this is the fourth proposal for this site with previous reviews undertaken in October 2013, December 2016 and August 2017. The proponent did not attend the meeting.

 

This DA proposal seeks to upgrade an existing 4 unit, 2 storey residential flat building (of little merit) and add a new apartment on a new top level. Variations to height and FSR controls have also been proposed. While the Panel supports in principle the upgrading of such outdated buildings in line with RCC’s successful policy initiative, the Panel has requested modifications to the previous proposal in the form of reductions to the extent of the addition to improve amenity and reduce impacts on adjacent properties. 

 

Proposed improvements to the building include new balconies, internal layouts, façade/window treatments, associated site, and landscape works.

 

The Panel has visited the site and is familiar with the area.

 

The nominated architect’s NSW registration number is not shown on the drawings.  This is a mandatory ARB and SEPP 65 requirement.

 

Principle 1: Context and Neighbourhood Context

Figtree Avenue is a quiet cul-de-sac away from through-traffic.  It is characterised by a significant canopy of fig trees.  The current residential buildings on Figtree Avenue include single-family residences and 2-4 storey residential flat buildings.

 

The area is has highly desirable amenity with proximity to recreation, shopping, education and medical facilities. It is 300m to Frenchmans Road Shops. The area is also reasonably well serviced with public transport.

 

The building to the south of the site has had poor quality additions done in the past; however, it does not appear that any of the rooms rely entirely on northern winter sunlight - this will need to be demonstrated by the Applicant for the DA submission.

 

The existing building lacks any distinction, and is completely surrounded by a concrete apron, with no landscape area at all. Therefore, the property is ideal for improvement - in so doing both its amenity and urban presence can be greatly improved.

 

A clearer analysis of street setbacks in Figtree Avenue would help in the assessment of the proposal.

 

Principle 2: Scale and Built Form: Previously the Panel commented:  However, this proposal still adds an additional level across most of the existing volume, albeit with setbacks from the roof edge, likely continuing to cause overshadowing of the southern neighbour.

 

Considerations related to the August 2017 Submission were noted and only some have been incorporated in this new submission:

 

-   The entry sequence has been revised with a separate pedestrian entrance being provided.  Some small sitting area should be considered here, perhaps with a wall seat with minimal reduction in the size of the ground level front apartment.

-   The cantilevered balconies have not been revised. Further information as to their structural reality and spandrel separation should be provided.

-   The new top floor is now treated more like a roof pavilion rather than a full floor addition. It has been pulled back from the rear to reduce visual and shadow impacts. A lighter colour finish should still be considered for the roof pavilion. Shadow diagrams indicate improved shadows to level 2 on the adjacent property between 1pm and 3pm over the previous scheme. The new scheme shows reduced shadow impacts over the existing condition for some time on either side of 4pm due to the cut back in the existing roof.

-   Information on the response to acoustic separation between floors should be provided.

 

Principle 3: Density

-   It is not clear what the new scheme is proposing as far as GFA is concerned and whether it is over the allowable FSR for the site.

-   A minor height breach occurs at the step in height plane, however this is somewhat offset by the removal of the existing hipped roof at this location.

-   Given that the roof pavilion is now set back on all sides the allowable wall height becomes less of a critical issue.

 

Principle 4: Sustainability

While the narrow section provides good natural daylight and cross ventilation to the existing dwellings, details of sun shading devices need to be provided. 

 

Solar panel zones on the roof should be considered, for electricity and hot water.

How has parking been calculated?

The roof design could incorporate small areas of north facing ventilating clerestory windows for winter sun.

Given the density of the area and site coverage, rainwater should be harvested, stored, treated and re-used throughout the building, for irrigation, laundries and WC’s.

 

Principle 5: Landscape

A landscape design prepared by a landscape architect was submitted per previous Panel comments.  While any landscape would be an improvement on the existing barren condition, the landscape submission requires further development. Given the limits of the existing site and building coverage, it is noted that the proposal does not meet ADG guidelines for soft landscape areas or deep soil planting areas. Measures should be considered to mitigate this. Key items of consideration for landscape include:

How will balcony / roof plants be maintained?

It should be noted that the turntable will require excavation. The Applicant should document how this will impact nearby tree roots.

Alternate methods of greening the car parking, driveway areas and private courtyard areas need to be considered. A 2-3 meter zone of landscape should be provided along the rear property line. Permeable pavement or reinforced grass pavers should be considered, providing maximum permeability.

 

Principle 6: Amenity

The interior planning has been improved from the previous submission.

Cross ventilation, requirements are met.

Solar access requirements are met.

Details of privacy screens need to be provided. How will they be operated from inside the building?

The bin area should be relocated to the inside of the building allowing for landscaping to be added to the rear of the site. Clarify the number of bins and the two locations provided.

Additional glazing has been provided to the west elevation. Demonstrate that the sun screening to west will provide adequate sun protection.

The basement common area could work well to provide additional amenity. What is the purpose of the basement toilet is not clear however and should not be the precursor to adding an additional apartment at this level.

 

Principle 7: Safety

The proposal increases surveillance of the street.

Bin removal looks convoluted and will likely take place through the driveway.

Access and NCC advice and compliant fire treatment for windows, spandrel separation, stair compliance and the like needs to be shown in the further submissions.

 

Principle 8: Housing Diversity and Social Interaction

 

The intensification of such well-placed sites is socially beneficial.  The panel commends the addition of shared tenant facilities, such as the communal dining room at ground level.

 

Principle 9: Aesthetics

The addition to the top is now configured as roof pavilion, however it still appears heavy with its dark finishes.

Metal Planter boxes: What type of finish do they have? How are they drained; will they drip and stain the building or go into drain pipes indicated? Further information is to be provided.

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

While the improvement of an existing substandard residential flat building is to be encouraged, in the Panel’s opinion this scheme needs information/modification to be further considered including: 

The design has been significantly revised per previous panel commentary. FSR compliance assessment needs to be provided.

The bulk of the roof addition now occurs to the east of the main roofline of 18 Figtree Avenue.

Improve aesthetics to show lighter colours to the roof pavilion.

Pedestrian access is greatly improved through the introduction of a separate pedestrian entrance with a double height space. Some wall seating at the lobby should be considered.

Improve the landscape and sustainability outcomes by considering the use of porous paving surfaces in the parking and terrace areas, water harvesting initiatives and a landscape strip at the rear of the site.

Architects number is still missing from the drawing set.

 

Comment: it is generally considered that the key matters raised by the application have been substantially addressed from the amended plans. The outstanding matters have since been addressed.

 

Development Engineering

An application has been received for alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building including new second story addition comprising of a new three bedroom dwelling with roof top terrace, new balconies, strata subdivision, associated site and landscaping works (variation to height and floor space ratio controls).at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Architectural Plans by MHNDUNION Architects dated 7th June 2017;

·      Statement of Environmental Effects by dated May 2017;

·      Draft Strata Plans by Surveyor John Watson;

·      Traffic Impact Assessment statement by Traffix dated 16th May 2017;

·      Construction Impact Assessment & Management Plan by George Palmer, dated May 2016;

·      Landscape Plan by Conzept Landscape Architects, dwg’s LPDA 17 – 300/1 – 4, rev B, dated 30.05.17.

 

General Comments

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

 

Parking Comments

Existing Situation

The site currently contains a residential flat building containing 4 x 3 bedroom units. Under the current parking rates in Part B7 of Council’s DCP the existing building would generate the following parking demand;

 

Existing Parking Demand     = 4 x 1.5 (3 bedroom) + 1 (visitor)

                              = 7 spaces

 

The SEE states that the site currently only contains a parking provision of 2 spaces within the rear garages.

 

Proposed Development

The proposed development will result in 4 x 2 bedroom units and 1 x 1 bedroom unit.

 

Proposed Parking Demand   = (4 x 1.2) + (1 x 1) + 5/4 (visitor)

                              = 5.8 + 1.25

                              = 7.05

                              = say 7 spaces

 

Parking Demand will therefore not be increased because of the proposed development. Notwithstanding, the amended scheme shows two additional spaces will be provided in the rear yard providing more spaces than that required by the RDCP.

 

The parking provision is therefore satisfactory although it is noted following site inspections small vehicles also appears to be using the concrete hardstand area within the front setback as a carspace increasing the provision further by 1 space.

 

Planning comment: this front carspace is not approved and considered to detract from the streetscape character.

 

Vehicle manoeuvring into the carspaces and rear garages may be tight and the applicant has proposed a turntable at the rear of the site to assist in vehicle manoeuvring. It is considered that the parking arrangements could probably function without the turntable especially for smaller vehicles although a number of point turns may be required to exit the rear garage and proceed up the driveway in a forward direction.

 

Notwithstanding no objections are raised to the proposed turntable as it will assist in manoeuvring larger vehicles such as 4WD’s.

 

The driveway width is currently below the minimum 3m width required by As 2890.1 however as it is already accessing existing garages and carspaces and has been in use for many years, no objections are raised.

 

Drainage Comments

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.

 

Undergrounding of power lines to site

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

 

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

 

The subject is located just within 15m of a power pole on the same side of the street hence the above clause is applicable. As the requirement is on the boundary of Council’s clause it is also considered a direct connection to the overhead span in front of the site (as per the existing connection) will also be acceptable. This will still avoid the installation of any private poles within the site which is the intent of the condition. A suitable condition has been included in this report.

 

Landscape Comments

 

Tree Management Comments

The previous inspection of 22 June 2017 revealed a juvenile, 5m tall Waterhousia floribunda (Weeping Lilly Pilly, T1) on the public verge, to the north of the existing vehicle crossing, of good health and condition which is covered by the DCP and is also part of a formal strategy of this species in this street, and while there are no external works proposed as part of this application, protection measures and a bond still need to be imposed given the large scope of works involved, with relevant conditions provided.

 

There is a mature, 10m tall Archontophoenix cunninghamiana (Bangalow Palm, T2) located wholly in the rear setback of the adjoining private property to the south, no.18, close to the common boundary, which is covered by Council’s DCP.

 

Existing concrete surfacing (carpark) already occupies the entire rear setback of the subject site, with this impervious treatment acting as a physical barrier to restrict or even prevent root growth entering the subject site; however, as excavations will be required as part of removing the existing surfacing and replacing it with a more favorable treatment that has now been shown for this area, as well as for the new car turntable to its north, all have the potential to affect any roots that may be in the area, but as any impact is expected to be an amount that this tree can sustain, relevant protection conditions have been provided.

 

Beyond the northwest corner of the subject site, growing wholly on the adjoining private property at no.14, hard up against the common boundary, there is a large and mature Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor Laurel, T3) of 20m x 20m, which is covered by the DCP and is easily the most established vegetation assessed for this application, with its canopy being prominent in the local landscape, providing several surrounding properties with shade, screening and privacy, with its southern aspect overhanging halfway across the width of the subject site.

 

It is assumed that the existing small, raised vegetable garden in the northwest site corner was created so as to conceal a large structural buttress root from this tree that enters the subject site, and while the original proposal showed this area being formalized into a communal entertaining area comprising feature paving, decorative gravel and ground-cover planting, the scheme has been amended again to now show permeable paving extending right up to this corner so as to provide an additional parking space for occupants.

 

However, the assessing officer has advised that this will not be supported in its entirety, and in order to maintain reasonable levels of environmental amenity, as well as to reduce the amount of surfacing, Council will require that a 2m wide strip of deep soil be provided across the full width of the rear/western site boundary, to which, perimeter planting will be provided, which in terms of area, will maintain current levels available to the tree for gaseous exchange and infiltration.

 

The plans note that the entire rear parking area will be completely replaced with permeable paving, which despite no details being provided of this, will improve conditions for the tree, but by the same token, may also result in ground compaction and root damage during the course of these works, with relevant conditions having been imposed.

 

As all other works associated with the actual building will be contained with the existing footprint, there will be no impact on any of the trees.

 

The other Bangalow Palm (T4) & Crepe Myrtle (T5) also in the rear yard of no.14, close to the common boundary, to the east of the Camphor Laurel, should not be affected given their smaller size and smaller root spread, especially as the works will involve an improvement to growing conditions by replacing concrete with permeable paving, with general protection measures similar to what is provided for T2 having been applied.

 

Landscape Plan Comments

The previous Landscape Plans will need to be updated to reflect the changes that have been made to the revised architectural plans, as well as to incorporate Council’s additional requirements as discussed above, with relevant conditions provided.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That the RLPP supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 4.3 and 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to Height of Buildings and Floor Space Ratio respectively, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning & Infrastructure be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That the RLPP, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 4.16 and 4.17 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 356/2017 for alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building including new third storey addition comprising a new one bedroom dwelling with study, roof top terrace, new balconies, strata subdivision, associated site and landscaping works, at No. 16 Figtree Avenue, subject to the development consent conditions attached to this report, for the following reasons:

 

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

 

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

 

·      The requirements of Clause 4.6 have been met and that the FSR in Clause 4.4 of RLEP 2012 can be varied.

 

·      The approval incorporates the following amendments to the development that are fundamental to the granting of consent:

Reduction of the Gross floor area

Upgrading of landscaping throughout the site

Provision of a Loggia area in the undercroft area in association with the upgraded landscaped communal open space.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Consent conditions -16 Figtree Avenue, Randwick (DA/356/2017)

 

 

 

 


DA Consent conditions -16 Figtree Avenue, Randwick (DA/356/2017)

Attachment 1

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Randwick Local Planning Panel                                                                        13 September 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D69/18

 

Subject:             2 St Marks Road, Randwick (DA/739/2017)

Folder No:                   DA/739/2017

Author:                   Alexandra Marks, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Construction of operable louvre roof with increase in patron capacity and extension of the hours of operation for the outdoor beer garden at the Duke of Gloucester Hotel.

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                The Good Beer Company Pty Ltd

Owner:                        John Azar

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 


 

Executive summary

 

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

 

The proposal seeks development consent for the Duke of Gloucester Hotel (the DOG) to install an operable louvre roof over the existing beer garden, increase the patron capacity from 50 to 100, extend the hours of operation for the beer garden area from 10:00pm to midnight. 

 

The proposal was advertised and notified in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP 2013) between 6 December 2017 and 20 December 2017 and fourteen submissions were received raising key concerns including noise, anti-social behaviour, extended trading hours and parking. 

 

An acoustic consultant was engaged by Council to undertake a peer review of the applicant’s acoustic report. The peer review concluded that the proposal will comply with the relevant noise criteria subject to conditions including restriction on the operation of the beer garden area. NSW Police have also reviewed the application and made recommendations for acoustic amenity and security including a reduction of the maximum capacity within the beer garden area to 70 patrons. 

 

Given the history of complaints associated with the site, it is considered appropriate that the operation of the beer garden should be restricted as per the recommendations made by the acoustic consultant and the Police and also subject to a reviewable condition to allow Council to monitor the impact and acceptability of these extended hours and numbers. 

 

Given the above, the proposal is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves installation of an operable louvre roof over the exisitng beer garden of the DOG Hotel and increase the patron capacity within the beer garden area from 50 to 100 persons and a change to the hours of operation for the beer garden area from 10:00pm to 12 midnight. It is proposed that the louvre roof will be closed at 9:00pm each evening.

 

Site Description and Locality

 

The subject property is known as The Duke of Gloucester (DOG) Hotel at 2 St Marks Road, Randwick (the Site) and is legally described as Lot 1 in DP 80766.  The Site is located on the south western corner of Frenchmans Road and St Marks Road, Randwick.  The Site is a corner allotment, which is irregular in shape and has two street frontages.  The Frenchmans Road frontage is 40.69m in length and the St Marks frontage is 26.26m in length.  The western (side) boundary is 14.63m in length and the southern (side/ rear) boundary is 44.065m.  The Site has an area of 746m2 with a slight fall in the land from west to east and from north to South.

 

The application relates to the beer garden which is located to the western side of the hotel.  The beer garden incorporates perimeter seating which is partially covered with a central unroofed open area for tables and chairs. 

 

The immediate surrounding properties are a mixture of residential and commercial buildings.  The DOG is listed a local heritage item no. I439 under Schedule 5 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012).  There are heritage items immediately to the south, across the intersection to the north-east, and over Frenchmans Road to the north-west.  There is an apartment building to the west of the Site and dwellings to the south.

 

Relevant history

 

The DOG Hotel has been trading in Randwick since 1930.

 

An application made under DA/98/2010 involved alterations to the DOG which included relocation of the kitchen and restaurant upstairs, demolition of the existing garage and dining room, upgrading the beer garden, new external entry and stairs with a stair-lift to the upper floor.

 

Four (4) Section 96 applications have been approved relating to the original approval (DA/98/2010). 

 

DA/98/2010/A was upheld by the NSW Land and Environment Court on 5 November 2012.  The issues which were contested related to the proposed hours of operation and the maximum number of patrons within the outdoor beer garden.  The hours of operation for the outdoor beer garden were restricted to Sundays to Wednesdays 10.00am – 9.00pm; and Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays from 10.00am to 10.00pm. The maximum number of patrons within the outdoor beer garden was restricted to 40 patrons (Sundays to Wednesdays) and 50 patrons (Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays).

 

DA/98/2010/B was approved at a Council Meeting, dated 23 October 2012 to modify the consent by altering the internal configuration of the approved first floor level of the Hotel including the relocation of the BBQ cooking area, the extension of the indoor seating area and one new mechanical exhaust vent. 

 

DA/98/2010/C was approved at a Council Meeting, dated 12 March 2013 to modify the approved development by relocating an internal lift and construction of new storerooms.

 

DA/98/2010/D was approved at a Council Meeting, dated 13 May 2014, to modify the approved development by relocating fans and alterations within the roof void area.

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development between 6 December 2017 and 20 December 2017, in accordance with the RDCP 2013. In total, fourteen submissions were received over the course of the application, which are as follows:

 

§  30 Frenchmans Road, Randwick

§  32 Frenchmans Road, Randwick

§  33 Frenchmans Road, Randwick

§  36 Frenchmans Road, Randwick – Strata Managing Agents

§  Unit 2, 36 Frenchmans Road, Randwick

§  Unit 6, 36 Frenchmans Road, Randwick

§  10 St Marks Road, Randwick

§  12 St Marks Road, Randwick

§  12A St Marks Road, Randwick & petitions with 3 signatures

§  23/14 St Marks Road, Randwick

§  28/14 St Marks Road, Randwick

§  78 Clovely Road, Randwick

§  2 Caerleon Crescent, Randwick

§  1 McLennan Avenue, Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

Increase in patron capacity

Increasing the patron numbers from 50 to 100 is unacceptable.  NSW Police have recommended that the patron number allowed within the outdoor beer garden at any one time be reduced to 70. 

Noise, including live music

Limit hours of live music in the outdoor beer garden to 8:00pm in winter and 9:00pm in summer.  In addition, the operable aluminium louvres are to be closed by 8:00pm in winter and 9:00pm in summer.  Refer to Acoustic section of this report.

Hours of operation

The hours of operation for the outdoor beer garden will be limited to midnight on Friday and Saturday with last drinks at 11:00pm; 11:00pm on Thursday with last drinks at 10:30pm; and 10:00pm Sunday to Wednesday with the proposed aluminium louvres closed at 8:00pm in winter and 9:00pm in summer.  Refer to Hours of Operation section within this report.

Quality of life

The proposed development has the potential to adversely impact on the amenity and quality of life of residents in the area.  However, the impact may be mitigated to an acceptable level with the inclusion of appropriate acoustic attenuation measures and conditions restricting the use, hours, number of patrons and a comprehensive Plan of Management to ensure compliance with the relevant conditions of approval.

Parking

The addition of more patrons may increase the overall capacity of patrons at the DOG however, there will not be an increase in floor area and therefore, additional car spaces are not required by the RDCP 2013.

Litter

Littering can be managed by the appropriate signage, provisions of waste area and implementation of the measures in the updated and approved POM.

Anti-social behaviour, Safety and Security

NSW Police have provided recommendations and conditions to mitigate anti-social behaviour.  Refer to NSW Police Referral section within this report.  Various measures and conditions of consent have been suggested to monitor safety and security.

Plan of Management

There are further measures that have been outlined within this report and also via conditions of the consent to update the current Plan of Management (POM).  An updated POM is required prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. 

Acoustic Report

The Applicant’s acoustic report was peer reviewed by Council’s external Acoustic consultant and appropriate conditions have been included to address the potential concerns. Refer to Acoustic section and Environmental Health Referral sections within this report.

 

1.      Key Issues

 

1.1    Hours of operation

 

Part D13 of the RDCP 2013 provides objectives and controls that are applicable to late night trading premises in Randwick Local Government Area (LGA).  The subject site is located within B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone and the following table provides a guide to the range of hours of operation that are applicable to the late night premises in B1 zone:

 

B1 Neighbourhood Centre Zone and other Zones

Indoor

Up to 11pm Mondays to Saturdays and 10.00pm Sundays.

Outdoor

Up to 10pm Mondays to Saturdays and 9.30pm Sundays.

 

The current operating hours of the outdoor beer garden are 10:00am to 9:00pm on Sunday to Wednesday and 10:00am to 10:00pm on Thursday, Friday and Saturday. 

 

While it is acknowledged that the other parts of the DOG Hotel is currently operating from 10am to midnight, Monday to Thursday, 10am to 2am, Friday and Saturday, and 10am to 11pm on Sunday, the proposed extended hours of operation and number of patrons for the beer garden will have the potential to create additional impact upon the amenity of the neighbouring residential properties, which is inconsistent with the relevant objectives of Part D13 of the RDCP 2013. For these reasons, it is considered appropriate that the hours of operation of the beer garden area should be restricted and a reviewable condition should applied to allow Council to monitor the impact and acceptability of the extended hours and numbers as follows:

 

§  Friday and Saturday: 10:00am – Midnight, with last drinks at 11:00pm.

§  Thursday: 10:00am – 11:00pm, with last drinks at 10:30pm.

§  Sunday to Wednesday: 10:00am – 10:00pm.

 

In addition, the operable louvres over the beer garden area are to be closed at 8:00pm in winter and 9:00pm in summer to minimise noise impacts on adjoining residential properties.

 

1.2    Acoustic and Visual Privacy

 

Part D6, Section 5.2 Acoustic and Visual Privacy of the RDCP 2013 provides controls for Acoustic and Visual Privacy for commercial developments within Neighbourhood Centres.  The DOG is located within the North Randwick Neighbourhood Centre and is subject to the following controls:

 

Locating busy noisy areas next to each other and quieter areas next to each other

 

The existing outdoor beer garden is proposed to increase the capacity and extend the hours of operation.  The location of this noise generating area is not changing and therefore, satisfies this particular control relating to Acoustics.

 

Locating bedrooms away from busy roads and other noise sources

The location of the hotel portion of the DOG remains unchanged and therefore, the rooms are within the location that has been previously approved under a separate application.

 

Using storage or circulation areas within a dwelling to buffer noise from adjacent apartments, mechanical services or corridors/lobbies

 

The implementation of the operable aluminium louvres have been assessed by an external acoustic consultant.  To buffer the additional noise from the increase in patrons and extension of operating hours within the outdoor beer garden, the aluminium louvres are to be closed at 8:00pm in winter and 9:00pm in summer.  This is to minimise noise pollution to the adjacent residential dwellings.   

 

Avoid locating wet areas, such as toilets, laundries and kitchens, adjacent to bedrooms of adjoining dwellings.

 

Not applicable.

 

1.3    Peer Review of Acoustic Assessment

 

Due to the large number of submissions and the technical level of the acoustic assessment, Council engaged an external Acoustic Consultant (Wilkinson Murray) to undertake a peer review of the applicant’s acoustic report.  The peer review identified nine areas of concerns that will require to be addressed by the applicant. 

 

The most significant concern was the measurement of background noise levels and the adoption of criteria in accordance with Liquor & Gaming NSW requirements.  Subsequently, an amended acoustic report was submitted to Council and the issues have been resolved to the satisfaction of Council’s Environmental Health officer. 

 

Council’s Environmental Health Officer recommended the number of patron proposed within the beer garden area should be reduced to 70 to remain consistent with the recommendation made by the Police. In addition, it is noted that the current unroofed portion of the beer garden is approximately 46.2sqm in area (see Figure 1) and it would be inappropriate to accommodate 100 patrons as proposed. The reduction of the number of patrons to 70 with the restricted hours of operation and reviewable condition will allow Council and the operator to better monitor and mitigate amenity impacts. 

Figure 1 | Proposed Outdoor Beer Garden

 

1.4    Plan of Management

 

Condition 21 of consent under DA/98/2010/A required a POM to be provided. 

 

Condition 21 reads as follows:

21.   A plan of management shall be submitted to and approved by Council prior to commencing the use of the restaurant and beer garden, which details the measures to be implemented to:

 

a.     ensure compliance with the relevant conditions of approval,

b.     minimise the potential impact of the operation of the premises upon nearby residents and the public domain,

c.     effectively minimise and manage anti-social behaviour which affects the surrounding environment, including the installation of patron advisory signage,

d.     minimise noise emissions and associated nuisances,

e.     effectively manage and respond to resident complaints, and

f.      ensure responsible service of alcohol and harm minimization

 

The current application has not provided an updated POM.  Therefore, a condition shall be included to ensure that the POM, dated 30 October 2012, is updated and shall include the following:

The plan of management for the outdoor beer garden shall be updated, to incorporate the additional requirements as part of the subject application and approved by Council prior to issuing the Construction Certificate, which details the measures to be implemented including the following:

 

§  Last drinks in the beer garden shall be no later than 11:00pm (Friday and Saturday) with the area to be cleared by Midnight; 10:30pm on Thursday, with the area to be cleared by 11:00pm; and 10:00pm on Sunday to Wednesday, with the area to be cleared by 10:00pm.

§  Limiting patrons in the beer garden to a maximum of 70 people.

§  Patrons to be encouraged to socialise inside the hotel after 11:30 pm, or on the Frenchmans Road façade towards St Marks Road (where practical).

§  Live music should not be played outside after 9:00 pm during summer, and 8:00pm during winter.

§  Only acoustic music played out of a single speaker/ PA system to be used in any outdoor areas.

§  No subwoofers, live drums or brass instruments permitted outside.

§  Implementing the recommendations in the acoustic report prepared by Rodney Stevens Acoustics (report no. R170413R3A Revision 2) dated 5 July 2018 including all measures to ensure compliance with the relevant conditions of approval.

§  Measures to minimise the potential impact of the operation of the premises upon nearby residents.

§  Measures to effectively minimise and manage anti-social behaviour.

§  Measures to minimise noise emissions and associated nuisances.

§  Method to effectively manage and respond to resident complaints.

 

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

 

The application to install an operable louvre roof, extend the hours of operation and increase the patron capacity within the beer garden area be approved (subject to reviewable conditions to limit capacity and operation hours).

 

The recommendation includes a comprehensive suite of approval conditions that require ongoing noise testing, a reviewable period for the hours of the outdoor beer garden, restriction on patrons in the outdoor beer garden, and a plan of management for compliance, noise testing, security and complaints.

 

The proposal satisfies the relevant heads of consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended and approval subject to conditions is recommended.


 

Detailed Assessment

1.      Section 4.15 matters for consideration

 

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

 

Section 4.15 ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

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

See below.

 

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

Nil.

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

The proposal generally satisfies the objectives and 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 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 and summarised in this report.

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

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

 


 

2.      Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

2.1    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012)

 

The Site is zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre under the RLEP 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent.  The relevant objectives of the zone are:

 

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

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

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

 

The DOG currently has conditions imposed under DA/98/2010 to minimise the impact of development and protect the amenity of residents in the adjoining and nearby residential zones.  These conditions were implemented to mitigate any unreasonable additional noise and anti-social behaviour through the trading hours being limited to 10:00pm, with the capacity to hold up to 50 patrons within the outdoor beer garden.  The proposed increase in patron numbers to 100 within the outdoor beer garden is considered excessive and has been limited to 70 patrons.

 

To protect the amenity of the surrounding residential properties, specific conditions will be imposed, including a condition to update the existing POM for the DOG.  Subject to conditions, the proposal is consistent with the aims of RLEP 2012 and the specific objectives of the B1 zone.

 

Clause 5.10 of the RLEP 2012 relates to Heritage Conservation.  The Site is located within the North Randwick Heritage Conservation Area and is Local Heritage Item No. I439 Duke of Gloucester Hotel.  As a result, this application was referred to Council’s Heritage Planner for review.  Refer to Section 4.5 of this report for Heritage comments and recommendations.  In summary, the following comments have been provided by the Heritage Planner:

 

the proposed operable louvered roof will be screened by the existing fascia and parapets and will have no streetscape visibility.  The proposed roof will not impact on the fabric of the heritage item, or result in any appreciable change to the setting of the building or views to or from it.”

 

The following development standards contained in the RLEP 2012 are also applicable to the proposal:

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

1.5:1

As existing

N/A

Height of Building (Maximum)

12m

As existing

N/A

 

3.      Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013

 

The RDCP 2013 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 RDCP 2013 are addressed below.

 

3.1      B2 – Heritage

 

Section 2.13      Commercial Properties

The Site is Local Heritage item No. I439, Duke of Gloucester Hotel, which is located within the B1 Neighbourhood Centre.  Therefore, Part B2, Section 2.13 Commercial Properties of the RDCP 2013 apply to the Site.  The objective of this section is:

 

§  To ensure that original characteristics of traditional neighbourhood retail buildings are retained and enhanced.

 

DCP Clause

Control

Proposal

Compliance

2.13

Commercial properties

 

Heritage Items

i)    Original forms, details, materials and finishes must be retained, including original shopfronts, original suspended awnings and open balconies at first floor level.

Aluminium operable louvres proposed as a roof structure for the existing outdoor beer garden. 

Yes, subject to conditions.  Refer to Heritage Comments under Section 4.5 of this report.

 

ii)   Where the property is part of a single larger building, changes to ground level shopfronts and upper level facades must not detract from the integrity and group value

The property is its own entity as the Duke of Gloucester.

Not applicable.

 

3.2      D6 – Neighbourhood Centre

 

The Site is located within the Frenchmans Road Neighbourhood Centre.  Therefore, Part D6 of the RDCP 2013 applies to the Site.  The relevant sections of D6 Neighbourhood Centres are stated within the following table.

 

DCP Clause

Control

Proposal

Compliance

3

Building Envelope

3.2

Roof Forms

 

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

No change to the existing roof form, which includes a parapet along the street frontage facades.

Yes

 

ii)   Provide flat roofs where these prevail across the centre, unless the site conditions justify an alternative roof form (e.g. Corner sites).

The Site is located on the corner of St Marks Road and Frenchmans Road however, there are no changes proposed to the roof form that is visible from the public domain.

Not applicable.

 

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

The roof form is not altering when viewed from the public domain.

Yes, no changes proposed.

 

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

The proposed aluminium louvres will be implemented wholly within the existing roof form.

Satisfactory.

 

v)   Structures such as ventilation shafts, lift overruns and service plants, should be wholly contained within roof structures and not project above the roof line.

The proposed aluminium louvres will be implemented wholly within the existing roof form and will not project above the existing roof line.

Satisfactory.

4

Public Domain

4.1

Active Frontages

 

i)    Maximise street level activity (e.g. by wrapping shopfronts around corners) and minimise opaque or blank walls at ground level.

Active frontages on Frenchmans Road and St Marks Road.

Yes

 

ii)   Minimise vehicular entrances not associated with active uses or building entries.

No vehicular access is provided.

Not applicable – remains unchanged.

 

iii)   Security grilles or shutters may be fitted only within the shop itself behind glazing, and must offer a minimum of 70% transparency.

No security grilles or shutters proposed.  The existing rear emergency door is to comply with the Australian Standards and are not to be obstructed.

Satisfactory, subject to conditions.  Refer to NSW Police Referral section within this report.

 

iv)  Doors shall not encroach over the footpath when open.  The use of fully operable glass walls or windows (eg pivot, stacking or bifold) to open cafés and restaurants to the street is encouraged, where suitable for the prevailing character of existing buildings in the centre.

The existing rear emergency door is to comply with the Australian Standards and are not to be obstructed.

Satisfactory, subject to conditions.  Refer to NSW Police Referral section within this report.

 

v)   ATMs and takeaway service counters should be recessed within a building wall to avoid negative impact on footpaths being used as service/queuing space. These areas are to be designed to avoid a hidden alcove/niche.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

4.2

Pedestrian friendly access and spaces

 

i)    Development should aim to increase the area of public spaces and pedestrian links that are available in the business centres.

The existing outdoor beer garden is located within the DOG, which is accessible via Frenchmans Road.

Satisfactory.

 

ii)   In designing such areas, consideration should be given to solar access and protection from wind and rain.

The existing outdoor area is proposed to incorporate an operable aluminium louvered roof, which is able to be open for maximum solar access as well as closed for weather protection.

Satisfactory, subject to conditions.

 

iii)   Pedestrian and vehicle accessways are to be separated and clearly distinguishable.

No change to the existing arrangements.

Not applicable.

 

iv)  Pedestrian areas should minimise any changes in levels and allow wheelchair access to the shops from the car parking area and public footpaths

There are no changes to the existing levels within the DOG and therefore, the areas subject to this application remain accessible.

Satisfactory.

 

v)   Consider artworks and design which integrates private development with the public domain. Eg. Window treatments, paving, sculptures and decorative elements.

No changes to the design of the outdoor beer garden.

Not applicable.

5

Amenity

5.1

Solar Access

 

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

No changes to the existing solar access to the DOG.  The operable aluminium louvres will maintain solar access to the outdoor beer garden when open.

Satisfactory

 

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

No changes to the building envelope or built form.

Not applicable

 

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

No changes to the existing solar access to the DOG.  The operable aluminium louvres will maintain solar access to the outdoor beer garden when open.

Satisfactory

 

iv)  Ensure that building layouts facilitate good solar access to both internal and external living spaces (E.g. Ideally locate living areas to the north and east, and service areas to the south and west of the development).

No changes to the existing solar access to the DOG.  The operable aluminium louvres will maintain solar access to the outdoor beer garden when open.

Satisfactory

 

v)    Maximise any northerly aspect and optimise the number of north facing windows.  Shade north facing windows with roof eaves, verandahs or balconies, awnings or other horizontal shading devices.

No changes to the existing solar access to the DOG.  The operable aluminium louvres will maintain solar access to the outdoor beer garden when open.

Satisfactory

5.2

Acoustic and Visual Privacy

 

i)    Developments are to be designed to minimise noise transmission by:

 

 

 

-    Locating busy noisy areas next to each other and quieter areas next to each other

The existing outdoor beer garden is proposed to increase the capacity and extend the hours of operation. 

Satisfactory, the location of this noise generating area is not changing.  Refer to Section 1.2 Acoustic and Visual Privacy within this report.

 

-    Locating bedrooms away from busy roads and other noise sources

The location of the hotel portion of the DOG remains unchanged and therefore, the rooms are within the location that has been previously approved under a separate application.

Not applicable.

 

-    Using storage or circulation areas within a dwelling to buffer noise from adjacent apartments, mechanical services or corridors/lobbies

The implementation of the operable aluminium louvres to mitigate noise pollution.

Satisfactory, subject to conditions.  Refer to Section 1.3 Peer Review of Acoustic Assessment within this report.

 

-    Avoid locating wet areas, such as toilets, laundries and kitchens, adjacent to bedrooms of adjoining dwellings

Not applicable

Not applicable

 

ii)   Locate exhaust vents away from windows and open space of dwellings.

No change to existing arrangement.

Satisfactory – remains unchanged

 

iii)   For development fronting arterial roads, provide noise mitigation measures to ensure an acceptable level of living amenity for the dwellings is maintained.

Noise mitigation measures are implemented for the outdoor beer garden in the form of operable aluminium louvres.

Satisfactory, subject to conditions.  Refer to Section 1.3 Peer Review of Acoustic Assessment within this report.

 

iv)  Operating hours must be submitted with the DA.  Should the development require deliveries and/or operation of machinery outside of standard hours (7.30am to 5pm, Monday to Friday), an acoustic report must accompany the DA.  The acoustic report must be prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant

Hours of operation have been stated within the revised documentation

Satisfactory, subject to conditions.  Refer to Section 1.1 Hours of Operation within this report.

 

3.3    Part D13 – Late Night Trading

 

1.1   Objectives

 

§  To protect neighbourhood amenity and property, particularly residential land uses.

§  To minimise opportunities for anti-social behaviour and crime, through the responsible management of late night trading premises and their surrounding environment.

§  To enable local economies that provide for the community’s diverse cultural, social and retail needs.

§  To deliver certainty to applicants, operators and the local community about the planning requirements with regard to late night trading premises.

§  To ensure a consistent approach in the assessment of DAs for late night trading premises.

 

DCP Clause

Control

Proposal

Compliance

1.4

Late Night Trading Categories

 

High Impact

 

vi)  A pub.

vii) A registered club.

viii) Any premises with a capacity of more than 100 patrons where alcohol is sold and/or consumed on the premises (e.g. restaurant or café).

ix)  Any premises used as a function centre or entertainment facility where alcohol is sold and/or consumed on the premises.

 

The application is to increase the patron capacity from 50 to 100 and to extend the hours of operation for the outdoor beer garden area from 10.00pm to midnight. 

 

The proposed use is seeking a significant number of patrons whereby, alcohol is sold and consumed on the premises and therefore, is identified as a high impact category.

 

2

Matters for Consideration

 

Objective

To ensure that late night trading proposals are appropriate to the location in terms of nature and scale of operations.

 

Controls

All DAs for late night trading premises must address the following matters:

 

Specific nature of the proposal (e.g. pub, nightclub, restaurant etc).

The use of the pub will not be changed.

Yes

 

Proposed layout of the premises

The layout of the premises remains unchanged.  The outdoor beer garden will not be changed just the capacity of patrons is increased.

Yes, refer to Figure 1 under Section 1.3 of this report.

 

Current and proposed hours of operation.

This application proposes to extend the trading hours from 10:00pm to 12:00am in the outdoor beer garden.

No.  Refer to Section 1.1 Hours of Operation

 

Existing trading hours and nature of other late night trading premises operating within a 100 metre radius.

This information has been provided by the Applicant with the Statement of Environmental Effects, dated November 2017.

Satisfactory.

 

Current and proposed size of the premises and maximum patron capacity (including the maximum number of patrons that will be standing and/or sitting at the one time).

The current application states an increase from 50 patrons to 100 patrons.

No, conditions of consent are included to limit the patron capacity to 70.

 

Details on whether alcohol is to be sold and/or consumed on the premises and measures for responsible service.

Alcohol is sold and consumed at the DOG.

Satisfactory.  Refer to existing POM.

 

Measures to minimise likely noise or other amenity impacts on adjoining properties.

Various measures have been discussed by various parties to mitigate noise pollution.

Satisfactory, subject to conditions.  Refer to Section 1.4 Plan of Management.

 

The likely impact of the premises on the concentration of late night uses in the locality.

Various measures have been discussed by various parties to mitigate noise pollution and anti-social behaviour.

Satisfactory, subject to conditions.  Refer to Section 1.4 Plan of Management.

 

Details on any proposed entertainment and likely amenity impacts.

Live music is proposed however, due to noise pollution, various measure are to be implemented to mitigate impacts.

Satisfactory, subject to conditions.  Refer to Section 1.4 Plan of Management.

 

Suitability of the location and context of the proposal, including proximity to residential land uses and other sensitive land uses (e.g. schools, places of worship etc).

The premises exists however, the hours of operation and the capacity of patrons are proposed to change as part of this application.

Satisfactory, subject to conditions.  Refer to Section 1.1 Hours of Operation...

 

DCP Clause

Control

Proposal

Compliance

3

Management Plan

 

 

 

Objective

To ensure that potential adverse impacts from the operation of high impact premises can be suitably addressed through appropriate management practices.

 

Controls

Submit a Management Plan with a DA (for the purposes noted in 1.3 of this section) for high impact late night trading premises that addresses the general requirements for Management Plans outlined in Part B9 of this DCP, as well as the following specific requirements:

 

Onsite security arrangements including number of licensed security staff, details of any electronic surveillance systems and frequency and areas of security patrols inside and outside the premises.

The POM is required to be updated as per the updated patron numbers and hours of operation of the outdoor beer garden.

Satisfactory, subject to conditions.  Refer to Section 1.4 Plan of Management.

 

Measures to manage large groups of patrons during peak trading periods (e.g. during weekends, special events etc).

Due to the proposed increase in patron numbers in the outdoor beer garden, a restriction of the hours and limit of patron numbers is required on the amended plan of management.

Satisfactory, subject to conditions.  Refer to Section 1.4 Plan of Management.

 

Measures to assist patrons to wind down before closing (e.g. reducing music volume, increasing lighting levels inside the venue etc).

The outdoor beer garden will have restrictions in place to reduce impacts.

Satisfactory, subject to conditions.  Refer to Section 1.4 Plan of Management.

 

Provide a copy of the House Policy describing measures to minimise harm, anti-social behaviour and crime through the responsible service of alcohol (e.g. lock out times etc).

Updated and included within the plan of management.

Satisfactory, subject to conditions.  Refer to Section 1.4 Plan of Management.

 

Measures to monitor and manage patron behaviour within and outside the premises including when entering and leaving the premises late at night.

Updated and included within the plan of management.

Satisfactory, subject to conditions.  Refer to Section 1.4 Plan of Management.

 

If queuing outside the premises is to occur, a description of measures that will be taken to ensure that queuing is controlled to minimise adverse amenity impacts (e.g. maximum queue numbers, use of temporary ropes/bollards, actions to be undertaken to minimise loitering etc).

Limiting numbers of patrons included within the plan of management will reduce impacts.

Satisfactory, subject to conditions.  Refer to Section 1.4 Plan of Management.

 

Designated smoking areas and measures to increase patron awareness of the responsible disposal of cigarette butts.

The outdoor beer garden is currently limited to food only.  This will remain in place.

Satisfactory, subject to conditions.  Refer to Section 1.4 Plan of Management.

 

Actions to be undertaken to discourage drug use and manage drug related incidents.

As per the current Plan of Management

Satisfactory, subject to conditions.  Refer to Section 1.4 Plan of Management.

 

Overview of the accessibility and frequency of public transport and taxis during late night trading hours.

As per the current Plan of Management

Satisfactory, subject to conditions.  Refer to Section 1.4 Plan of Management.

 

Measures to increase patron awareness and use of public transport and taxis.

As per the current Plan of Management

Satisfactory, subject to conditions.  Refer to Section 1.4 Plan of Management.

 

Measures to address other likely social impact as a result of the proposal.

Updated and included within the plan of management.

Satisfactory, subject to conditions.  Refer to Section 1.4 Plan of Management.

 

Outcomes of preliminary consultation between applicants and the NSW police.

NSW Police has provided recommendations and conditions for the proposal.

Satisfactory, subject to conditions.  Refer to Section 1.4 Plan of Management.

Note:

Section 4.17 (imposition of conditions) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 permits the use of reviewable conditions by a Consent Authority to approve hours of operation and/or maximum persons permitted when it is uncertain about the impacts of the proposed development on adjoining land uses.

 

4.      Referral Comments

 

4.1    Environmental Health #1

 

The application has been referred to the Council’s Environmental Health officer for review on two occasions.  The following comments and recommendations were made on 18 December 2017:

 

Proposed Development

 

Randwick City Council has received a development application for the subject premises to install an operable louvre roof over the existing beer garden, increase the patron capacity from 50 to 100 and to extend the hours of operation for the beer garden area from 10.00pm to midnight.

 

Comments:

 

Acoustic Amenity

 

Council’s pathway records show various complaints in the past relating to the use of the beer garden area. A summary of the complaints are listed in the table below.

 

 

 

Date

Address

Nature of Complaint

Nov 2012

St Marks Road

Noise from live music

May 2013

Frenchmans Road

Noise from live music

Mar 2016

Frenchmans Road

Smoking from patrons outside their property

Nov 2017

Frenchmans Road

Noise from live music

 

A number of submissions have been received in relation to the proposed extension of hours, the increased patronage and live/amplified music in the beer garden area.

 

An acoustic report prepared by Rodney Stevens Acoustics (report no. R170413R1A) dated 27 November 2017 was submitted with the development application. The report concludes that the development will comply with the relevant noise criteria if the recommendations detailed in the report are complied with.

 

The following recommendations were detailed in the acoustic report to ensure compliance with all regulatory criteria:

·           Last drinks in the beer garden at no later than 11:30pm (Monday to Saturday) and 10:30pm on Sunday, with the area to be cleared by midnight (11pm Sunday).

·           Patrons to be encouraged to socialise inside the hotel after 11:30 pm, or on the Frenchmans Road façade towards St Marks Road (where practical).

An openable louvered roof is proposed to be constructed over the beer garden. The roof is constructed out of:

·           2.3mm thick aluminium louvres with rubber seals. The rubber seals need to create a waterproof seal to limit noise transfer through the louvres.

·           The proposed louvre roof needs to cover the entire beer garden area between the existing awnings. It must be free of gaps.

·           The proposed roof will be closed at 9:00pm every night, or 8:00pm when capacity is proposed to be over 80 people.

The hotel would like to have the option of live music in the beer garden space. In order to allow this to operate being mindful of neighbours, the following is proposed:

·           Live music should not be played outside after 9:00 pm during summer, and 8:00pm during winter.

·           Only acoustic music played out of a single speaker/PA system to be used in any outdoor areas.

·           No subwoofers, live drums or brass instruments permitted outside.

Should the development application be approved the recommendations shall form part of the development consent.

 

If development consent is to be granted, given the history of complaints associated with the site, consideration should be given to a trial period.

 

A plan of management has not been submitted with the development application. The recommendations included in the acoustic report should be included in the plan of management.

 

The potential for noise disturbance has been considered and the appropriate conditions have been included in this referral.

 

 

 

 

Assessment Comments

 

In summary, Council’s Environmental Health provided recommendations to mitigate noise pollution and conditions to ensure compliance with these measures.  Council has taken these hours of operation into consideration however, Last drinks in the beer garden shall be no later than 11:00pm (Friday and Saturday) with the area to be cleared by Midnight; 10:30pm on Thursday, with the area to be cleared by 11:00pm; and 10:00pm on Sunday to Wednesday, with the area to be cleared by 10:00pm are considered to be more acceptable hours of operation.

 

4.2    Acoustic Consultant - Peer Review

 

As discussed in Section 4.3 of this report Envirnmental Health Referral #2, the application was referred to an acoustic consultant for peer review of the Beer Garden Acoustical Assessment, prepared by RSA, folllowing the submissions received.  The peer review was carried out by Wilkinson Murray, dated 18 April 2018.  The report raised a number of concerns with the assessment undertaken by RSA and required clarification of issues.  The most significant concern is with the measurement of background noise levels and the adoption of criteria in accordance with Liquor & Gaming NSW requirements.  Subsequently, an amended Beer Garden Acoustical Assessment prepared by RSA (report no. R170413R3A Revision 2) dated 5 July 2018 was provided to Council and these issues initially raised by Wilkinson Murray have been resolved to the satisfaction of Council’s Environmental Health officer.  The following comments have been provided:

 

INTRODUCTION

The Duke of Gloucester Hotel (DoG) currently has limits on the use of the beer garden.  This limits the use as follows.

 

§  Sunday to Wednesday inclusive 40 patrons until 9:00pm

§  Thursday to Saturday 50 patrons until 10:00pm

 

Rodney Stevens & Associates (RSA) have undertaken a noise assessment in relation to a proposal to increase patron numbers to 100 and extend trading times to 12midnight.  The report acknowledges some non-compliance at the adjoining neighbour and recommends the installation of a louvered roof, which is required to be closed after 9:00pm or when numbers of people exceed 80.

 

This letter provides a peer review of the report submitted with the DA.  Our initial review found an error within the report in relation to the stated background noise levels.  This was acknowledged by RSA and Revision 1 of the report was issued on 13 April 2018.

 

Irrespective of this change in noise criteria, the report still concludes the installation of a louvered roof will manage noise impacts.

 

From my previous involvement with the DA for the development of the courtyard, we had access to background noise data collected on behalf of the applicant by Environmental Results.  We also reviewed noise predictions.  We considered that as the courtyard is overlooked by the adjoining property on Frenchman’s Road, overall acoustic amenity could be reasonably managed by strict adherence to patron numbers and operating hours no later than 10:00pm.  We considered this would achieve a reasonable balance between the risk of some technical non-compliance of criteria early in the evening, but on the assumption that at more sensitive times later in the evening this area wasn’t used.

 

Extending the use of this area until 12midnight would require strict compliance with noise limits at all times.  This is likely to result in the operable roof being closed for a significant proportion of the time.

 

AREAS OF CONCERN

 

We have identified the following aspects of the report which we consider require a response before Council can consider the application:

 

1.     Use of a single background location to represent all 3 identified receivers (36 Frenchman’s Road.

2.     41 Frenchman’s Road and 6 St Marks Road.

3.     Use of a single RBL approach using all data over all days between 7am and 12midnight.

4.     Ignoring the 31.5 Hz octave band.

5.     No compliance measurements of existing operations to ensure the existing noise model is validated to give greater confidence in the results once capacity is increased.

6.     No suitable test data to ensure the proposed roof louvre system can achieve the assumed transmission loss after repeated use.

7.     No confirmation the predictions have allowed for an increase in the noise level of patrons once the roof is closed and the enclosed space has a higher reverberation time.

8.     No confirmation of how the enclosed space will be ventilated or cooled when the roof is closed.

9.     These aspects are discussed in more detail below.

 

Background Noise Levels (Issues 1-3)

Liquor and Gaming NSW criteria are based on the background noise levels at the potentially affected receivers.  It is normal practice to establish different criteria at the various receivers to account for their location and also the different times of day / evening or night the premises may operate.  The background levels are also measured in octave bands to ensure low frequency music noise is also considered.

 

It is not appropriate to “average” the noise levels over the whole day from 7:00am to 12midnight to assess the potential impacts after 10:00pm.  Only data in this shoulder period should be used to determine an appropriate background noise level.  During any compliance measurements, it would be necessary to measure the background over a 15-minute period once activity on site had ceased.  We accept that it is not possible to measure background noise levels at the side of 36 Frenchman’s Road overlooking the DoG as it would be influenced by activities on the site and therefore not a true representation of the background noise.  For this reason, measurements were undertaken further along Frenchman’s Road.  This location would be representative of the front of 41 Frenchman’s Road, opposite the DoG, may overestimate the levels at the side of 36 Frenchman’s Road set further back, and also over-estimate levels in the rear garden of 6 St Marks Road, which is well shielded from traffic noise.

 

However, in terms of achieving compliance, the focus should be on getting a true background noise level 36 Frenchman’s Road for the period before 12midnight.

The table below shows the difference between the adopted RSA background L90 level and data collected by Environmental Results in 2012 and adopted by WM for 36 Frenchman’s Road.

 

 

Adopting the lower background levels, hence lower criteria (background + 5dB) results in exceedance of the criteria (based on RSA predictions) even with the louvered roof closed as summarised in the table below.  Refer to further comments regarding the RSA predictions in the section below.

 

 

In terms of patron noise, ignoring the 31.5 Hz octave band is acceptable, but we understand live music is proposed with the roof closed, so this octave band needs to be included to ensure compliance in this situation.

 

Predicted Noise Levels (Issues 4-6)

We consider that measurement of existing use of the beer garden on a busy weekend evening should have been undertaken to obtain an accurate measurement of the existing situation, so any noise model or predictions could be validated and also confirm that compliance with criteria with 80 people and the roof open can be achieved.

 

The report should provide some test data for the aluminium louvres or at least some test data for an equivalent thickness aluminium with an allowance for the sealing between elements which may deteriorate over time.

 

The report should also quantify how the source level of noise would change with the roof closed, as patrons would need to talk with a raised voice once they were in an enclosed space.

 

SUMMARY

We believe there are sufficient concerns with the assessment undertaken by RSA to require clarification of issues raised in this review.  The most significant concern is with the measurement of background noise levels and the adoption of criteria in accordance with Liquor & Gaming NSW requirements.

 

Assessment Comments

 

Based on the Acoustic consultants peer review, nine areas of concerns were identified to be addressed by the applicants Acoustic Consultant.  In addition, Council’s Environmental Health Officer also reviewed the documentation and requested the following information on 20 April 2018:

 

Reference is made to the attached peer review undertaken by Wilkinson Murray provided to Council (project number 11336-PR) dated 18 April 2018.

 

The review has identified the following aspects of the acoustic report which Wilkinson and Murray consider warrant a response before Council can consider the application:

1.     Use of a single background location to represent all 3 identified receivers (36 Frenchman’s Road, 41 Frenchman’s Road and 6 Marks Road.

2.     Use of a single RBL approach using all data over all days between 7am and 12midnight.

3.     Ignoring the 31.5 Hz octave band.

4.     No compliance measurements of existing operations to ensure the existing noise model is validated to give greater confidence in the results once capacity is increased.

5.     No suitable test data to ensure the proposed roof louvre system can achieve the assumed transmission loss after repeated use.

6.     No confirmation the predictions have allowed for an increase in the noise level of patrons once the roof is closed and the enclosed space has a higher reverberation time.

7.     No confirmation of how the enclosed space will be ventilated or cooled when the roof is closed.

 

As such, it is requested that the applicant provide a response in relation to the items above to assist with the assessment of the development application.

 

On 8 June 2018, RSA responded to the areas of concern.  A snapshot of the questions and detailed responses are as follows:

 

 

4.3    Environmental Health #2

 

The revised Beer Garden Acoustical Assessment, dated 12 April 2018; the Peer Review by an external Consultant engaged by Council, dated 18 April 2018; and further correspondence between Council’s Environmental Health officer and the assessing officer, dated between April and July 2018, has been referred to the Council’s Environmental Health officer for review.  The following comments and recommendations were made on 18 July 2018:

 

Proposed Development:

 

Randwick City Council has received a development application for the subject premises to install an operable louvre roof over the existing beer garden, increase the patron capacity from 50 to 100 and to extend the hours of operation for the beer garden area from 10.00pm to midnight.

 

Comments:

 

Acoustic Amenity

 

Council’s pathway records show various complaints in the past relating to the use of the beer garden area. A summary of the complaints are listed in the table below.

 

Date

Address

Nature of Complaint

Nov 2012

St Marks Road

Noise from live music

May 2013

Frenchmans Road

Noise from live music

Mar 2016

Frenchmans Road

Smoking from patrons outside their property

Nov 2017

Frenchmans Road

Noise from live music

 

A number of submissions have been received in relation to the proposed extension of hours, the increased patronage and live/amplified music in the beer garden area.

 

An acoustic report prepared by Rodney Stevens Acoustics (report no. R170413R1A) dated 27 November 2017 was submitted with the development application. The report concluded that the development will comply with the relevant noise criteria if the recommendations detailed in the report are complied with.

 

Council requested a peer review of the acoustic report following the submissions received. A peer review was carried out by Wilkinson Murray and subsequently an amended acoustic report prepared by Rodney Stevens Acoustics (report no. R170413R3A Revision 2) dated 5 July 2018 was provided to Council. The report concluded that the development will comply with the relevant noise criteria if the recommendations detailed in the report are followed with the proposed increase to the beer garden area, during all assessment time periods.

 

The following recommendations were detailed in the acoustic report to ensure compliance with all regulatory criteria:

§  Last drinks in the beer garden at no later than 11:30pm (Monday to Saturday) and 10:30pm on Sunday, with the area to be cleared by midnight (11pm Sunday).

§  Patrons to be encouraged to socialise inside the hotel after 11:30 pm, or on the Frenchmans Road façade towards St Marks Road (where practical).

An openable louvered roof is proposed to be constructed over the beer garden. The roof is constructed out of:

§  2.3mm thick aluminium louvres with rubber seals. The rubber seals need to create a waterproof seal to limit noise transfer through the louvres.

§  Based on the Insul modelling of the performance of the proposed louvered roof, it is recommended that the seals be upgraded to acoustic rated seals.

§  The proposed louvre roof needs to cover the entire beer garden area between the existing awnings. It must be free of gaps.

§  The proposed roof will be closed at 9:00pm every night, or 8:00pm when capacity is proposed to be over 80 people.

§  Reverberation has been shown to be potentially excessive in the beer garden with the louvered roof closed. It is recommended to include acoustic panelling, minimum 50mm thick with a minimum NRC of 0.7 on 40% of the ceiling spaces of the existing ceiling surrounding the open area of the beer garden.

The hotel would like to have the option of live music in the beer garden space. In order to allow this to operate being mindful of neighbours, the following is proposed:

§  Live music should not be played outside after 9:00 pm during summer, and 8:00pm during winter.

§  Only acoustic music played out of a single speaker/PA system to be used in any outdoor areas.

§  No subwoofers, live drums or brass instruments permitted outside.

NSW Police have also reviewed the development application and have made recommendations for acoustic amenity and security including a max capacity of 70 patrons within the beer garden.

 

Given the history of complaints associated with the site, consideration should be given to a trial period. The recommendations in the acoustic report have been considered and in conjunction with the NSW Police recommendations, they shall form part of the development consent.

 

A plan of management has not been submitted with the development application. The recommendations included in the acoustic report should be included in the plan of management.

 

The potential for noise disturbance has been considered and the appropriate conditions have been included in this referral.

 

Assessment Comments

 

Subject to the amendments and as per Council’s assessment, conditions have been recommended to be provided on the consent to ensure compliance with the patron numbers, hours of operation and noise pollution mitigations. 

 

4.4    NSW Police

 

The application has been referred to the NSW Police on 27 November 2017, for review.  The following comments and recommendations were made:

 

Police have concerns in relation to the proposed development to the Duke of Gloucester Hotel, Randwick. 

 

Police are concerned that the increase in numbers from 50 patrons to 100 patrons and the operating hours being extended from 10:00pm – Midnight in the outdoor beer garden may have a negative impact on the community.  Police have received noise complaints previously from residences in the area and feel that the increase in numbers would not be beneficial to the community. Police would object to the increase in numbers to 100 patrons as this may create unnecessary noise from patrons. The outdoor beer garden area is small and 100 patrons, consuming alcohol in a confined space may increase the risk of alcohol related violence, which is not ideal. Police have looked at the rear door that the Duke of Gloucester Hotel, Randwick propose to be used as an emergency exit door and note that only 1 side of the door would be able to be opened fully. This only provided approximately a 1.5 metre gap for patrons to exit out during an emergency. This is also a concern for police.

 

In relation to the extension of trading hours to the outdoor beer garden also raises concern. Police acknowledge that the Duke of Gloucester Hotel, Randwick are willing to install an operable louvre to help mitigate the risk of noise pollution, although due to the residences being in close vicinity, police would also object to the extended trade to midnight. 

 

If the development application was approved, police would recommend the following conditions:

 

1)       A trial period of 12 months - with the operable louvre being closed by 8:00pm and not reopened until 9am.

2)       Live music should not be played after 8:00pm in the beer garden.

3)       Police would recommend a max capacity of 70 patrons within the beer garden

4)       Police would recommend that the sale of alcohol would cease at 11:00pm, with the rear area be cleared and empty by no later than 11:30pm.

5)       Only acoustic music played out of a single speaker/ PA system to be used in any outdoor area

6)       P/A system to be installed with restrictors/ limiters to mitigate noise pollution.

7)       No subwoofers, live drums or brass instruments permitted outside

8)       1 x security guard to be employed to monitor only the beer garden from 6pm on a Friday, Saturday, Sunday night at all times. This security guard is to be within the beer garden from 6pm till the beer garden has cease trade.

9)       CCTV footage to be installed to monitor the entire beer garden. This footage should be able to be burnt upon request by police.

10)     Lighting which complies with the Australian Standard - Lighting must be installed in and around the area to increase surveillance opportunities during the hours of darkness

11)     The main entry/egress areas to the outdoor beer garden be covered by CCTV footage and adequate lighting.

12)     Before approving the development application, police would like the fire brigade to attend and conduct a risk assessment.

13)     The rear door that the door of Duke of Gloucester, Randwick (emergency exit door) must not be obstructed by tables or chairs. The area directly in front of the rear door is to be cleared at all times.

14)     The rear door (emergency door) must comply with Australian fire standards and relevant legislation. 

 

In conclusion, the New South Wales Police Force has a vital interest in ensuring the safety of the members of the community and the security of their property.  By using the recommendations contained in this assessment, any person acknowledges that;

 

·           It is not possible to make areas assessed by the NSWPF absolutely safe for members of the community or the security of their property.

·           It is based upon information provided to the NSWPF at the time the assessment was undertaken.

·           This assessment is a confidential document and is for the use by the organisation referred to on page one only.

·           The contents of this assessment are not to be copied or circulated otherwise than for the purposes of the organisation referred to on page one.

 

Assessment Comments

 

Subject to the amendments and as per the NSW Police, conditions have been recommended to be provided on the consent to ensure compliance with the noise pollution mitigations.  A number of recommendations shall also be included within the updated POM.

 

4.5    Heritage comments

 

The Site

The site is occupied by the Duke of Gloucester Hotel, listed as a heritage item under Randwick LEP 2012.  To the south of the site, a group of semi-detached cottages comprising nos.4 – 10 St Marks Road are also listed as heritage items.  The Randwick Heritage Study Inventory Sheet for the hotel identifies its significance as a “good example of 1930s hotel building with Art Deco styling and interior.  Almost intact.  Important streetscape on prominent intersection.” 

 

Proposal

The application proposes changes to the existing beer garden at the western end of the site, including installation of a new bar and provision of an operable louvered roof. 

 

Submission

The application has been accompanied by a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by KN Planning which includes a section addressing Heritage Considerations.  The SEE notes that the proposed roof structure is located within the existing masonry and timber parapet walls.  The SEE considers that the proposed structure will not be visible from the public domain and there will be no impacts on the presentation of the hotel building to the street. 

 

Controls

Clause 5.10(1) of Randwick LEP 2012 includes the objective of conserving the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views. 

 

Clause 5.10(4) of Randwick LEP 2012 requires Council to consider the effect of a proposed development on the heritage significance of the heritage item. 

 

In relation to Commercial Properties, Clause 2.13 of Randwick DCP 2013 includes a Control that original forms, details, materials and finishes must be retained, including original shopfronts, original suspended awnings and open balconies at first floor level. 

 

Comments

The existing beer garden has been created by the enclosure of an existing walled service courtyard including provision of a partial roof and unfortunately mismatched brickwork.  To the street, the beer garden presents as a parapeted green roof (to the garbage room), with the existing perimeter roof edged with a timber/metal clad fascia above the gated entry/exit, and a parapeted brick wall elsewhere.  It is unclear whether the sign which has recently appeared attached to the fascia requires consent, and whether consent has been sought.  There are some concerns that the proposed louvered roof will change the character of the open courtyard/beer garden to a largely enclosed addition.  It is noted however, that the proposed operable louvered roof will be screened by the existing fascia and parapets and will have no streetscape visibility.  The proposed roof will not impact on the fabric of the heritage item, or result in any appreciable change to the setting of the building or views to or from it. 

 

Assessment Comments

 

Subject to Council’s Heritage officer, conditions have been recommended to be provided in the consent.  A number of recommendations shall also be included within the updated POM.

 

Recommendation

 

A.       That the Randwick Local Planning Panel 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/739/2017 for the construction of an operable louvre roof over the existing beer garden, increase the patron capacity and extension of the hours of operation for the beer garden area at the Duke of Gloucester Hotel, at No. 2 St Marks Road, Randwick, subject to the development consent conditions attached to this report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Dev Consent Conditions (commercial) - DA/739/2017 - 2 St Marks Road, Randwick 

 

 

 

 


RDAP Dev Consent Conditions (commercial) - DA/739/2017 - 2 St Marks Road, RANDWICK

Attachment 1

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Randwick Local Planning Panel                                                                        13 September 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D70/18

 

Subject:             89 Robey Street, Maroubra (DA/252/2018)

Folder No:                   DA/252/2018

Author:                   Jayden Perry, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Torrens title subdivision of existing lot into 2 lots with one lot containing existing dwelling, land dedication on Ferguson Street frontage and construction of hardstand car park space to front of existing dwelling (variation to lot size control).

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                Mr M Shahrokhian

Owner:                        Mr J J Gilles

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 development standard for minimum subdivision lot size by more than 10%.

 

The proposal seeks consent for the Torrens Title subdivision of an existing lot into 2 lots consisting of the following:

 

-    The proposed Lot 1 is to have an area of 211.2m2 and will contain the existing dwelling fronting onto Robey Street and includes a proposed hardstand car space and vehicle crossover

 

-    The proposed Lot 2 is to have an area of 211.8m2 (excluding land dedication) and will front onto Ferguson Street and includes the dedication of a 4.57m deep strip of land dedicated to Council for the purposes of road widening.

 

The proposal was notified in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP). Three submissions were received raising concerns regarding appropriateness of the site for subdivision, impacts upon amenity resulting from the development of the new lot fronting onto Ferguson Street and the loss of streetscape character resulting from the hardstand car space.

 

The proposal contravenes the minimum subdivision lot size under Clause 4.1 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 by 47.2% and a request under Clause 4.6 for exception to a development standard has been submitted by the applicant. The Clause 4.6 request is considered to be acceptable as the proposed subdivision will not result in any additional impact upon the amenity of the adjoining neighbours, will provide for the housing needs of the community, will encourage housing affordability through the creation of a new lot and will result in lots of a size that are able to accommodate suitable development in the R2 zone.

 

The proposed hardstand car space and vehicle crossover are considered to be acceptable and will meet the objectives of the relevant clauses under the RDCP 2013. The proposed development is recommended for approval subject to the inclusion of the recommended conditions.

 

Proposal

 

The details of the proposed development are as follows:

 

-    Torrens Title subdivision of existing lot into 2 lots with one lot containing existing dwelling and the second lot including land dedication on Ferguson Street frontage.

-    Construction of hardstand car park space to front of existing dwelling along Robey Street.

Figure 1. Proposed subdivision plan.

 

Site Description and Locality

 

The subject site is zoned R2 and consists of a 1-storey semi-detached dwelling house and is located on the eastern side of Robey Street with a rear boundary fronting onto Ferguson Street. The surrounding development consists of single and multi-level dwelling houses and medium rise residential flat buildings. There is an existing subdivision pattern in the immediate and surrounding locality consisting of blocks fronting Ferguson Street adjoining blocks fronting Robey Street, with the site in question and adjoining site at No. 91 Robey being the only remaining full-length blocks on the western side of Ferguson Street.

 

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:

 

·      91 Robey Street, Maroubra

 

Issue

Comment

The proposed subdivision and subsequent lot size does not reflect the subdivision pattern of the immediate locality. Examples provided by the applicant are from areas not close to the site and should not be taken as the examples which depict the character of the area.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposal will result in lots significantly smaller than surrounding lots, the proposed subdivision reflects the existing subdivision pattern of the surrounding locality in that it will result in a dwelling fronting both Robey Street and Ferguson Street having similar scale to existing dwellings.

The argument for road-widening is impractical as on both ends of Ferguson Street there exists dwellings that have been built to the road edge and would not allow for widening of the road at each end of Ferguson Street.

The proposal is reflective of other surrounding properties and is in accordance with part B11 of the RDCP 2013. The existence of properties limiting the complete widening of Ferguson Street are not to be taken as constraints when considering the subdivision of an existing site.

The effects of a future dwelling would severely impact upon the amenity of surrounding neighbours regarding overshadowing, visual bulk, visual privacy and acoustic privacy. Further to this the shadow diagrams appear to be incorrect.

Surrounding lots follow a similar pattern of subdivision and have had dwelling house developments approved and constructed demonstrating that Council can be satisfied that future development can also be consistent with the scale and form of other developments and that do not have any significant adverse impact on local amenity. These are taken to be indicative and any future proposal for development to the rear allotment will be assessed against council’s controls.

The mature trees on the adjoining property may be affected during the construction stage or through ongoing development. Further to this the owner of the adjoining property may be away and is worried that they will not get the chance to voice their concerns regarding future developments.

Any future proposal for development to the rear allotment will be assessed against council’s controls and will include an assessment by council’s development engineer regarding the existing trees on site and on adjoining sites.

 

 

The hardstand carspace appears to premeditate the approval of the subdivision. The hardstand carspace will impact upon the character of the adjoining semi and the character of the surrounding streetscape and will block site lines onto Fitzgerald Avenue.

The car space is reflective of surrounding properties exhibiting similar parking arrangements. No changes are proposed to the front façade of the dwelling and it is not considered that the car space will significantly impact upon the character or symmetry of the semis as a pair.

 

·      84 Ferguson Street, Maroubra

 

Issue

Comment

Proposal is well below the minimum standard of 400sqm.

An assessment under clause 4.6 of the RLEP has been completed by the officer and can be seen in the ‘Clause 4.6’ section of this report. Proposed non-compliance is considered to be acceptable in this instance.

The proposal is only permissible by offering an incentive to council and this policy should be changed as it results in blocks that are too small in size.

The proposal is in accordance with part B11 of the RDCP 2013 which allows for the subdivision of land along laneways nominated for road widening notwithstanding the minimum standard within the RLEP 2012.

The subdivision will allow for the future development of the block fronting Ferguson Street which will impact upon the surrounding resident’s amenity and will decrease the amount of parking on-site.

Surrounding lots follow a similar pattern of subdivision and have had dwelling house developments approved and constructed demonstrating that Council can be satisfied that future development can also be consistent with the scale and form of other developments and that do not have any significant adverse impact on local amenity.

Given the area is R2, if council is to approve the application would they then provide legal assistance to the residents of Ferguson Street to fight the approval as it is a commercially based application.

The council is not in a position to provide legal assistance to those wishing to pursue legal action regarding a development application.

 

Incorrect shadow diagrams and FSR calculations have been provided relating to the future dwelling.

These are taken to be indicative and any future proposal for development to the rear allotment will be assessed against council’s controls.

 

·      90 Ferguson Street, Maroubra

 

Issue

Comment

Concerned that none of the other subdivided properties along Ferguson Street are as small as the proposal.

The proposal will result in built form that reflects the existing streetscape pattern along Ferguson Street.

See key issues for further discussion.

 


 

Key Issues

Clause 4.6 – Exception to Development Standard

Pursuant to Clause 4.1 of the RLEP 2012, the minimum subdivision lot size must not be less than 400m2 resulting from a subdivision of land. A minimum subdivision lot size of 211.2m2 & 211.8m2 is proposed.

 

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

 

Minimum Subdivision Lot Size

Development Standard

400m2

Proposal

211.2m2 (Lot 1) & 211.8m2 (Lot 2)

Excess Below the Standard

188.8m2 (47.2%)

 

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

 

1.     The proposed subdivision and future erection of a new dwelling will continue and better complete the desired streetscape along Ferguson street, maintain and enhance the local amenity (particularly to Ferguson Street) cannot occur without the subdivision.

2.     Surrounding lots follow a similar pattern of subdivision and have had dwelling house developments approved and constructed demonstrating that Council can be satisfied that future development can also be consistent with the scale and form of other developments and that do not have any significant adverse impact on local amenity.

3.     The proposal will contribute to the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form given that the subdivision will provide additional land to Council for required Road widening in accordance with Part B11 of the RDCP and eventual kerb and guttering of Ferguson Street.

 

Hardstand Car Space

Part of the current proposal includes the construction of a hardstand car space and associated crossover to the front of the existing dwelling fronting onto Robey Street. There currently exists multiple examples of hardstand car spaces within the immediate vicinity of the site, with No. 85-87 and No. 93-107 exhibiting hardstand car spaces (some examples shown in figures 2 and 3 below).

Figure 2. Hardstand and crossover at No. 87 Robey and Nos 89-91 Robey frontage.

 

Figure 3. Hardstand and crossover at No. 93 Robey and No. 95 Robey.

 

Considering the majority of existing landscaping forward of the front façade on the site is to remain and taking into account the numerous examples of hardstand car spaces within the immediate vicinity it is not considered that proposal will impact upon the character of the surrounding streetscape or amenity of surrounding residents. As such the proposal has been recommended for approval.

 

Relationship to City Plan

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

That the application for the Torrens Title subdivision of existing lot into 2 lots with one lot containing existing dwelling, land dedication on Ferguson Street frontage and construction of hardstand car park space to front of existing dwelling (variation to lot size control) 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 proposed subdivision and future erection of a new dwelling will continue and better complete the desired streetscape along Ferguson street, maintain and enhance the local amenity (particularly to Ferguson Street) cannot occur without the subdivision.

·      Surrounding lots follow a similar pattern of subdivision and have had dwelling house developments approved and constructed demonstrating that Council can be satisfied that future development can also be consistent with the scale and form of other developments and that do not have any significant adverse impact on local amenity.

 

·      The proposal will contribute to the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form given that the subdivision will provide additional land to Council for required road widening in accordance with Part B11 of the RDCP and eventual kerb and guttering of Ferguson Street.

Detailed Assessment

1.         Section 4.15 matters for consideration

 

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

 

Section 4.15 ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

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

The site is zoned Residential R2 Low Density under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible in the zone. See table below for compliance with development standards.

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

 

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

Nil.

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

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

 

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

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

 

The 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 has been assessed in regards to the greater locality and in relation the RLEP 2012 and RDCP 2013 and is considered to be 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

 

2.2      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

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

 

The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will not adversely affect the amenity of surrounding residents.

 

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

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Lot Size (Minimum)

400m2

211.2m2 & 211.8m2

No

 

Clause 4.1 – Minimum Subdivision Lot Size

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

 

Pursuant to Clause 4.1 of the RLEP 2012, the minimum subdivision lot size must not be less than 400m2 resulting from a subdivision of land. A minimum subdivision lot size of 211.2m2 & 211.8m2 is proposed.

 

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

 

Minimum Subdivision Lot Size

Development Standard

400m2

Proposal

211.2m2 (Lot 1) & 211.8m2 (Lot 2)

Excess Below the Standard

188.8m2 (47.2%)

 

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

 

Clause 4.6 RLEP Request to Vary Development Standard

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

The stated objectives of the RLEP which apply to floor space ratio are:

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assessing Officer’s Clause 4.6 Assessment:

Part B11 of the Randwick Development Control Plan (DCP) 2013 identifies several laneways including Ferguson Street, Maroubra, between Maroubra Road and Beauchamp Road as a laneway nominated for road widening. The development of residential dwellings fronting these laneways is encouraged and the subdivision of land may be permitted notwithstanding the minimum allotment size required under the RLEP 2012 and the minimum frontage width required under the RDCP 2013. The proposal includes the subdivision of an existing allotment to provide for residential development fronting Ferguson Street, however will result in allotments smaller than the minimum lot size control under the RLEP 2012.

 

Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposal will result in lots significantly smaller than surrounding lots, the proposed subdivision reflects the existing subdivision pattern of the surrounding locality in that it will result in a dwelling fronting both Robey Street and Ferguson Street having similar scale to existing dwellings. It is considered that the proposal is not inconsistent with the objectives of the standard in that the proposal will not result in any significant additional adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties, will not impact upon any existing cultural or heritage features and allows for suitable development to occur on the new lot. As such the proposal has been recommended for approval for the following reasons:

 

-    The proposed subdivision and future erection of a new dwelling will continue and better complete the desired streetscape along Ferguson Street.

 

-    Surrounding lots follow a similar pattern of subdivision and have had dwelling house developments approved and constructed demonstrating that Council can be satisfied that future development can also be consistent with the scale and form of other developments and that do not have any significant adverse impact on local amenity.

 

-    The proposal will contribute to the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form given that the subdivision will provide additional land to Council for required road widening in accordance with Part B11 of the RDCP and eventual kerb and guttering of Ferguson Street.

 

Figure 4. Existing Ferguson Street frontage of the subject site.

 

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 objectives of the Minimum Subdivision Lot Size (Clause 4.1 of the RLEP 2012), the proposal will not result in any significant additional adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties, will not impact upon any existing cultural or heritage features and allows for suitable development to occur on the new lot.

 

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

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the Minimum Subdivision Lot Size standard of the RLEP 2012. The relevant objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (Zone R2 –Low Density Residential) are:

 

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

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

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

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

• To protect the amenity of residents.

• To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

In respect of these objectives, the proposal is not inconsistent with the relevant zone objectives in that:

 

-      The proposal will provide for the housing needs of the community through the creation of an additional lot.

-      The subdivision will contribute to the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form along Ferguson Street.

-      The amenity of residents in the vicinity and the broader context of the area will not be adversely impacted by the subdivision and subsequent development.

 

In addition, the proposed development is also consistent with the objectives of Part B11 of the DCP as the proposal will facilitate road widening and streetscape improvement along Ferguson Street and will allow for a residential dwelling fronting Ferguson Street to be constructed subject to a future application.

 

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

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

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

Comments:

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

 

Variation from the adherence to the Minimum Subdivision Lot Size on this occasion is considered to be of benefit to the orderly use of the site and there is a no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance.

 

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

 

3.       Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013

 

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

 

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

 

3.1    Section C1: Low Density Residential

 

DCP Clause

Controls

Proposal

Compliance

 

Classification

Zoning = R3

Complies.

2

Site planning

 

 

2.1

Minimum lot size and frontage

 

Minimum lot size (RLEP):

·    R2 = 400sqm

·    R3 = 325sqm

400sqm

No. See key issues for further discussion.

2.4

Landscaping and permeable surfaces

 

i) Up to 300 sqm = 20%

i) 301 to 450 sqm = 25%

ii) 451 to 600 sqm = 30%

iii)   601 sqm or above = 35%

iv)   Deep soil minimum width 900mm.

v) Maximise permeable surfaces to front

vi)   Retain existing or replace mature native trees

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

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

Lot 1 post-subdivision will include 32.5% of deep soil permeable area. Lot 2 currently has no structures on site.

Complies.

4

Building design

4.2

Additional Provisions for symmetrical semi-detached dwellings

 

i)     Enhance the pair as coherent entity:

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

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

ii)     Constructed to common boundary of adjoining semi

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

 

The proposed hardstand car space will not significantly impact upon the character of the adjoining semi. No changes are proposed to the front façade of the existing dwelling.

Satisfactory.

6

Car Parking and Access

6.1

Location of Parking Facilities:

 

 

 

i)   Maximum 1 vehicular access

ii)   Locate off rear lanes, or secondary street frontages where available.

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

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

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

Double width if:

-    Frontage >12m,

-    Consistent with pattern in the street;

-    Landscaping provided in the front yard.

v)  Minimise excavation for basement garages

vi)  Avoid long driveways (impermeable surfaces)

1 Vehicular access.

 

Located forward of the front façade with no alternative options existing.

Complies.

6.2

Parking Facilities forward of front façade alignment (if other options not available)

 

i)   The following may be considered:

-    An uncovered single car space

-    A single carport (max. external width of not more than 3m and

-    Landscaping incorporated in site frontage

ii)   Regardless of the site’s frontage width, the provision of garages (single or double width) within the front setback areas may only be considered where:

-    There is no alternative, feasible location for accommodating car parking;

-    Significant slope down to street level

-    does not adversely affect the visual amenity of the street and the surrounding areas;

-    does not pose risk to pedestrian safety and

-    does not require removal of significant contributory landscape elements (such as rock outcrop or sandstone retaining walls)

Uncovered single width carspace.

 

No alternative options existing.

 

Will not significantly affect amenity of surrounding properties or pedestrian safety.

 

Removal of tree has been assessed by council’s development engineer as being acceptable.

Complies.

6.3

Setbacks of Parking Facilities

 

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

ii)   1m rear lane setback

iii)  Nil side setback where:

-    nil side setback on adjoining property;

-    streetscape compatibility;

-    safe for drivers and pedestrians; and

-    Amalgamated driveway crossing

 

700mm proposed setback of hardstand car space from northern side boundary. Acceptable as will not result in impacts on surrounding properties.

Satisfactory.

6.4

Driveway Configuration

 

Maximum driveway width:

-    Single driveway – 3m

-    Double driveway – 5m

Must taper driveway width at street boundary and at property boundary

 

3m wide driveway proposed.

Complies.

6.7

Hardstand Car Space Configuration

 

i)   Prefer permeable materials in between concrete wheel strips.

ii)   2.4m x 5.4m minimum dimensions

 

Hardstand of width 3m and length 5.2m.

Satisfactory. See engineering referral for further discussion.

 

3.2    Section B11: Development in Laneways Nominated for Road Widening

 

DCP Clause

Controls

Proposal

Compliance

 

Notwithstanding minimum RLEP 2012 lot size and minimum DCP frontage, the subdivision of land for a dwelling house fronting a nominated laneway may be permitted having regard to the following criteria:

i)   The merits of the proposal and compliance with the objectives of this DCP; and

ii)  The dedication to Council of a strip of land 4.57m in depth along the frontage of the lane for road widening purposes.

Proposed subdivision complies with the objectives of the DCP and has been considered to be acceptable in this instance.

Satisfactory. See key issues for further discussion.

4.         Referral Comments

 

Development Engineering

Council’s development engineer has provided the following comments:

 

An application has been received for a hardstand carpark space at the front of the existing dwelling as well as a proposed Torrens Title Subdivision of the Lot with the new Lot (Lot 2) fronting Ferguson Street.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Architectural Plans by Urban Future dated 24 Apr 2018;

·      Statement of Environmental Effects by Urban Future;

·      Survey Sketch by S J Dixon Surveyors.

 

Drainage Comments

Due to the small size of the propose new Lot fronting Ferguson Street (211.8sqm) Development Engineering has not included a Restriction on Use for the proposed rear Lot which would require on-site detention.

 

Car space Comments

Car space Length

In an ordinary Council meeting on the 24th July 2007 Council passed a resolution that;

 

(a) Councillors resolve not to use call up powers for a development application on the

sole basis of a residential car parking space where the space does not comply

with Australian Standard AS 2890.1 Parking Facilities or has a length of at least 5

metres, whichever is lesser; and

 

(b) Council not rely on the minimum dimension for open car spaces detailed in the

Parking and Single Dwelling DCP and assess all the current and future

Development Applications against the Australian Standard or a minimum length

of 5 metres, whichever is the lesser.

 

A site inspection by Council’s Development Engineer has revealed that the distance from the front of the building to the front property alignment in Robey Street is approximately 5.20m. This is greater than the 5.0m minimum requirement specified above and hence the proposed car space is supported by Development Engineering.

 

Tree Management Comments

The inspection of 22 May 2018 confirmed that there are no objections to removing the 5m tall Banksia serrata (Saw Tootehd Banksia) located centrally in the front setback of the subject site so as to accommodate the new vehicle crossing and internal hardstand in this same area as shown, with the relevant consent for this provided.

 

In the rear yard of the subject site, along the southern boundary, there is an 8-9m tall Olea europaea (Olive), which is an exotic species of low landscape value, which will be in direct conflict with the indicative footprint of the new dwelling to be constructed following sub-division, with there being no objections raised to its removal as part of any future DA for the actual physical works in this same part of the site.

 

Beyond the southern site boundary, located wholly in the rear setback of the adjoining private poroperty at no.91, hard up against the common boundary, there is a mature, 10m tall Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) of good health and condition, which is covered by Council’s DCP.

 

Its crown assists with environmental amenity in the immediate area, and would be of even greater benefit to the neighbor/tree owner upon completion of the new dwelling as shown, as this would prevent direct overlooking into their area of private open space.

 

While no physical works are proposed in this part of the site for this specific application, an advisory condition has still been imposed stating that as Council has a common law responsibility to ensure this tree is not affected in anyway by future works, it will need to be viewed as a site constraint, with any future plans needing to be designed accordingly.

 

In this regard, the submission of supporting information (Arborists Report) with the future DA, must detail the findings of root mapping (with photos) that was performed within the subject site, in the area of the proposed footprint/works, as this will assist Council in determining the likely impacts on its health.

 

Conditions relevant to the above referral have been included in the development consent.

 

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 minimum subdivision lot size development standard in Clause 4.1 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/252/2018 for the Torrens Title subdivision of existing lot into 2 lots with one lot containing existing dwelling, land dedication on Ferguson Street frontage and construction of hardstand car park space to front of existing dwelling at No. 89 Robey Street, Maroubra subject to the development consent conditions attached to this report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Development Consent Conditions (general) - DA/252/2018 - 89 Robey Street, Maroubra

 

 

 

 


Development Consent Conditions (general) - DA/252/2018 - 89 Robey Street, Maroubra

Attachment 1

 

 


Randwick Local Planning Panel                                                                        13 September 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D71/18

 

Subject:             171 Todman Avenue, Kensington (DA/618/2017)

Folder No:                   DA/618/2017

Author:                   William Jones, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Alterations and additions to an existing residential flat building including 2 new studio apartments at the 4th level, and increased size of the living rooms including additional bedrooms for units 1, 4 and 7, and new glass balustrades for units 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9.

Ward:                     West Ward

Applicant:                Hosking Munro Architects

Owner:                        Gross Holdings Pty Ltd, Mr T S Gross, Tom Gross Nominees Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

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 development standard for building height by more than 10% and the development is subject to the State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65).

 

The proposal seeks development consent for alterations and additions to an existing residential flat building including 2 new studio apartments at the 4th level, and increased size of the living rooms including additional bedrooms for units 1, 4 and 7, and new glass balustrades for units 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9.

 

The proposal was notified and advertised in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP). Eight submissions were received raising concerns with excessive bulk and scale, non-compliant building height, overshadowing, non-compliant car parking, and visual amenity, privacy and acoustic impacts.

 

The proposal contravenes the height of buildings development standard under Clause 4.3 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP) by 12.6% and a request under Clause 4.6 for exception to a development standard has been submitted by the applicant. The Clause 4.6 request is not acceptable as the proposal is not in accordance with key objectives of the height of buildings development standard and the R3 Medium Density Residential zone with regards to being inconsistent with the desired future character of the locality and impacts upon residential amenity.

 

The key issues relate to the non-compliant building height and the additional bedrooms and living area for units 1, 4 and 7 resulting in reduced amenity for occupants. The existing building is 4 storeys, which is consistent with other medium density development within the streetscape. The proposed studio dwellings will result in a 5 storey building that will be prominent from the street and will impact the visual amenity of surrounding properties, the heritage item opposite the site and nearby heritage conservation area along Doncaster Avenue. Due to non-compliances with the height of building standard pursuant to the RLEP and with the maximum permitted wall height specified by the RDCP, the proposal is inconsistent with the desired future character of the locality.

 

The additional bedrooms and living areas is accommodated by reducing the balcony sizes for units 1, 4 and 7, which does not comply with the minimum private open space requirements specified by the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) for 2 bedroom apartments. As a result of the additional bedrooms, the 2 bedroom apartments do not comply with the minimum apartment size specified by the Apartment Design Guide and the new bedrooms do not comply with minimum bedroom sizes. These concerns in conjunction with the existing non-compliant 2.4m high ceilings will result in reduced amenity for occupants.

 

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

 

Proposal

 

The proposal seeks development consent for alterations and additions to an existing residential flat building including 2 new studio apartments at the 4th level, and increased size of the living rooms including additional bedrooms for units 1, 4 and 7, and new glass balustrades for units 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9.

 

Specific works include:

·      Addition of 2 new studio dwellings on at the fourth floor, resulting in a 5 storey building.

 

·      Partial enclosure of rear-facing balconies to units 1, 4 and 7 to include additional living area.

 

·      Internal reconfiguration of units 1, 4 and 7 to include an additional bedroom (resulting in these units becoming 2 bedroom apartments).

 

·      New balustrading to front-facing balconies.

 

·      Provision of 2 new car parking spaces at the rear of the site.

 

·      Landscaping and associated site works.

 

Figure 1. 3D perspective drawing.

 

Figure 2. Existing unit 1 floor plan.

 

 

Figure 3. Proposed additions to existing unit 1 (the same additions for units 4 and 7).

 

Site Description and Locality

 

The subject site is identified as 171 Todman Avenue, Kensington and is legally described as lot 157 Sec 1 in DP 2822. The site has an area of 877.8m2, is rectangular in shape and has 19.2m frontage to Todman Avenue to the north. The site is flat with minimal vegetation and comprises a 4 storey residential flat building approved in 1979 that contains 6 x 2 bedroom units and 3 x 1 bedroom units, with 12 at-grade car parking spaces (as per original approved drawings).

 

The site is located to the west of the Royal Randwick Rececourse and to the east of Anzac Parade. The site is located outside of the Kensington Centre precinct as identified by the RDCP, which is located to the west. Adjoining development comprises a two storey residential flat building to the east, 4 storey residential flat building to the south and a 2 storey single dwelling to the west. Predominantly 4 storey older-style residential flat buildings exist along Todman Avenue as part of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone, and Kensington Public School is located opposite the site to the north.

 

The subject building is not a heritage item and is not located within a Heritage Conservation Area, however a Heritage Conservation Area exists to the east along the eastern side of Doncaster Avenue and the Kensington Public School opposite the site is identified as a local heritage item pursuant to the RELP, with other nearby heritage items located to the west and south-west of the site.

Figure 4. Subject site and adjoining development looking south-west.

 

Figure 5. Subject site and adjoining development looking south-east.

 

Relevant history

 

·      The subject DA was lodged on 6 October 2017. An initial request for additional information was sent to the applicant requesting the height of the new studio dwellings to be reduced as far as practicable. The applicant advised that the height could not be reduced in order to maintain adequate ceiling heights.

 

·      Following receipt of comments from Council’s Design Excellence Panel (DEP), a formal request for additional information was submitted to the applicant dated 16 February 2018 requesting:

 

-    1.8m high privacy screens be provided to the sides of the studio dwelling’s POS to assist Council in assessing the bulk and scale of the development;

-    a reduction in the size of the studio balconies to reduce bulk where possible for consideration;

-    assessment against the relevant controls related to the proposed decreased balcony sizes of the existing units;

-    shadow diagrams at hourly intervals ensuring surrounding buildings are shown with RLs and window locations;

-    better articulation of the western and eastern elevations of the studios and better integration with the existing building in terms of materials noting the potential impacts of the additional bulk proposed as viewed from the street and nearby heritage conservation area;

-    improved roof design to address the non-compliant ceiling height;

-    a 3D perspective drawing to assist Council in assessing the bulk and scale of the development; and

-    consideration of additional overall building upgrades and improved landscaping as per the DEP advice.

 

·      The applicant provided revised drawings in response to the concerns raised by Council. Notably, the studio dwelling's balconies were reduced in size and privacy screening illustrated, and a revised roof and improved articulation to the studios was provided. A 3D perspective was also submitted and justification for the reduced balcony sizes to the other units.

 

The revised drawings and additional information assisted Council in assessing potential impacts, in particular impacts to the streetscape in terms of bulk and scale. Despite the amendments, the proposal is considered to result in adverse additional bulk when viewed from the street and is not in accordance with the desired future character of the area (refer to Key Issues and Detailed Assessment sections of the report below).

 

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:

 

·      169 Todman Avenue, Kensington

·      2/83 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington

·      3/81 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington

 

Issue

Comment

Shadows should be shown across the roof and solar panels of 169 Todman Avenue.

The proposed development complies with the numerical standards provided in the RDCP with regards to solar access. Notwithstanding, the additional overshadowing caused by the non-compliant building height is unnecessary and the DA is recommended for refusal.

Inadequate documentation submitted with the DA for assessment purposes as required by Council’s DA lodgement checklist.

Adequate information was submitted for assessment purposes. Notwithstanding, the DA is recommended for refusal due to concerns raised throughout this report.

Non-compliant ceiling height.

Noted.

Non-compliant wall height.

Noted.

The bathroom is not shown with a floor waste trap, which would subsequently require a reduction in the 2.4m ceiling height of the unit below. There is the possibility of an increased building height as a result of the detailed design after DA approval, which will also need to take account detailed roof design and waterproofing, structural support etc. This will then require retrospective approval from Council.

Noted.

Privacy and acoustic impacts to 169 Todman Avenue.

Noted. Privacy impacts will occur from the balconies where privacy screening has not been provided. Acoustic impacts are not expected to occur however due to the proposed residential use of the building.

Concerns with whether the proposed car parking can be incorporated. Additional car parking must be provided considering congestion on Todman Avenue.

Compliant car parking can be provided (refer to Referrals section below).

Reduced outlook to the sky from upper storey windows of 169 Todman Avenue.

There will be no impacts to key iconic views or views with a land and water interface. Notwithstanding, the DA is recommended for refusal due to concerns raised throughout this report.

Undesirable precedent.

Noted.

Removal of a tree to accommodate car parking will result in reduced visual amenity from 169 Todman Avenue.

No tree removal is proposed.

Potential loss of permeable site area due to need for additional car parking.

The additional car parking is proposed as permeable.

The proposal is out of character with surrounding development and will impact heritage items and the heritage conservation area.

Noted.

Bulk and scale is inconsistent with the streetscape. There are no 5 storey buildings in the street.

Noted.

 

Key Issues

 

Clause 4.6 – Exception to Development Standard

The proposal seeks to vary a development standard contained within the RLEP. A Clause 4.6 exception has been submitted to Council. Pursuant to Clause 4.3 of the RLEP, the height of buildings must not be more than 12m on the site. A 13.64m maximum building height is proposed (measured to the top of the proposed studio dwellings).

 

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

Development Standard

12m

Proposed building height

13.64m (measured to the top of the studio dwellings)

Exceedance of the Development Standard

12.6%

 

The applicant has submitted a Clause 4.6 exception request. The exception has been discussed in the detailed assessment section of this report. In summary, the exception has been considered with respect to the provisions of Clause 4.6 and is not accepted on the grounds that:

 

·      The proposal is not in accordance with the objectives of Clause 4.3 height of buildings development standard as the development will result in adverse amenity impacts to adjoining properties with regards to visual bulk.

 

·      The proposal is not in accordance with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone as the development is inconsistent with the desired future character of the locality and will result in adverse amenity impacts to residents.

 

Non-compliances with the Apartment Design Guide

 

·      Visual Privacy: The east-facing balconies will be setback approximately 6.5m to the habitable room windows of the adjoining residential flat building to the east, which does not comply with the minimum building separation requirement (9m) for visual privacy. Privacy screening would add to additional visual bulk, which in conjunction with the studio additions, would not be supported due to visual amenity impacts on the eastern property.

 

·      Apartment Layout: Units 1, 4 and 7 (2 bedrooms & 1 bathroom) are 68m2 in size, which does not comply with the minimum 70m2 requirement.

 

·      Bedroom Size: The new bedrooms for units 1, 4 and 7 are 8.5m2 and have a minimum dimension of 2.5m, which does not comply with minimum requirements (9m2 and 3m minimum width).

 

·      Living Room Size: The new living rooms for units 1, 4 and 7 have minimum widths of 2m, which does not comply with the minimum 4m requirement for 2 bedroom apartments.

 

·      Habitable Room Depths: The living rooms for units 1, 4 and 7 have a maximum habitable room depth of 6.5m (6m maximum permitted). The living rooms for the 2 studio dwellings have a maximum habitable room depth of 7.2m (6.75m maximum permitted).

 

·      Open Space: Due to the partial enclosure of the single balcony for each unit, 2 smaller balconies result that are 4.1m2 and 3.1m2 with a minimum dimension of 1.5m respectably, which does not comply with the minimum requirements for 2 bedroom apartments (10m2 and 2m minimum dimension).

 

·      Storage: Additional storage is not provided for the 2 new studio dwellings, which does not comply with the minimum 4m3 requirement.

 

Amenity Impacts – Private Open Space

Due to the partial enclosure of the single balcony for each unit, 2 smaller balconies result that are 4.1m2 and 3.1m2 with a minimum dimension of 1.5m respectably, which does not comply with the requirements of the ADG (10m2 and 2m minimum dimension).

 

Although the existing balconies do not meet the minimum dimension for a 1 bedroom apartment (2m), they have an area of approximately 17m2, which exceeds the minimum area requirement (8m2). The existing balconies are therefore adequate to support the private open space (POS) needs of occupants.

 

The proposed additional bedroom for units 1, 4 and 7 in conjunction with the additional size of the living area results in the need for additional private open space as specified by the ADG for 2 bedroom apartments. The proposed balconies are not sufficient to support the required POS for a 2 bedroom apartment. Compliant POS is required to ensure adequate amenity is provided, which is particularly important considering the existing minimal 2.4m high ceilings. A reduction in size of the POS for these units is subsequently not supported and a new DA is required to address these concerns.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

That the application for alterations and additions to an existing residential flat building including 2 new studio apartments at the 4th level, and increased size of the living rooms including additional bedrooms for units 1, 4 and 7, and new glass balustrades for units 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 be refused for the following reasons:

 

·      The variation request pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 relating to non-compliance with Clause 4.3 height of buildings is not supported as the proposed development is not in accordance with the relevant objectives of the height of buildings development standard and the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

 

·      Adequate regard has not been given to the design quality principles as part of the State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development.

 

·      Adequate regard has not been given to the objectives and design criteria as part of the Apartment Design Guide with regards to visual privacy, ceiling height of non-habitable rooms, apartment size, habitable room depths, private open space and provision of storage.

 

·      The proposed development does not comply with key design controls contained in the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 with regards to provision of bicycle parking, landscaped open space, building depth, integration with the existing building, external wall height and internal acoustic privacy.

 

·      The proposed development will result in adverse visual amenity impacts to surrounding properties.

 

·      The proposed development will result in unreasonable additional overshadowing of western and southern adjoining properties.

 

·      The proposed development will set an undesirable precedent within the streetscape that is inconsistent with the desired future character of the locality.

 

 


 

Detailed Assessment

1.         Section 4.15 matters for consideration

 

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

 

Section 4.15 ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

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

The proposed development is not in accordance with the State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development, or key development standards and objectives of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (see below).

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

Nil.

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

The proposal does not satisfy key objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (see table below).

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

The environmental impacts of the proposed development on the natural and built environment have been addressed in this report. The proposed development will result in adverse impacts on the built environment that will result in poor amenity for surrounding properties and an undesirable character for 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. However the site is not considered suitable for the proposed development.

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

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

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

The proposal does not promote the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone and accordingly, the proposal is not considered to be in the public interest.

 

2.         Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

2.1      State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPS)

 

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

The State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65) aims to promote quality design of Residential Flat Buildings. The proposed development is subject to SEPP 65 as it involves the substantial refurbishment of an existing residential flat building that is 4 storeys, which includes the provision of 2 new studio dwellings and increased gross floor area and additional bedrooms for units 1, 4 and 7.

 

The DA was referred to Council’s Design Excellence Panel (DEP) for advice concerning the design quality of the development. The DEP comments are provided below in regards to the Design Quality Principles of SEPP 65.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: Council’s Development Engineer advises that the proposed development will comply with the car parking rates specified by Part 3J of the ADG (which are the same as Council’s parking rates). Refer to Referrals section below.

 

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: Units 1, 4 and 7 do not comply with the minimum internal areas required by the ADG for 2 bedroom apartments.

 

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

 

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The ADG requires 2.7m floor to ceiling heights for habitable rooms and 2.4m for non-habitable rooms. The 2 studio dwellings are provided with 2.2m ceiling heights for non-habitable rooms, which does not comply.

 

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

(a) the design quality principles, and

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

 

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

 

(3) To remove doubt:

 

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

 

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

 

Clause 28 (2) of the SEPP requires the consent authority to take into consideration the advice received from a DEP and the design quality of the development when evaluated in accordance with the design quality principles, and the Apartment Design Guide. Council’s DEP have provided comments on the design quality principles below. An assessment against the ADG is provided after the DEP comments in response to the design quality principles.

 

Schedule 1 Design quality principles

 

Principle 1: Context and Neighbourhood Context

The design package doesn’t include any contextual analysis or consideration of the site’s position within a defined renewal corridor, captured in Council’s K2K strategy, and reflecting the investment by the State Government in the Light Rail along Anzac Parade. The existing building is typical of those found within this area of Kensington, in the block bound by Doncaster Avenue and Anzac Parade. Many of these buildings provide affordable housing within close proximity to public transport, services, employment and education.

 

The accompanying ADG Compliance Summary makes only a superficial reference to ‘context’ and fails to address any of the points noted above. The panel believes that any proposal on this site should reflect the changing nature of Kensington and the aspirations outlined by Council in their K2K strategy. For example, the provision of parking and quality of the landscape should underpin any plans to increase yield and height on the site.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposal does not positively contribute to the context. In particular the additional storey will result in a building that is not in keeping with the desired future character of the area as envisaged by the RLEP and RDCP due to non-compliances with building height and building envelope controls.

 

Principle 2: Scale and Built Form

The addition of the fifth floor (fourth of residential) appears to be placed on to the existing structure with limited consideration for the streetscape contribution or impact on the visual character of Todman Avenue. The rendered image depicts a flat and featureless western elevation that’s clearly visible from the street, roof line that seems incongruous with the existing building and surrounding properties, material palette that bares no relation to the existing brick facades, and visible balcony balustrade and privacy screen. This is reinforced further by the elevations (DA200), which indicated a raked roof that doesn’t appear to meet the minimum ceiling height (2.7m) for living spaces.

 

Furthermore, the roof addition exceeds the current 12.5m height control. Whilst this variation may be minor, there is an identifiable increase in overshadowing, particularly to the south-west in the morning. If these minor increases in height and impact are to be supported by the panel then there’s an expectation that the proposal meets the highest design standards and makes an overwhelmingly positive impact – this can be measured in terms of open space and landscape, streetscape character, or connectivity.

 

The additions to units 1, 4 and 7 include extending the living space to align with the two balconies, which will improve the internal amenity to these units with minimal impact on the privacy of overshadowing of the communal space.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposed height and resulting built form is excessive and is not supported due to adverse impacts on the character of the locality. The additional floor area and subsequently reduced balcony sizes is not supported as any increased floor area does not qualify reduced POS, resulting in poor internal amenity for occupants.

 

Principle 3: Density

The addition to two studio units in this location is appropriate, given the proximity to UNSW, Anzac Parade and the future Light Rail service.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: Although the existing building results in a lesser FSR than permitted, the additional storey is not considered an appropriate means to capitalise on the available additional FSR given the non-compliance with the building height standard. An improved overall redevelopment of the existing building is required as part of a new DA. 

 

Principle 4: Sustainability

Sustainability has not been addressed by the pre-DA package. There is the opportunity to through the renovation of the entire block, ground plane and landscaping to address many of the points below;

 

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

-     Sun-shading and or weather protection provided to suit orientation, particularly to the eastern and western elevations

-     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

-     Sufficient outdoor clothes drying areas have been shown on the drawings, provided a part of a revised Landscape Plan

-     On-site rainwater detention and storage should be considered – location shown

 

Assessing officer’s comment: It is considered that the DEP comments can be factored into an amended proposal as part of a new DA.

 

Principle 5: Landscape

A landscape plan has been prepared, however, the level of detail is not sufficient for a development application of this type. The panel is seeking further information on the following, which should be addressed by a qualified landscape architect;

 

-     Improve the quality of landscape around the site’s boundaries, in particular the primary street frontage. Drawings should indicate the extent of the planted zone.

-     Greater detail and resolution for the communal areas, including an proposals for outdoor seating, drying areas, storage or passive recreation.

-     Drawing EX100 shows a number of additional surface parking spaces along the southern boundary, which aren’t included in the approved plans. Unclear whether the application includes these additional spaces, and how why can be incorporated in the landscape plan

-     Consider the local landscape character and features within the streetscape, including species, spacing and planting

 

Assessing officer’s comment: It is considered that the DEP comments can be factored into an amended proposal as part of a new DA.

 

Principle 6: Amenity

Further analysis of the amenity impacts should include;

 

-     Access to the upper levels and whether the inclusion of a lift adjacent to internal stairs, running along Units, 1, 4 and 7, could be accommodated to bring the building up to standard the support the additional level

-     Privacy between the two proposed studios may be achieved through the design of the balcony rather than relying on a privacy screen that’s visible from the street

-     Bin store at the Todman Avenue frontage appears to be under-sized for a development of this scale and may be better integrated into the ground floor to avoid residents walking to the street frontage, whilst improving the streetscape interface.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: An additional level is not supported in the context of the subject DA due to the non-compliance with the height of buildings standard and resulting impacts on the character of the area. It is considered that the DEP comments related to bin storage can be factored into an amended proposal as part of a new DA.

 

Principle 7: Safety

The panel has reservations around the fire safety of the stair access to the proposed upper level of residential, as the advice received to date limits vertical circulation to three storeys when relying on stairs. This building includes the added complication of being elevated a level above ground to accommodate the parking. Further advice from a BCA consultant is required to address this point.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The applicant has since submitted evidence that compliance with the BCA with regards to fire safety can be achieved with the proposed extension to the existing staircase. Notwithstanding, the additional level is not supported.

 

Principle 8: Housing Diversity and Social Interaction

Not addressed directly, but could be satisfied by the current proposal, particularly if the design of the communal open space is addressed in the Landscape Plan.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: It is considered that the DEP comments can be factored into an amended proposal as part of a new DA.

 

Principle 9: Aesthetics

The panel has suggested that further analysis of the local context and best practice examples of residential flat buildings, particularly those using brick and masonry. The replacement of the existing brick balustrades with opaque glass may in fact erode the composition of the building and introduce a new material unnecessarily. Greater resolution of the roof addition is required, including the form, integration with the existing building, and materials.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The revised drawings do indicate better articulation and integration with the existing building, however this is not sufficient grounds for Council to support the variation to the height of buildings standard given the resulting bulk is not in accordance with the desired future character of the area.

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The panel doesn’t support the application in its current form and would like to see further design resolution in the roof addition, landscape plan and general amenity of the building. We welcome the opportunity to review the next iteration of the design.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: An improved overall redevelopment of the existing building is required as part of a new DA to address Planning and DEP concerns. 

 

Apartment Design Guide

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

 


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

ADG - Design Criteria

Proposal

Compliance

Communal and Public Open Space

Communal open space has a minimum area equal to 25% of the site (219.45m2).

 

 

 

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).

 

Objective 3D-1

An adequate area of communal open space is provided to enhance residential amenity and to provide opportunities for landscaping

 

In accordance with Figure 3D.3, the principal part of the communal and public open space is approximately 283m2 = 32%.

 

Communal open space will continue to receive >2 hours solar access.

 

Complies.

 

Deep Soil Zones

Deep soil zones are to meet the following minimum requirements:

Site Area

Minimum Dimension

Deep Soil Zone (% of site area)

For lots 650m2 – 1,500m2

3m

7% (61.4m2)

 

222.8m2 provided.

 

 

 

Complies.

 

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 25m (5-8 storeys)

9m

4.5m

 

The ground floor does not comprise dwellings, therefore only setbacks to the first, second, third and proposed additional fourth storey is assessed.

 

Buildings on adjoining properties were not illustrated on the submitted plans, therefore an accurate measurement cannot be calculated. Notwithstanding, the distance of surrounding buildings to their respective boundaries is measured based on aerial mapping.

 

Units 1, 4 and 7

 

As a result of the proposed additions to the living areas of units 1, 4 and 7, habitable room windows will be approximately 15m from the southern residential flat building, which complies. There are no new windows proposed on the western and eastern sides of the new living areas and therefore there will be no privacy impacts to adjoining properties to the west and east.

 

As the existing balconies are being reduced in size resulting in 2 new smaller balconies, the new balconies are assessed. The west-facing balconies will be setback approximately 10m to the habitable room windows of the adjoining single dwelling to the west, which complies, however will be setback approximately 6.5m to the habitable room windows of the adjoining residential flat building to the east, which does not comply.

 

New Studio Dwellings 1 and 2

 

As the proposed studios will become the fifth floor, there will be additional downward diagonal separation to the adjoining 2 storey developments to the east and west. Notwithstanding, based on the front elevations, building separation between habitable room windows is approximately 8m to the east and 8.8m to the west, which does not comply.

 

Does not comply.

Solar Access and Daylight

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

 

All apartments receive >2 hours solar access.

 

Complies.

 

Natural Ventilation

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

 

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

 

Cross-over apartment

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

 

Cross-through apartment

cross ventilating apartment on one level with two opposite aspects

 

All apartments are naturally cross ventilated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

Ceiling Height

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

·      Habitable Rooms – 2.7m

·      Non-habitable rooms – 2.4m

 

The existing units are provided with 2.4m high ceilings, which currently do not comply (this makes the provision of POS important to improve amenity). The proposed studios are provided with a 2.7m high ceiling to the living space, however the bathroom is provided with a 2.1m high ceiling, which does not comply with the minimum 2.4m requirement.

 

Does not comply.

 

Apartment Layout

Apartments are required to have the following minimum internal areas:

·      Studio - 35m2

·      1 Bedroom - 50m2

·      2 Bedroom - 70m2

·      3 Bedroom - 90m2

 

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

 

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

 

Master bedrooms have a minimum area of 10m² and other bedrooms 9m² (excluding wardrobe space).  Bedrooms have a minimum dimension of 3m (excluding wardrobe space).

 

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

 

·           3.6m for studio and 1 bedroom apartments.

·           4m for 2 and 3 bedroom apartments.

 

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

 

Only units 1, 4 and 7 and the proposed studios are assessed as no internal changes to other units is proposed.

 

Units 1, 4 and 7 (2 bedroom & 1 bathroom) = 68m2, which does not comply.

 

Studios 1 and 2 (1 bathroom) = 35.6m2, which complies.

 

All habitable rooms are provided with glazing that is >10% of the floor area.

 

 

 

 

The new bedrooms for units 1, 4 and 7 are 8.5m2 and have a minimum dimension of 2.5m, which does not comply.

 

 

The new living rooms for units 1, 4 and 7 have minimum widths of 2m, which does not comply. The living rooms for the studio dwellings have a minimum width of 4.4m, which complies.

 

Units 1, 4 and 7 do not comply.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does not comply.

 

 

 

 

Units 1, 4 and 7 do not comply.

Environmental Performance

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

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

Units 1, 4 and 7

 

The floor to ceiling heights are 2.4m, therefore a maximum room depth of 6m is permitted. The units are provided with open plan layouts whereby the room depth is <8m from a window, which complies. However the room depths are 6.5m, which does not comply.

 

New Studio Dwellings 1 and 2

 

The floor to ceiling heights are 2.7m, therefore a maximum room depth of 6.75m is permitted. The studios are provided with open plan layouts whereby the room depth is <8m from a window, which complies. However the room depths are 7.2m, which does not comply.

 

 

Does not comply.

Open Space

All apartments are required to have primary balconies as follows:

 

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

·      2 Bedroom – 10m2 (Minimum depth of 2m)

 

 

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

Units 1, 4 and 7

 

Due to the partial enclosure of the single balcony for each unit, 2 smaller balconies result that are 4.1m2 and 3.1m2 with a minimum dimension of 1.5m respectably, which does not comply.

 

New Studio Dwellings 1 and 2

 

9m2 balconies with a minimum dimension of 2m is proposed, which complies.

 

 

Units 1, 4 and 7 does not comply.

Common Circulation Space

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

 

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

 

The maximum number of apartments off a circulation core on a single level is 3. 

 

Complies.

Storage

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

·      Studio - 4m³

·      1 Bedroom - 6m³

·      2 Bedroom - 8m³

·      3 Bedroom - 10m³

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

 

An existing storage area is provided as part of the car parking area on the ground floor, which is considered sufficient for the existing apartments. However, additional storage is not provided for the 2 new studio dwellings, which does not comply.

 

The studio dwellings do not comply.

 

2.1.2   State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

 

The State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (SEPP ARH), provides a mechanism for the consent authority to consider whether the proposed development will result in a reduction in affordable housing on the subject site. Should it be determined that a reduction will occur, monetary contributions can be required as part of the development consent to go towards the provision of affordable housing. Although the subject DA is recommended for refusal, the applicant did not adequately address whether the SEPP ARH applies.

 

The subject residential flat building is not strata subdivided and therefore the SEPP ARH is potentially applicable to the proposal. As additional bedrooms and larger living areas are proposed for units 1, 4 and 7 it is considered that rental of these dwellings will become less affordable for tenants, and therefore monetary contributions could have been required.

 

The applicant was requested to address the SEPP ARH, who advised the following in an email dated 4 December 2017:

 

Clause 49 states it applies only to those buildings that were low-rental residential buildings as at 28 January 2000.

 

This building has never been a low-rental residential building. It is also not a boarding house.

 

There is nothing to prevent this building being strata subdivided.

 

The applicant’s response does not satisfactorily address whether or not the existing building is being used for affordable housing as a low-rental residential building. In accordance with Clause 47 Interpretation in Part 3 of the SEPP AFH, a low-rental residential building is defined as a building used as a residential flat building containing a low-rental dwelling. A Low-rental dwelling means a dwelling that (at any time in the 24 month period prior to the lodgment of a development application to which this Part applies) was let at a rental not exceeding the median rental level for that time (as specified in the Rent and Sales Report) in relation to a dwelling of the same type, having the same number of bedrooms and located in the same local government area.

 

As a Rent and Sales Report was not provided by the applicant it cannot be concluded that the development is not a low-rental residential building. Any future DA will need to adequately address the SEPP ARH in order for Council to determine whether monetary contributions are applicable.

 

2.2      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

 

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

 

The proposal is inconsistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposal does not contribute to the desired future character of the area and does not protect the amenity of residents.

 

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

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

0.9:1 (790.02m2)

0.83:1 (731.7m2)

Complies.

Height of Building (Maximum)

12m

13.64m measured from existing natural ground level beneath the existing slab of the ground floor to the roof of the proposed studio dwellings.

Does not comply.

Heritage Conservation

The consent authority must consider the effect of the proposal on the heritage significance of an item or heritage conservation area.

The subject site is within proximity to a Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) along Doncaster Avenue to the east and a local heritage item opposite the site. The excessive bulk and scale of the proposal will result in visual amenity impacts when viewed from the HCA and heritage item opposite the site and is not supported.

Does not comply.

 

Clause 4.6 – Exception to Development Standard

The proposal seeks to vary a development standard contained within the RLEP. A Clause 4.6 exception has been submitted to Council. Pursuant to Clause 4.3 of the RLEP, the height of buildings must not be more than 12m on the site. A 13.64m maximum building height is proposed (measured to the top of the proposed studio dwellings).

 

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

Development Standard

12m

Proposed building height

13.64m (measured to the top of the studio dwellings)

Exceedance of the Development Standard

12.6%

 

Clause 4.6 RLEP Request to Vary Development Standard

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

 

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

Pursuant to clause 4.6(3) of the RLEP, 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, 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