RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Randwick Local Planning Panel  Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

Thursday 11 October 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                                                                             11 October 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, 11 October 2018 at 1pm

 

 

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.

Urgent Business

Development Application Reports

D76/18         132-134 Alison Rd, Randwick (DA/617/2017)................................................................. 1

D77/18         928-930 Anzac Parade, Maroubra (DA/806/2017).......................................................... 39

D78/18         146 Carrington Road, Coogee (DA/106/2018).............................................................. 111

D79/18         138 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee (DA/84/2018)............................................................. 205

D80/18         54-56 Meeks Street, Kingsford  (DA/807/2017)............................................................ 245

D81/18         20 Glen Avenue, Randwick (DA/678/2017).................................................................. 313

D82/18         46 Dutruc Street, Randwick (DA/5/2018)..................................................................... 397

D83/18         216 Fitzgerald Avenue, Maroubra (DA/624/2018)......................................................... 455

Miscellaneous Reports

Nil    

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Kerry Kyriacou

Director City Planning


Randwick Local Planning Panel                                                                             11 October 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D76/18

 

Subject:                       132-134 Alison Rd, Randwick (DA/617/2017)

Folder No:                      DA/617/2017

Author:                          Jonathan Blackmore, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                       Alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building including new rear balconies for Units 3, 8 and 13 (variation to floor space ratio) (Heritage Item).

Ward:                             North Ward

Applicant:                      Biarchitects

Owner:                           The Owners - Strata Plan No. 90847

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 floor space ratio development standard by more than 10%.

 

Proposal

 

The applicant proposes alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building including new rear balconies for Units 3, 8 and 13 - located at the ground, first and second floors.

 

Revisions

After a review by Council’s senior building surveyor, Mr Peter James, the applicant was requested to address a fire safety matter resulting from the removal of rear access staircases to units 3, 8 and 13. A possible solution was suggested to the applicant which involved the relocation of the front doors of these units to within 6m of the top of the staircase.  The applicant supplied revised plans showing this change.

 

Significant processing delays occurred due to the applicant wishing to get strata approval for the proposed design change.

 

The revision was internal and did not require re-notification.

 

Site Description and Locality

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Alison Road close to its intersections with Botony Street and Church Street, and the rear of the site adjoins Tram Lane. The immediate context contains a variety of uses including residential flat buildings, older terrace-style dwellings, and detached single dwellings. The subject site is generally flat and contains a three storey brick art deco-style residential flat building, completed in 1939. The rear of the site contains a double garage and three parking spaces. A photograph of the rear of the site, being the general area of works, is below:    

 

20180419_134601

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Key Issues

 

Clause 4.6 – Floor Space Ratio

Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to Development Standard

Pursuant to Clause 4.4 of the RLEP, the floor space ratio for the site is 0.9:1. The proposal contravenes the standard as contained in Clause 4.4 of the RLEP 2012. The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

Existing

1.50:1

Proposal

1.51:1

Variation

0.61 or 67.8%

 

The additional gross floor space is to occupy an area within the north-western corner of the building currently uses as a service staircase for common vertical circulation.

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Deep Soil Area and Landscaping – Sub-Section 2.2.2

The proposal will result in deep soil area of 6.7%. The site has an existing deep soil area of 7.5%. The RDCP 2013 sets a minimum deep soil area of 25%.

 

The proposed non-compliance is not inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the RDCP 2013 and will result in no signficiant adverse impacts in terms of the amenity values of the area. The reduction in deep soil area on the site will not be significant or particularly noticable to the casual observer. The proposal will not reduce the deep soil area or landscaping within the site’s primary front yard and the landscaped appearance as viewed from the primary front will be unchanged. The proposed reduction in deep soil area results from the provision of balconies. The balconies will contribute useable outdoor space to the site and improve onsite residential amenity. Further, the balconies will not contribute significantly to stormwater runoff due to their open nature allowing water to drain to the ground below.

 

Side Setback – Sub-Section 3.4.2

The proposal involves an eastern side setback of 1.4m. The RDCP 2013 sets a minimum side setback of 2.5m.

 

The proposed non-compliance is not inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the RDCP 2013 and will result in no significant adverse impacts in terms of the residential amenity of neighbouring sites or the amenity values of the area. The non-compliance results from rear mostly open balcony structures which follow the existing eastern wall line of the building. The lightweight additions will not overdominate the neighbouring site or result in a signficaint loss of direct sunlight. Privacy can be preserved due to a condition recommending privacy screens to the raised balconies.

 


 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:            Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

That the application for alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building including new rear balconies for Units 3, 8 and 13 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

 

 

 

 


 

Detailed Assessment

1.         Section 4.15 Matters for Consideration

 

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

 

Section 4.15 ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

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

 

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

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

Nil.

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

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

 

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

No submissions were received. 

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

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

 

2.         Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

2.1        State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPS)


 

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

Pursuant to Clause 4 of the SEPP 65, the policy is deemed not to apply to the proposal as the proposal is not considered to be a substantial redevelopment or refurbishment of the existing building. 

 

2.2        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

The site is zoned R3 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 provide the housing needs of the community whilst enhancing the aesthetic character and protecting the amenity of the local residents.

 

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

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

0.9:1

1.51:1

No

Height of Building (Maximum)

12m

9.6m

Yes

 

Clause 4.6 RLEP Request to Vary Development Standard

The proposal seeks to vary a development standard contained within the RLEP. A Clause 4.6 exception has been submitted to Council.

 

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

 

Floor Space Ratio

Development Standard

0.9:1

Existing FSR

1.50:1

Proposed FSR

1.51:1

Excess Above the Standard

0.61 or 67.8%

 

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:

It is considered that the proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives of the development standard and strict compliance with the maximum FSR is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case in that the additional gross floor area is contained within the existing building envelope and will not result in any additional adverse impacts upon the amenity of adjoining properties.

 

The additional floor space is to occupy an area within the north-western corner of the building currently uses as a service staircase for common vertical circulation and therefore not considered gross floor area. This area and the proposed additional floor space are clouded within the snapshots of the plans below:

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 floor space ratio, the size and scale of the proposal remains compatible with the existing and desired future character of the locality.

 

The additional floor area will not result in any additional adverse impacts on the adjoining residential properties in terms of perceived bulk, scale, view loss, or a privacy reduction.

 

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 floor space ratio standard of the RLEP. The relevant objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out are:

 

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

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

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

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

•        To protect the amenity of residents.

•        To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

The proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant zone objectives in that:

 

        The proposal generally maintains the footprint of the building and additional gross floor area occupies an area used as common access stairs.

        The proposed addition has been designed to remain compatible with the bulk and scale of the development in the vicinity of the site to minimise the adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining neighbours.

        The proposed additional area provides more usable areas to meet the housing needs of the dwelling occupants.

        The proposed development does not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on the adjoining residential properties in terms of overshadowing and privacy impacts (as conditioned).

 

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 maximum floor space ratio on this occasion is considered to be of benefit to the orderly use of the site and there is a no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance.

 

The proposed development and variation from the 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.

 

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

Unchanged

N/A

 

Motor cycle requirements:

5% of car parking requirement.

Unchanged

N/A

4.

Bicycles

 

Residents:

1 bike space per 2 units

Visitors:

1 per 10 units

Unchanged

N/A

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

Unchanged. 

N/A

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 = 7.5%

Proposed = 6.7%

Non-compliant – refer key issues.

2.2.2

Deep Soil Area

 

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

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

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

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

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

Existing = 7.5%

Proposed = 6.7%

Non-compliant – refer key issues.

2.3

Private and Communal Open Space

2.3.1

Private Open Space

 

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.

Areas and dimensions exceed minimum requirements for new decks/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.

The site lacks a significant existing outdoor communal open space and the proposal will not alter this.

N/A

3

Building Envelope

3.1

Floor Space Ratio

 

0.9:1

 

Proposed = 1.51:1

Non-compliant refer clause 4.6 assessment.

3.2

Building Height

 

12m

Proposed = 9.6m

Complies

3.3

Building Depth

 

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

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

Building depth generally unaltered.

N/A

3.4

Setbacks

3.4.1

Front Setback

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

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

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

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

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

 Unchanged

N/A

3.4.2

Side Setback

 

Residential Flat Building

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

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

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

-     Create articulations to the building facades.

-     Reserve open space areas and provide opportunities for landscaping.

-     Provide building separation.

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

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

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

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

Proposed = 1.4m

Non-compliant – refer key issues

3.4.3

Rear Setback

 

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

Min. = 9.1m

Proposed = 9.63m

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 rear façade adequately addresses the rear laneway and enables casual surveillance.

Complies

4.3

Habitable roof space

 

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

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

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

-     Wholly contain habitable areas within the roof space.

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

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

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

No habitable roof space proposed.

N/A

4.4

External Wall Height and Ceiling Height

 

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

Unchanged

N/A

 

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

Unchanged

N/A

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.

The new balconies have areas of 14.2m2 and minimum dimensions of 3.1m.

Complies

 

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

Improvement for ground floor rear unit.

Complies

4.9

Colours, Materials and Finishes

 

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

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

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

-     Changes of colours and surface texture

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

-     The use of natural stones is encouraged.

(v)       Avoid the following materials or treatment:

-     Reflective wall cladding, panels and tiles and roof sheeting

-     High reflective or mirror glass

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

-     Large expanses of rendered masonry

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

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

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

Suitable level of detail provided. Compatible with existing building and context.

Complies

4.12

Earthworks Excavation and Backfilling

 

 (i)      Any excavation and backfilling within the building footprints must be limited to 1m at any point on the allotment, unless it is demonstrated that the site gradient is too steep to reasonably construct a building within this extent of site modification.

(ii)      Any cut and fill outside the building footprints must take the form of terracing following the natural landform, in order to minimise the height or depth of earthworks at any point on the site.

(iii)     For sites with a significant slope, adopt a split-level design for buildings to minimise excavation and backfilling.

Limited earthworks proposed.

Complies

5

Amenity

5.1

Solar access and Overshadowing

 

Solar Access for Proposed Development

 

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

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

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

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

Minimal impact on solar access to existing building.

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.

North-south site orientation and form/limited bulk of additions allows for compliant solar access to surrounding development.

Complies

5.2

Natural Ventilation and Energy Efficiency

 

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

Daylight provided to new internal areas.

Complies

 

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

N/A

N/A

 

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

Achieved for new habitable rooms

Complies

 

(iv)   All new residential units must be designed to provide natural ventilation to all habitable rooms. Mechanical ventilation must not be the sole means of ventilation to habitable rooms.

N/A

N/A

 

(v)    A minimum of 90% of residential units should be naturally cross ventilated. In cases where residential units are not naturally cross ventilated, such as single aspect apartments, the installation of ceiling fans may be required.

Cross ventilation unaltered.

N/A

 

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

Achieved for kitchens subject to proposed works.

Complies

 

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

N/A

N/A

5.3

Visual Privacy

 

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

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

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

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

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

-     Translucent glazing

-     Fixed timber or metal slats

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

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

Privacy screening required for the western side of first and second floor level balconies. Eastern side does not allow for overlooking of any sensitive uses. Laneway overlooking no different to existing situation.

Condition for compliance.

5.4

Acoustic Privacy

 

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

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

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

-     Double glazing

-     Operable screened balconies

-     Walls to courtyards

-     Sealing of entry doors.

Suitable layout to maximise acoustic privacy

Complies

5.5

View Sharing

 

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

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

(iii)       Where a design causes conflicts between retaining views for the public domain and private properties, priority must be given to view retention for the public domain.

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

(v)       Adopt a balanced approach to privacy protection and view sharing, and avoid the creation of long and massive blade walls or screens that obstruct views from the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

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

No view corridors are impeded.

Complies

7

Fencing and Ancillary Development

7.1

Fencing

 

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

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

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

-     Steel post and chain wire

-     Barbed wire or other dangerous materials

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

No new boundary fencing proposed. Timber fence proposed to ground floor deck of unit 3 – durable materials proposed.

Complies

 

4.         Referral Comments

 

Building Surveyor

Comments:

Rise of storeys – 3

Classification – Class 2 – Residential flat building

Type A construction.

 

Stormwater to be connected into the existing system.

 

There is a Fire Safety Schedule for the existing building.

 

I have no objection subject to the following conditions.

 

Development Engineering

 

General Comments

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

 

Strata Comments

There is an existing strata scheme on the site operating under Strata Plan (SP) 90847. The proposed alterations will result in changes to strata boundaries and inclusion of new balconies within the strata lots. It will essentially be a boundary adjustment between the existing strata lots 3, 8, 13 and common property in SP 90847.

 

This will require new strata plans to be prepared for the site and it is noted draft strata plans have been submitted with this application. It should be noted;

 

     Existing Strata Lot 3 in SP 90847 will become new Strata Lot 16 in the draft strata plans which includes all of previous strata lot 3 plus additional area (for deck) that is currently common property.

     Existing Strata Lot 8 in SP 90847 will become new Strata Lot 17 in the draft strata plans which includes all of previous strata lot 8 plus additional area (for deck) that is currently common property.

     Existing Strata Lot 13 in SP 90847 will become new Strata Lot 18 in the draft strata plans which includes all of previous strata lot 13 plus additional area (for deck) that is currently common property.

 

There are no objections to the proposed strata boundaries indicated in the draft strata plans from Development Engineering.

 

Parking Comments

There are no changes proposed to existing parking spaces and allocation, which will transfer through to the new strata lots.

 

Landscape Comments

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

Heritage Planner

 

The Site

The site is occupied by a three storey Art Deco residential flat building listed as a heritage item.  The building features a symmetrical face brick façade with deep balconies within projecting rounded bays and double hung windows.  The pitched tiled roof is concealed by a face brick parapet. 

 

To the west of the site at nos.126 – 130 Alison Road are “Verona”, “Amphion” and Donacis”, listed as heritage items under Randwick LEP 2102.  Further to the west, no.122 Alison Road is also listed as a heritage item.  The Randwick Heritage Study Inventory Sheet for nos.126 – 130 Alison Road identifies their significance as an “outstanding group of three grand style Italianate houses.  Very late examples of the style, not so common in the federation period.  Excellent streetscape contribution.” 

 

Background

DA/558/2014 proposed strata subdivision of the building and provision of additional carparking at the rear.  A Section 96 application proposed changes to the front and rear facades at ground floor level, including new glass doors and steps.  At the rear of the building at ground floor level, an existing window was replaced with a pair of glass doors. 

 

Proposal

The current application proposes changes to the rear of the building at ground first and second floor level.  A new rear deck is proposed to the north western corner of the building and the existing rear service stair in the north western corner of the building is to be removed.  The application includes associated changes to adjacent internal rooms and external openings. 

 

Submission

The application has been accompanied by a Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Brad Inwood Architects.  The HIS notes that apart from the rear garage, the footprint of the building has not altered substantially over time.  In terms of Impact of the Proposed Works, the HIA considers that as the new works are located at the rear of the site, the proposed works result in no impact to the main streetscape along Alison Road.  The HIS considers that the rear stairs do not any historical character of importance to the building.  The HIS considers that the rear terraces will be subservient to the main building.  The HIS notes that views to or from the heritage items are not affected, and that the public will still be able to appreciate the site. 

 

Controls

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

 

Clause 5.10 of Randwick LEP 2012 requires Council to consider the effect of a proposed development on the heritage significance of the heritage item or heritage conservation area. 

 

Randwick DCP 2013 includes Objectives and Controls in relation to Design and Character, Scale and Form, and Verandahs and Balconies.  In relation to Design and Character, the DCP includes a Control that street elevations and visible side elevations must not be significantly changed, with additions located to the rear or one side of the building to minimise impact on the streetscape.  In relation to Scale and Form, the DCP includes a Control that additions must not visually dominate, compete with or conceal the original form and massing of the existing buildings.  In relation to Verandahs and Balconies, the DCP includes a Control that additional verandahs must not compete with the importance of the original, and should be simple in design. 

 

Comments

Internal and external changes to rear

Interwar residential flat buildings commonly included a main stair at the front of the building and a rear stair (often external) providing access to laundries and clothes lines.  While the detailing of the main stair significantly contributes to the heritage value of such Interwar flat buildings, rear stairs are generally more simply detailed and comprise secondary building fabric.  In this case the rear stair is not for common use, but is accessible only to the rear units.  There is no consistency to the floor plans of the three rear units, with varying locations for kitchen, living and bedrooms areas. 

 

The existing service stair serves three levels.  At ground floor level this area is to be used as a store.  At first floor level the area is to be used as a study, with new doors from the adjacent dining area to the deck.  At second floor level the area adjacent to the deck is to comprise a kitchen, with new doors to the deck.  The rear elevation comprises plain predominantly double hung windows.  The proposed change to the rear façade affects a secondary elevation and will not be visible from the street.  The proposed internal and external changes to the rear will not affect significant building fabric. 

 

Rear balcony

The new decks, which is to be roofed at second floor level, is to have an area of around 14m2.  At ground level, it will extend an existing deck at the north east corner of the building.  The new deck will be located between the rear of the building and the rear garage.  The proposed deck will be attached to the secondary rear elevation and will have no visibility in the main Alison Road streetscape.  The proposed deck is simple in design and will not compete with the importance of the deep, curved brick balconies which characterise the front elevation.  The deck will not detract from the original architectural elements which define the streetscape presentation of the building. 

 

The colours and finishes which have been submitted with the development are satisfactory. 

 

Recommendation

    Existing unpainted surfaces, e.g. - brickwork/stonework are to remain unpainted, and no applied finishes are to be used.

 

 

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 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to floor space ratio, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality.

 

B.      That the 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. DA/617/2017 for alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building including new rear balconies for Units 3, 8 and 13, at No. 132-134 Alison Road, Randwick, subject to the development consent conditions attached to this report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

RLPP Development Consent Conditions (medium density residential) - DA/617/2017 - 132-134 Alison Road, Randwick

 

 

 

 


RLPP Development Consent Conditions (medium density residential) - DA/617/2017 - 132-134 Alison Road, Randwick

Attachment 1

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Randwick Local Planning Panel                                                                             11 October 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D77/18

 

Subject:                       928-930 Anzac Parade, Maroubra (DA/806/2017)

Folder No:                      DA/806/2017

Author:                          Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                       Demolition of existing structure, construction of part 3 part 6 storey shop-top housing development in 2 building forms with 23 dwellings, 4 commercial premises and 2 levels of basement car parking for 45 cars with associated works.

Ward:                             Central Ward

Applicant:                      Sgammotta Architects

Owner:                           Janlz Constructions

Summary

Recommendation:          Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 


 

Executive summary

 

The application is referred to the Randwick Local Planning Panel (RLPP) as the development is subject to the State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65).

 

The proposal seeks development consent for demolition of existing structure, construction of part 3 part 6 storey shop-top housing development in 2 building forms with 23 dwellings, 4 commercial premises, 2 levels of basement car parking for 45 cars with associated works.

 

The proposal was advertised and notified in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP). Seven submissions were received raising concerns with overshadowing, privacy impacts, the number of storeys, setbacks, safety concerns due to increased traffic and concerns with the number of bins required for waste collection.

 

The proposal complies with the height of buildings development standard under Clause 4.3 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP), and there is no maximum floor space ratio applicable to the site. The key issues relate to solar access to the proposed units and lack of deep soil landscaping in accordance with the requirements of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), as well as the maximum number of storeys permitted to the Anzac Parade frontage (maximum 5 permitted and 6 proposed).

 

With regards to solar access, 65.2% (15) of the 23 apartments receive at least 2 hours solar access between 9am and 3pm during the winter solstice, which does not comply with the 70% minimum required under the ADG. The non-compliance is acceptable considering the constrained east-west orientation of the site and the requirements of Part D4 of the RDCP 2013 relating to development in Maroubra Junction, which requires nil side boundary setbacks to maximise development potential thus limiting the ability to orientate balconies to the northern side boundary. The variation is supported given that all apartments will receive >2 hours solar access outside of the required hours specified by the ADG (being before 9am and after 3pm during 21 June, when most occupants will be at home).

 

With regards to deep soil landscaping, the ADG acknowledges that in certain circumstances, compliance cannot be achieved for sites in a commercial centre that are provided with ground floor retail. The proposed variation is therefore accepted considering the site is located within the Maroubra Junction Centre and ground floor commercial premises are proposed. Podium level landscaping is provided that satisfies minimum open space requirements and that is supported by Council’s Landscape Officer.

 

With regards to the maximum number of storeys, the uppermost level (6th storey) is suitably designed as a habitable roof, which does not detract from the character of the area or result in adverse amenity impacts to neighbouring properties. The proposed height and scale is compatible with the emerging character of the Maroubra Junction Centre, which complies with the maximum permitted building height pursuant to the RLEP.

 

Subsequently, the proposal is recommended for approval subject to the recommended conditions.

 

Proposal

Demolition of existing structure, construction of part 3 part 6 storey shop-top housing development in 2 building forms with 23 dwellings, 4 commercial premises, 2 levels of basement car parking for 45 cars with associated works.

 

Basement levels 1 & 2:

 

      Parking for 45 vehicles and other utilities/services such as rainwater tank, storage, waste, plant and equipment.

 


 

Ground level:

 

     Three commercial premises fronting Anzac Parade with entry lobby for residential premises.

     One commercial premises fronting Byng Lane with car park entry and entry lobby for residential premises.

     Loading bay and motorcycle parking, and storage / plant and waste storage rooms.

 

Level 1:

 

     8 apartments fronting Anzac Parade and Byng Lane.

     Podium level open space between front and rear building blocks (note: this area has been amended in line with the Design Excellence Panel (DEP) referral comments).

 

Level 2:

 

     8 apartments fronting Anzac Parade and Byng Lane.

 

Level 3:

 

     4 apartments fronting Anzac Parade.

     Roof with solar panels and lift overrun fronting Byng Lane.

 

Level 4:

 

      4 apartments fronting Anzac Parade.

 

Level 5:

 

      2 apartments fronting Anzac Parade as part of habitable roof.

 

Level 6:

 

      Roof fronting Plant Anzac Parade with lift overrun.

 

Figure 1. 3D perspective drawing as viewed from Anzac Parade.

 

Site Description and Locality

 

The subject site relates to two lots identified as No. 928 Anzac Parade (northern lot) and No. 930 Anzac Parade (southern lot). The two lots have a skewed rectangular shape orientated on an east west axis with a total site area of 1165sqm. The 21.94m western frontage along Anzac Parade narrows to the rear curved eastern frontage of 15.93m along Byng Lane. The side boundaries have considerable depths of 68.735m along the northern side and a 60.45m depth along the southern side boundary.

 

The northern lot (928 Anzac Parade) is occupied by an existing three storey shop top housing development containing two commercial premises at ground level and 8 x one bedroom units in the two levels above. No. 930 Anzac Parade is a two storey building containing commercial premises at both levels.

 

The site is adjoined to the immediate north by a single storey commercial premises at No 926A Anzac Parade. Adjoining the site to the south is No. 932 Anzac Parade occupied by single storey commercial premises.

 

The surrounding area to the north, south and west forms part of the wider Maroubra Junction Town Centre and the subject site sits one block off the main retail core of the Maroubra Junction on sites located in the B2 Local Centre zone.

 

The opposite side of Byng Lane to the east contains the rear of mostly residential premises that front Garden Street to the east and located in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

 

Figure 2. Aerial view of subject site (shaded green) and surrounding area. Blue shaded land is zoned B2 Local Centre, dark apricot shading represents R3 medium density residential zoned land and yellow shaded land is zoned Special infrastructure land (SP2).

 

Relevant history

 

DA/658/2003 approved the strata subdivision of the development into 8 strata lots. Note, conditions of consent required two of the 8 x one bedroom units to be rent capped for three years following registration of the strata plan.

 

SC/60/2004: endorsed the strata subdivision of the development. The applicant at the time did not register the endorsed subdivision plans which means that the units don’t appear to have been rent capped. An assessment against the SEPP Affordable rental housing 2009 is therefore carried out on the basis that the development at No. 928 Anzac Parade contains two low rental dwellings (2 bedrooms) lost because of the proposal.

 

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:

 

    5/912 Anzac Parade, Maroubra Junction

    144 Garden Street, Maroubra

    148 Garden Street, Maroubra

    142 Garden Street, Maroubra

    138 Garden Street, Maroubra

    140 Garden Street, Maroubra

    8 Haig Street, Maroubra

 

Issue

Comment

More green space is required rather than increased density. A smaller development with increased landscaping should be proposed.

The subject site does not currently comprise any landscaping. Sufficient landscaped open space is provided in accordance with the requirements of the Apartment Design Guide as part of the podium level that is supported by Council’s Landscape Officer.

Increased traffic, which is already congested, resulting in safety concerns particularly in the laneway which is already at capacity. The number of dwellings should subsequently be reduced.

Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the proposal and recommends approval subject to conditions. The proposal is not expected to result in safety concerns.

The minimum number of parking spaces should be increased.

The proposal complies with the required number of parking spaces pursuant to the parking rates stipulated by Council’s DCP.

New penalties for illegal parking should be introduced. Concerns with shopping trolleys and rubbish being left in the laneway.

This is not a matter for consideration pursuant to Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended).

Privacy impacts, particularly due to the east-facing balconies.

The proposal complies with visual privacy controls as part of the Apartment Design Guide with regards to achieving minimum building separation to eastern and western properties. Therefore, east-facing balconies will not result in adverse privacy impacts.

Loss of natural light and sunlight to eastern properties.

Based on the submitted shadow diagrams, surrounding residential development will continue to receive solar access in accordance with the RDCP.

Concerns with waste collection, with existing concerns with the number of bins within the laneway.

Council’s Waste Management Coordinator has reviewed the proposal and recommends approval subject to conditions, including the use of 5 x 660L bins rather than 13 x 240L bins in order to reduce the number of bins required to be presented in the laneway for collection. The bins will be contained within the 3m setback provided to the laneway for collection.

 

According to Council’s Development Engineer, the commercial bins will be collected from Anzac Parade.

ysThe 3m setback to the laneway is insufficient and should be increased to improve solar access and provide space for bin collection.

The 3m setback complies with the minimum setback required by the RDCP.

The DA notification plan does not show the double garage opposite the proposed vehicular entrance. It is not clear whether there is sufficient room for manoeuvrability into and out of the existing garage.

Only manoeuvrability into and out of the subject site is assessed as part of the subject DA and not access to other properties. Council’s Development Engineer has assessed the proposal and notes that there will be no significant increase to traffic within the laneway. Therefore, it is expected that the proposal will not adversely impact the manoeuvrability of vehicles into other sites as per the existing situation.

The building fronting the laneway should be reduced to 2 levels.

3 storeys is proposed which complies with the maximum permitted number of storeys fronting the laneway pursuant to the RDCP, and the maximum permitted building height pursuant to the RLEP.

 

Key Issues

 

Apartment Design Guide under SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development

This part of the report contains the key elements of non-compliance to the ADG design criteria controls and includes a merits based assessment against the design guidance provided for in the Apartment Design Guide. Where relevant reference is also made to controls and or objectives under Part D4 of the RDCP 2013 relating to development in Maroubra Junction.

 

    3E-1          Deep Soil Zones             

         

The proposed development does not provide any deep soil and does not meet the 7% minimum ADG requirement. However, the ADG states that achieving the design criteria may not be possible on some sites including where:

 

    The location and building typology have limited or no space for deep soil at ground level (e.g. central business district, constrained sites, high density areas, or in centres).

    There is 100% site coverage or non-residential uses at ground floor level. Where a proposal does not achieve deep soil requirements, acceptable stormwater management should be achieved and alternative forms of planting provided such as on structure.

 

The proposed development and applicable envelope and site coverage controls for the site under the RDCP generally fit into the circumstances identified above having particular regard to the site being located in The Maroubra Junction urban town centre, the RDCP requires commercial uses at ground level and allows for open space to be located at podium level.

 

Although deep soil isn’t provided, the proposal provides landscaped open space area at podium level which have been amended as suggested by the Design Excellence Panel. Rainwater tanks have also been added in the basement for irrigation of communal landscaped area contributing to sustainability of the development.

 

    3F-1 Visual Privacy                 

 

For the purposes of privacy, the ADG requires building separation of 6m from side boundaries. However, this is impossible to accommodate without sterilising development of the site. Moreover, a 6m side setback is in conflict with the urban design provisions for the Maroubra Junction Town Centre provisions in Part D4 of the RDCP which sets out the envelope and building development controls for the subject site. Specifically, the RDCP requires zero lot alignments at side boundaries, nil setback along the Anzac Parade frontage and 3m from the Byng Lane boundary. The proposed development is compliant with these provisions. More importantly, the proposed development is appropriately designed whereby privacy impacts on neighbouring properties is appropriately minimised ensuring adequate levels of visual privacy for occupants within the development and neighbouring properties.

 

    4A   Solar and Daylight Access                  

 

The proposed development has 65.2% (15) of the 23 apartments providing at least 2 hours of solar access between 9am and 3pm during the winter solstice and does not comply with the 70% minimum required under the ADG. The ADG states that achieving the minimum design criteria may not be possible on some sites and that the proposal is required to demonstrate how site constraints and orientation preclude meeting the design criteria and how the development meets the objective. In this respect, the ADG states that Solar and daylight access are important for apartment buildings, reducing the reliance on artificial lighting and heating, improving energy efficiency and residential amenity through pleasant conditions to live and work.

 

The applicant has demonstrated that despite not meeting the ADG design criteria, 100% of apartments will have 2hrs of direct solar access to living areas between 8am and 4pm during the winter solstice which is an hour earlier and later than the ADG time line. In terms of living and working conditions, the earlier and later times would generally correlate with times when working people are most active at home.

 

It is also considered that the east-west orientation of the site constrains the ability of development that aligns with the RDCP control provisions for depth and building bulk to receive solar access during 9am to 3pm. The site is also more constrained at the rear due to south easterly direction of the Byng Lane frontage. It is also important to consider that for a more direct east-west configured site that at least 69.2% of apartments would receive the required level of solar access which is considered a negligible shortfall to the 70% required under the ADG.

 

The applicant also incorporates design measures maximising solar access including

 

    Shallow depth apartments which optimises direct sunlight to habitable rooms and balconies, ensuring at least 2 hours of direct solar access between 8am and 10am.

    The front building has a shallower building depth than that permitted under the RDCP, which will maximise solar access to the internal courtyard facing apartments as well as future development of the southern property.

    Reconfigured internal layout of several apartments orientating living rooms where they will receive more solar access.

    Conversely, the proposed development does not have any apartments that do not receive solar access which is greater than 15% maximum permitted under the ADG.

 

The proposed development also provides greater levels of energy efficiency by including roof photovoltaic cells and rainwater tanks to irrigate landscaped open space at the podium level.

 

Given the above circumstances, it is considered that the design guidance provided in the ADG is satisfied as there are sufficient reasons for not meeting the minimum percentage of apartments required to receive at least 2hrs of solar access between 9am and 3pm during the winter solstice and 100% of apartments will received solar access between 8am and 4pm.

 

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 demolition of existing structure, construction of part 3 part 6 storey shop-top housing development in 2 building forms with 23 dwellings, 3 retail shops, 2 levels of basement carparking for 45 cars with associated 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 as amended and conditioned is consistent with the objectives in SEPP 65 and the design guidance contains in the Apartment Design Guide (ADG).

 

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

 

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

 

o    Reconfiguration of units to improve solar access.

o    Rearrangement of podium level and improvement to landscaping.

o    Short depth of the front building to maximise solar access to the inside facing apartments.


 

Detailed Assessment

1.         Section 4.15 matters for consideration

 

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

 

Section 4.15 ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

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

See the relevant sections of this report.

 

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

Nil.

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

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

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

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

 

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

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

The proposed development 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 is 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

SEPP No. 65 aims to promote quality design of Residential Flat Buildings. The proposal is subject to the policy as it involves the development of a residential flat building being 3 storeys and more in height containing four or more dwellings. The proposal has been considered by Council’s Design Review Panel. The Panel’s comments are included in the referral comments section further below. 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. Any non-compliance to the design criteria includes a merits based assessment as per the design guidance of the Apartment Design Guide.

 

Apartment Design Guide (ADG)

 

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)

The proposed development will maintain direct access from Byng Lane.

Complies.

 

Where the street frontage is to the east or west, rear

buildings should be orientated to the north

The zero lot alignment along the north boundary which is generally required for the Maroubra Junction Town Centre does not allow orientation to the north.

Complies.

3B-2

Orientation

 

 

 

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

Solar access will be retained for 2 hours between 9am and 3pm during the winter solstice for 65.2% of the 23 units between 9am and 3pm during the winter solstice.

Does not comply – see key issues section of the report.

 

Solar access to living rooms, balconies and private open

spaces of neighbours should be considered – requires 6m setback

The southern neighbour at No. 932 Anzac Parade is a commercial single storey structure and not required to receive solar access. Notwithstanding, the proposed development contains shallower building depths than required which will ensure the future development potential of the southern lot will not be compromised by the shorter setback.

Does not comply, see assessment comment at left.

 

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%

 

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

minimums contained in section 3F Visual privacy

A side setback is not warranted given the predominant siting of development within the town centre and providing a setback from the side boundary would limit the development potential of the subject site and that envisaged within the Maroubra Junction Town Centre. Notwithstanding, adequate solar access is improved by virtue of the increased separation between the front and rear building.

See key issues section of report under orientation and visual privacy.

 

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 building is orientated 90 degrees from the property boundary and will comply with the ADG requirements.

Complies.

 

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

solar collectors on neighbouring buildings

The building will overshadow the roof of neighbouring building at 932 Anzac Parade however this is largely unavoidable as it is shadowing to a single storey commercial premises, which is under-developed based on the allowable number of storeys.  Notwithstanding, at least four hours will be afforded to portions of the roof of the neighbouring building throughout the winter solstice.

Yes.

3D-1

Communal and Public Open Space

 

 

 

Communal open space has a minimum area equal to

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

Complies.

 

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)

 

Complies.

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

No deep soil is provided.

See key issues section of report.

 

 

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 separation between the proposed buildings is compliant.

 

The side setbacks don’t comply.

 

 

 

Partial compliance. See key issues section.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

Complies with the RDCP provisions. 

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.

Does not comply see key issues section. 

 

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

All apartments will receive some direct solar access.

Complies.

4B

Natural Ventilation

 

 

 

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

73.05%

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.

 

Note: Block 12 controls only require one level of commercial and residential above.

2.7 metre floor to ceiling heights for habitable rooms.

Complies.

4D

Apartment Size and Layout

 

 

 

Apartments are required to have the following minimum internal areas:

 

Apartment Type

Minimum Internal Area

Studio

35m2

1 bedroom

50m2

2 bedroom

70m2

3bedroom

90m2

 

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

Complies.

 

Habitable room depths are limited to a maximum of

2.5 x the ceiling height

Complies.

 

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

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

Complies.

 

Master bedrooms have a minimum area of 10m2 and

other bedrooms 9m2 (excluding wardrobe space)

Bedrooms will achieve the minimum area requirements in 9m2 and 10m2, respectively.

Complies.

 

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:

    3.6m for studio and 1 bedroom apartments

    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

Complies.

4E

Private open space and balconies

 

 

 

All apartments are required to have primary balconies as follows:

 

Dwelling Type

Minimum Area

Minimum Depth

Studio Apt.

4m2

-

1 bed Apt.

8m2

2m

2 bed Apt.

10m2

2m

3+ bed Apt.

12m2

2.4m

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

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

The podium floor apartment (unit 2) comprise private open spaces with a total area greater than 15sqm.

Complies.

4F

Common Circulation and Spaces

 

 

 

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

Complies.

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

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

Complies.

 

2.1.2     State Environmental Planning Policy No 55—Remediation of Land

The objectives of SEPP 55 are:

 

“(1)     The object of this Policy is to provide for a Statewide planning approach to the remediation of contaminated land.

(2)      In particular, this Policy aims to promote the remediation of contaminated land for the purpose of reducing the risk of harm to human health or any other aspect of the environment:

(a)  by specifying when consent is required, and when it is not required, for a remediation work, and

(b) by specifying certain considerations that are relevant in rezoning land and in determining development applications in general and development applications for consent to carry out a remediation work in particular, and

(c)  by requiring that a remediation work meet certain standards and notification requirements.”

 

Clause 7 of SEPP 55 requires the consent authority to consider whether the land is contaminated and whether the land is or can be made suitable for the purpose for which development is proposed.

 

Council’s Environmental Health Officer has assessed the proposal and notes that the applicant failed to provide a Preliminary Site Investigation report for contamination despite numerous requests, therefore strict conditions are provided so that a detailed site contamination investigation reports is submitted to the satisfaction of Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, and that should remediation be required that a remediation action plan is submitted to the satisfaction of Council. Subject to these conditions, the proposal is recommended for approval and is capable of being made suitable for the intended purpose in accordance with SEPP 55.

 

2.2        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

The site is zoned B2 Local Centre under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposed shop top housing development is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

Clause 2.3 Zone objectives and Land Use Table (B2 Local Centre)

Clause 2.3 of the RLEP 2012 provides objectives for the B2 Local Centre. Under the Land Use Table section of the RLEP, the relevant objectives of the zone B2 are as follows: -

 

    To provide a range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses that serve the needs of people who live in, work in and visit the local area.

    To encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations.

    To maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

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

    To facilitate a high standard of urban design and pedestrian amenity that contributes to achieving a sense of place for the local community.

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

    To facilitate a safe public domain.

 

The proposal is consistent with the zone objectives in that:

 

    The proposal as amended delivers a good standard of urban design and will positively contribute to the amenity of the public realm particularly along Anzac Parade.

    The proposed development as amended appropriately integrates with, and support the primary business function of the site and surrounding properties in the B2 zone and neighbouring residential areas.

    The impacts of the proposed development upon the amenity of adjoining residents and public space have been addressed within this report and are considered acceptable.

    The development reinforces the vibrancy of the Maroubra Junction Centre by introducing mixed residential, retail/commercial uses in close proximity to public transport and local services.

    The development will deliver a mixture of dwelling sizes to satisfy the needs of different households and levels of affordability.

    The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will be consistent with the relevant RDCP policy controls applicable to the site and the surrounding area.

 

The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant objectives of the zone and recommended for approval accordingly.

 

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

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

N/A - RDCP Development Controls apply under Section 3.1.3 of Part D4 of the RDCP for Maroubra Junction

The proposal is generally consistent with the RDCP controls for the site.

See RDCP control table.

 

Height of Building (Maximum)

22m

Front building:

21.76m (RL52.58 – RL30.82); Note: five storeys limit under Section 3.2.12 of Part D4 Maroubra Junction centre controls in the RDCP.

 

Rear building: 11.36m (RL43.75 – RL32.39). Note: Section 3.2.12 of part D4 Maroubra Junction centre controls in the RDCP.

Complies.

 

Clause 6.2 Earthworks

The objective of this clause is to ensure that earthworks for which development consent is required will not have a detrimental impact on environmental functions and processes, neighbouring uses, cultural or heritage items or features of the surrounding land.

 

In assessing any development proposals involving ancillary earthworks, Council must consider the following matters:

 

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

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

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

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

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

(f)       the likelihood of disturbing relics,

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

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

 

The proposal requires significant excavation to accommodate 2 levels of basement parking. The applicant has submitted a Geotechnical Investigation Report for the site indicating that the proposed earthworks will not have any detrimental effect on the soil stability and environmental quality of the subject site and locality. Specific conditions are also included to ensure that suitable retaining walls and protection measures are provided during works on the site. Subject to compliance with these conditions, the proposal is not anticipated to result in any significant impact on the topography of the site, is unlikely to interrupt the drainage patterns of the site or result in soil instability and will not adversely impact upon the scenic quality of the site and locality. Accordingly, the proposal is acceptable in relation to the provisions of this clause.

 

Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings

The relevant objectives of this clause include: -

 

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

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

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

 

Pursuant to clause 4.3, the height of the building on the subject site is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the corresponding Heights of Buildings Map. The maximum building height control for the subject site as stipulated in the RLEP 2012 is 22m.

 

The RLEP 2012 height standard for the subject site is read in conjunction with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013 (Part D4 – Maroubra Junction Centre), which allows for a block-perimeter envelope with a maximum height of between 5 storeys fronting Anzac parade and 3 storeys fronting Byng Lane.

 

The proposal, at part three storeys fronting Byng Lane and part six storeys fronting Anzac Parade readily achieves compliance with the relevant development standard, despite providing for an additional storey above the maximum for the front part of the development facing Anzac Parade. Despite exceeding the maximum number of storeys, the upper most level (6th storey) is suitably designed as a habitable roof which does not detract from the character of the area and nor does it result in any significant adverse impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring properties. The proposed height and scale is compatible with the emerging character of the Maroubra Junction Centre and adequately addressed the spatial relationship with neighbouring buildings and will not significantly or unreasonably impact upon the amenity of surrounding neighbours in relation to privacy, view loss and solar access.

 

Clause 6.8   Airspace operations

Clause 6.8 of the RLEP 2012 aims to provide for the effective and ongoing operation of the Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport by ensuring that such operation is not compromised by development that penetrates the Limitation or Operations Surface for that airport and to protect the community from undue risk from that operation.

 

Council must not grant development consent unless it has consulted with the relevant Commonwealth body about the application if a development application will penetrate the Limitation or Operations Surface. Council may subsequently grant development consent if the relevant Commonwealth body advises that:

 

(a)  the development will penetrate the Limitation or Operations Surface but it has no objection to its construction, or

(b)  the development will not penetrate the Limitation or Operations Surface.

 

Pursuant to this clause and the provisions of the Air Navigation (Building Control) Regulations, the concurrence of the Sydney Airports Corporation is required as the building proposed on the subject site has a maximum height in excess of 15 metres and may fall within the Conical Surface of the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces for Sydney Airport. The application was referred to Sydney Airport Corporation (SAC). The advice from SAC raises no objections to the proposal subject to appropriate conditions being included in the consent incorporating the relevant comments and requirements. The development is considered to satisfy the requirements this Clause.

 

Clause 6.10   Essential Services

Pursuant to Clause 6.10 of the RLEP, Council must not consent to development unless satisfied that any of the following services that are essential for the development are available or that adequate arrangements have been made to make them available when required:

 

(a)  the supply of water,

(b)  the supply of electricity,

(c)  the disposal and management of sewage,

(d)  stormwater drainage or on-site conservation,

(e)  suitable vehicular access.

 

The provision of utility services will be required by standard conditions of consent.

 

6.11 Design Excellence

The proposal has a height of more than 15m and the Design Excellence clause applies. The criteria for determining whether a development exhibits design excellence as outlined in sub-clause (4) are addressed as follows:

 

(a)    whether a high standard of architectural design, materials and detailing appropriate to the building type and location will be achieved,

 

The proposal as amended satisfies the Design Quality Principles under SEPP 65. The drawings and the accompanying material demonstrate a skilful design incorporating high quality materials and fine detailing.

 

(b)    whether the form and external appearance of the development will improve the quality and amenity of the public domain,

 

The proposal as amended is appropriately articulated on the key frontages addressing both street frontages along Anzac Parade and Byng Lane. The development is considered to contribute to the character and amenity of the public domain. 

 

(c)    how the proposed development responds to the environmental and built characteristics of the site and whether it achieves an acceptable relationship with other buildings on the same site and on neighbouring sites,

 

The form, scale and façade treatment will be sympathetic to the neighbouring buildings and the wider Maroubra Junction Town Centre. The proposal is considered to suitably respond to the built character of the existing and desired context. The three storey rear build is fully compliant with the maximum envelope controls in the RDCP. The front build whilst exceeding the maximum number of storeys and height to the underside of the roof incorporates a recessive design upper most level which is anticipated by the RDCP allowing for possibility of habitable roof designs.

 

Excerpt from Page 20 of Part D4 Maroubra Junction part of the RDCP.

 

(d)    whether the building meets sustainable design principles in terms of sunlight, natural ventilation, wind, reflectivity, visual and acoustic privacy, safety and security and resource, energy and water efficiency,

 

As is discussed under the “SEPP 65” and “RDCP” sections of this report, the proposed development will perform satisfactorily in terms of internal amenity and energy efficiency. The visual and acoustic privacy impacts are also suitably considered.

 

(e)    whether the proposed development detrimentally impacts on view corridors and landmarks.

 

The proposal does not obstruct any existing view corridors or vistas.

 

3.        Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013

 

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

 

The relevant provisions of the DCP are addressed below.

 

B6 Recycling and Waste Management

 

DCP Clause

Control

Proposal

Compliance

4.

On-Going Operation

 

 

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

The proposed waste storage area fronting Byng Lane has been amended and now considered acceptable.

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).

 

Complies

 

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

 

Complies

 

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

 

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

 

See Development Engineer’s comments.

 

Motor cycle requirements:

5% of car parking requirement

 

 

Part D4 Maroubra Junction

The proposal has been assessed in relation to Part D4 of the RDCP – Maroubra Junction Centre. Part D4 of the DCP provides a framework for the redevelopment of the wider Maroubra Junction Centre and surrounds containing objectives and controls to guide built form, provide environmental and amenity standards, and give appropriate protection for local business, open space and residential development both on a block-by-block basis as well as a general overview.

 

The application has been assessed against, and is consistent with, the objectives of the DCP and will not result in significant impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality. The issues elaborated upon below address aspects of the proposal which deviate from relevant applicable block-specific controls of the DCP.

 

Maroubra Junction Part D4 - Block 12 Controls

 

DCP Clause

Requirement

Compliance

Part 3 Development Controls

3.2.12

3-5 storeys rear and front respectively.

Front build has six storeys however, the proposal readily complies with the maximum height standard in the RLEP and the roof form is subservient to the levels below, and designed as modern version of the attic that contributes to a dynamic and vibrant roofscape satisfying the objectives in Section 4.6.3 of the RDCP relating to Roof Design.

 

The rear building complies with the maximum number of storeys

 

Communal open space is located over a podium level between the front and rear building and is consistent with the open space requirements under Section 4.1.4 of Part D4 of the RDCP.

 

GFA occupies not more than 70% of the maximum building envelope for residential floors and 80% in the case of commercial / retail floors above the ground level.

Front building: 84% - see comments below. Note: excluding the top level means the residential is at 70.4%

Rear building: 68%

 

Commercial: Not applicable

 

Comment:  The proposed residential component of the front building is 84% of the permissible envelope (25m x width of the site). This calculation includes the floor area of the top most level (5). As previously justified, the top level does not detract from the appearance of the development along the streetscape as it is designed as a habitable roof which is supported under the Roof Design in Part D4 of the RDCP. If the floor area of this level were excluded from the calculation given the inoffensive nature of the top level, the proposed development would achieve near compliance with the control providing 70.4% of the envelope as residential floors.

 

 

Building use

One level of commercial and residential above

Complies.

 

Building depth

 

From Anzac Parade: 25m (22m glass line to glass line)

 

Rear building: 18m  (15m glass line to glass line)

 

 

 

Glass line to glass line:

 

Front building: 22m

 

 

Rear building: 15m

Complies.

 

Front building complies.

 

 

Rear building complies as conceptualised in Section 3.1.12 in the block 13 controls of Part D4 of the RDCP.

 

This control is of most relevance to level 5 (6th Storey) of the development containing Units 25 and 26 which have a 14.43m maximum glass line to glass line.

 

The remaining residential floors within the development contain double loaded units at each level facing either the communal open space podium area or the street frontage. Despite having only one aspect, the units are considered to contain suitable amenity having regard to levels of solar access and cross ventilation.

 

Setbacks

3m setback from Byng Lane

 

Complies.

 

General controls

The relevant general controls of the DCP are addressed as follows:

 

DCP Clause

Requirement

Compliance

Part 3 Development Controls

3.1.1 Amalgamation

Minimum street frontage 20m; or

Have dual street frontage with vehicular access from the secondary street

Complies.

Minimum lot widths are to be tested against the desired building types for each block to determine where amalgamation is necessary

 

When development is proposed, sites between and adjacent to developable properties are not to be limited in their future development potential

The adjoining site to the south has will not be limited in terms of its development potential.

Building Envelope

Residential floors:

GFA occupies not more than 70% of the maximum building envelope

 

Commercial floors:

GFA occupies not more than 80% of the maximum building envelope for commercial floors above the ground floor

Residential floors:

 

See comments above. 

 

 

 

Commercial floor: Not applicable.

 

Note: The ground floor area between the front and rear buildings is occupied by back of service functions for both commercial and residential uses which allows for the podium level above to be used as communal open space permitted in Section 4.1.4 of Part D4 of the RDCP for the Maroubra Junction Town Centre.

Building Height

Developments are to be appropriately scaled with consideration to the broader urban structure principles on which the centre is based.

 

The proposed development contains a bulk and scale that is consistent with the RDCP controls applicable to the site specifically the Block 12 controls. The DEP is also generally supportive of the aesthetics of the development and it is considered that the proposed development will contribute to the desired streetscape character of the Maroubra Junction Town Centre.

Section 3.1.12 Block 12 controls allows for five storeys at Anzac Parade and three storeys at Byng Lane. The height is calculated differently to the RLEP standards measuring the distance vertically from the perimeter ground level to the underside of the ceiling of the topmost floor. It is identified for the maximum number of storeys as follows:

-     1 storey 4.5m

-     2 storeys 9.0m

-     3 storeys 12.0m Rear build

-     4 storeys 15.0m

-     5 storeys 18.0m Front build

-     6 storeys 21.0m

-     7 storeys 24.0m

-     8 storeys 26.7m

Complies.

 

Front building: The height measured to underside of the level 5 apartments is 19.61m exceeding the maximum height control by 1.61m.

 

The degree by which it exceeds the height will continue to satisfy the objectives of the RDCP as assessed further below.

 

Rear building: the rear building measured to the underside of the ceiling (RL41.70) has a height of 9.39m (RL32.31).

Merit assessment:

The front building has a height measured to the underside of the top most level which exceeds the 18m maximum height under the RDCP. An assessment is required against the following objectives under the RDCP:

 

    To ensure future development within the centre responds to the desired scale and character of the street and the centre.

    To ensure development at the edges of the centre responds to the scale and character of development and the streets surrounding the centre.

 

The proposed development satisfies the above objectives for the following reasons:

    The proposal responds appropriately to the existing and desired scale and character Level 5 at the front has hipped roof element that is designed as a modern attic roof element which is consistent with that shown in Section 3.6. Roof design controls in Part D4 of the RDCP 2013.

    The proposed development will not be inconsistent with the 19.3m height of the development at No. 908-910 Anzac parade which also exceeds the maximum height under the RDCP.

    The prominent front elevation facing Anzac Parade has a height of 17.71m (RL30.31) which is below the 18m maximum.

 

To allow reasonable daylight and solar access to all developments and the public domain.

 

As noted in the key issues section of this report, the orientation of the site makes the southern property particularly vulnerable to shadowing. A roof built to the RLEP height standards would have similar bulk and scale and therefore impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

 

Building Separation

Up to four storeys:

- 12m separation between habitable rooms and balconies

 

ADG: ADG controls override the above controls and requires a separation depending on the following circumstances:

 

Up to four storeys (approximately 12m):

• 12m between habitable rooms/balconies

• 9m between habitable and non-habitable rooms

• 6m between non-habitable rooms

Complies: 15.58m.

Articulation

All buildings are to be articulated to a minimum depth of 1m at the rear and the front, above any ground floor commercial / retail.

 

Balconies may extend beyond the maximum building envelope by a maximum of 600mm (to further encourage façade articulation), but must not extend beyond the property boundaries.

The facades are adequately articulated with recessed and stepped building elements.

 

A combination of surface finishes on all elevations will create visual interest. Satisfactory.

 

No balconies are proposed to protrude beyond the required setbacks.

Part 4 Design Controls

Deep Soil Zones

Deep soil zones should accommodate existing mature trees

 

The proposal provides no deep soil zones on site. It does provide landscaped area over podium which will soften the bulk of the podium when viewed from the street level and neighbouring properties.

 

It is noted that the ADG does allow for no deep soil zones in the business centres.

Deep soil zones are to have pervious surface

 

Deep soil zones are not to be built upon or have underground parking areas underneath

Landscape Design

Developments are to contribute to the streetscape and public domain through landscaping, which visually softens the bulk of large developments

The proposal as noted above provides a landscaped area over the podium level.

 

The site and neighbouring properties are quite narrow which means that landscaping on site is difficult to achieve whilst taking advantage of the site coverage and building envelopes permitted in the Maroubra Junction section of the RDCP.

 

The application does include landscaping over the podium which will provide a softening effect when viewed from neighbouring properties and allow for efficient functioning of the site and surrounding properties with dual aspects.

 

Ensure amenity of private and communal open spaces by: providing shade from the sun and shelter from wind

The proposed landscaped areas are provided with suitable planting and furniture facilities to maximise users’ comfort.

 

Use landscape design to improve the energy and solar efficiency of apartments and the microclimate of open spaces

The proposed planting in the landscaped podium above the commercial level will contain appropriate species.

 

Landscape design is to minimise water consumption

Standard conditions are recommended to ensure compliance with the commitments listed on the BASIX Certificate, including the provision of low water use planting.

Open Space

25% of the total site area is to be communal open space

Complies

All dwellings are to have access to a private, useable, functional area of open space directly accessible from the main living area.

Complies

Pedestrian Access

High quality safe and accessible routes are to be provided to public and semi-public areas of the building and the site

Complies

Ensure that the main building entrance for apartments is accessible for all from the street and from car parking areas

A specific condition is recommended to require compliance with the equitable access provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

Barrier-free access is to be provided to and within at least 1 in 15 dwellings

Access to residential floors above is provided with lift access for the building. Suitable conditions have been imposed to ensure compliance. 

Vehicle Access

Vehicular access is not permitted from Anzac Parade or Maroubra Road for new developments. Vehicular access to sites fronting these roads is to be provided from secondary streets or via  6m wide rights of way

Vehicular access is obtained via a driveway off Byng Lane.

Building Entry

Building entries are to be oriented to, and clearly visible from the street; convenient for pedestrians and clearly identifiable

Complies

Visual Privacy

Separating communal open space, common areas and access routes from windows of rooms, particularly habitable rooms

All common areas are suitable located relative to POS of units.

Offsetting windows of apartments in new development to windows in adjacent development

Complies

 

Recessing balconies and/or providing vertical fins between

adjacent balconies

 

Using solid or semi-solid balustrades to balconies;

Some balconies have been recessed into the façade whilst others have been provided with screens to provide visual separation.

 

Safety and Security

Ensure that residential flat developments are safe and secure for residents and visitors, and contribute to the safety of the public domain.

Satisfactory casual surveillance for the public domain and communal areas is achieved.

Apartment Layout

Minimum apartment sizes:

- Studio units 40m2

- 1 bedroom 50m2

- 2 bedroom 80m2

- 3 bedroom 125m2

Generally satisfactory however the ADG controls override the RDCP controls.

Single-aspect apartments are to have a maximum depth of 8m.

Complies

Apartment layouts are to provide suitable amenity for occupants

The layout, configuration and dimensions of the apartments will maximise solar access to the living areas. The units are of an open plan design allowing flexibility for furniture placement and living functions.

Apartment Mix

A mix of studio, one, two, and three or more bedroom apartments is to be provided

The proposal has included a mixture of dwelling sizes, which can cater for different household needs.

Balconies

Each apartment is to have at least one primary balcony.

Each of the proposed apartments has access to a private balcony/deck area.

Primary balconies are to have a minimum depth of 2.5m

 

Minimum area of primary balconies is to be as follows:

Studio & 1-bedroom: 6m2

2- & 3-bedroom: 10m2

ADG controls override the RDCP controls.

 

Balconies are to be designed in response to the local climate and site context

 

The balconies are suitably located and configured to take advantage of the northern sun and where they are exposed to the western sun such as those balconies fronting Anzac Parade, the west facing units will contain screens that will allow for reduced heat loading.

Ceiling Heights

Compliance with the following floor-to-ceiling heights:

 

Ground floor: 3.6m

 

Ground level readily complies.

 

Note the Block 12 controls only require residential above ground level.

 

Apartment layouts are to be designed to accommodate flexibility in room use.

Complies the apartments living rooms are generally in rectangular form.

Internal Circulation

Optimise safety and security by grouping apartments to a maximum of 10 around a common lobby.

The building has a maximum of 4 apartments per level.

Storage

Provide adequate storage for everyday household items within easy access of the apartment.

The individual apartment units have sufficient size to accommodate daily household items and furniture.

Provide storage for sporting, leisure, fitness and hobby equipment.

Each unit has ample area to accommodate storage.

Acoustic Privacy

Ensure a high level of amenity by protecting the privacy of occupants of residential flat buildings, both within the apartments and in private open spaces

A specific condition is recommended to require compliance with the Building Code of Australia in relation to noise separation performance.

 

The ‘wet areas’ (i.e. kitchen, laundry and bathroom) of the apartments are generally grouped together, away from the bedrooms. This will minimise noise transmission through the plumbing.

 

The proposed balconies are either oriented towards the streets or appropriately setback from the southern side boundary.

 

Overall, the development is considered satisfactory in this regard.

Daylight Access

Living rooms and private open spaces for at least 70% of apartments in a development are to receive a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter, unless existing overshadowing prevents this

Don’t comply as only 62.5% of apartments will receive at least two hours of direct solar access during mid-winter between 9am and 3pm.

 

However, between 8am and 4pm in midwinter, 100% of apartments achieve at least 2 hours solar access.

 

Given the built-up nature of development envisaged in the Maroubra Junction centre and constraints of an east west configured site slightly skewed towards the south east it is considered that the percentage is adequate.

The building configuration is to optimise northern aspect to new residential apartments where possible

 

The number of south-facing apartments is to be kept to a minimum

The number of primarily south facing apartments is kept to a minimum namely unit 19 and 23 in the rear building largely a consequence of the frontage facing sou-sou-east.

Communal open spaces are to receive sunlight between March and September and appropriate shading is to be provided in summer

Complies

Buildings are to be designed for shading and glare control

Suitable roof overhang and screening devices have been incorporated into the design.

Natural Ventilation

Ensure that all apartments have dual-aspect to allow the direct flow of air from one side of the apartment to the other

The exceptions are the four north-west apartments in the front building. The east-west orientation of the site and required zero lot alignment along the northern and southern side boundaries constrains the ability to provide dual aspects each apartment without limiting the development to essentially long narrow layouts.   

Awnings and Signs

Awnings are to complement the height, depth and form of the desired character or existing pattern of awnings; and provide sufficient protection from sun and rain

The proposed awnings are integrated with the design of the building. A specific condition is recommended to ensure the clearance and setback of the awnings are satisfactory having regard to the safety of pedestrians and vehicles and higher floor to ceiling heights required under the ADG.

Facades and Articulation

Facades are to have an appropriate scale and proportion, which respond to building use and desired character

The proposed architectural composition, fenestration treatment, external finishes and detailing of the building achieve a design is generally supported by the DEP and will enhance the streetscape character.

Roof Design

Roof design is to be related to the desired built form. Design solutions include articulating the roof, or breaking down its massing on large buildings, to minimise the apparent bulk or to relate to a context of smaller building forms.

The roof structure is sufficiently setback from the front such that it minimises the height and scale of the building and as noted the development complies with the maximum overall height standard in the RLEP.

 

Energy Efficiency

Reduce the need for mechanical heating and cooling and minimise greenhouse gas emissions

Standard conditions are recommended to require compliance with the BASIX commitments.

 

4.         Referral Comments

 

4.1        Design Excellence Panel (DEP)

The following comments were provided by the DEP. The applicant submitted amended plans in response to the key matters raised by the DEP and where considered necessary planning comments following key issues raised by the DEP.

 

INTRODUCTION

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

This document is available from the Department of Planning Environment

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

PANEL COMMENTS

This is the second time the Panel has reviewed this proposal, prepared by Sgamotta Architects. 

 

The first Panel report related to a Pre-DA package of information, which was incomplete at the time and had been prepared to gain preliminary feedback. The design has since been revised and refined to address some of the points raised by the Panel. There remains a number of critical challenges that need to be addressed, both in terms of technical compliance and design excellence.

 

1.       Context and Neighbourhood Character

The application scheme reflects a ‘desired future character’ proposed by Council’s current planning framework for this section of Maroubra Junction, which includes two buildings activating and framing the primary and secondary street frontages, whilst containing an internal courtyard space that provides important amenity and relief from the noise and activity along Anzac Parade.

 

The design seeks to maximise activation to both the Anzac Parade and Byng Lane, the latter being particularly challenging given the tapering site area and accommodating the service/car park entrance and secondary residential entrance. The Panel recognizes the efforts made by the architect to deliver this design feature in response to previous comments, and integrate this ground flood commercial unit into the residential unit (U19) above in a SOHO configuration.

 

The length of commercial frontage to Anzac Parade has also been maximized by reducing the width and depth of the residential lobby entrance. This ensures the development will continue to contribute to the life, amenity and activity of Maroubra Junction.

 

2.       Built Form and Scale

The proposal continues to feature a five-storey (17m) building to Anzac Parade and a three-storey (10m) building to Byng Lane. Despite the addition of skylights to the upper levels of the Anzac Parade block (A) the proposal still sits within the Council’s LEP maximum building height of 22m – this also accommodates the lift overrun. Other comments by the Panel relating to this principle include;

 

     Block depths reduced to align with the ADG – Block A is 22m balcony to balcony, and 18m glazing to glazing. Block b is 19.3m. This has been made possible by reducing the number and size of apartments in Block A, as compared to the Pre-DA package

     Snorkel apartments have been removed from the plan, though some narrow cuts in the Block A are required to deliver light and ventilation to the secondary bedrooms in U2 and Units repeated up the building. The removal of one or two bedrooms from Block A would relieve the planning and remove the need for this arrangement – see amenity for further commentary.

 

Planning comment: The applicant has suitably demonstrated that the development complies with the ADG minimum requirements for cross ventilation and suitable condition is included to ensure compliance. Natural light will also be suitable having regard to the east west orientation of the site and where each apartment has an aspect to open space.

 

     The depth of the Byng Lane varies due to the irregular configuration and splayed frontages. Determining whether this layout is acceptable relates to whether the units receive the desired amenity – see below.

 

Planning comment: The north eastern apartments in the rear building have been reconfigured to ensure sufficient solar access to the living rooms. As indicated in the ADG table assessment 100% of apartments will receive solar access between 8am and 4pm. It is also noted that the depth from glass line to glass line is readily compliant with the 18m maximum control in part D4 of the RDCP for this part of the Maroubra Junction Centre.

 

     The vertical slot in the Anzac Parade frontage was previously identified by the Panel as providing insufficient amenity to the adjoining apartments. Window openings to the slot are required to be fixed for fire safety, and therefore unable to support cross ventilation.

 

Planning comment: The window has been deleted and as indicated previously the proposal as a whole complies with the ADG controls for proportion of apartments required to be cross ventilated.

 

     Internal separation between Blocks A and B has been adequately addressed

 

3.       Density

The Panel recognizes the reduction in yield as compared to the pre-DA scheme, however, there are a number of amenity challenges that could be addressed by reducing the number and/or size of units. This is addressed in greater detail below.

 

4.       Sustainability

A limited number of sustainability measures have been proposed, however, the Panel believes these are a bare minimum and could be expanded to include;

 

-     Consideration of solar hot water heaters and on-site water retention

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

-     Outdoor clothes drying areas not shown

 

Planning comment: The application now includes Photovoltaic cells on the roof of both buildings and have been included in the BASIX certificate. It is also noted that a RW tank has been included in the basement which is used for the watering of podium level landscaping. Solar hot water panels have not been insisted upon as part of the amended scheme given the high level of compliance with the RDCP controls for Maroubra Junction.

 

The use of skylights for the top floor units is a good approach, but relates predominately to amenity and shouldn’t exclude the use of PV panels along the roof plane.

 

5.       Landscape

A landscape plan, prepared by a qualified landscape architect (Taylor Brammer) has been issued as part of the DA package. The plan relates to the podium open space area, between Blocks A and B, which is the only opportunity for landscaping across the entire site.

 

The Panel supports the characterization of zones/rooms across the podium level, but feels there’s a missed opportunity in terms of vegetation and establishing mature trees – despite the sitting on a concrete slab. A number of minor changes to the landscape plan could address this, including the reconfiguration of the primary circulation path to features a 1:14 grade incline from Block A to B. This would remove the need for a need for 6 steps and the switchback ramp that divides the space along the northern edge. The area of the ramp could be given back to landscaping and creation of a larger planting zone where taller trees could provide shading to the other spaces along the southern edge of the space.

 

The footprint of the tree pots should be increased in size and integrated with seating and other vegetation. This will enable the roots to spread and increase in size without requiring greater soil depths, which is limited by the podium location.

 

Due to the expanse of flat surfaces and relative hardscape (albeit, including permeable paving) across the podium space the Panel feels an integrated rainwater captured, treatment and reuse system should be provided, which would also encompass rain falling on the roofs cape.

 

Planning comment: The amended landscaping and travel paths within the podium level have substantially addressed the above comments.

 

6.       Amenity

The Panel has previously raised, and is still seek clarification in relation to the adequacy of the approaches to satisfy solar amenity and cross ventilation.

 

Having reviewed the plans, both at the Pre-DA and DA stages, the Panel doesn’t believe the Anzac Parade frontage receives adequate direct sunlight, and other units (U19 and U23) screen themselves by projecting blade walls or similar.

 

Planning comment: Solar access is addressed in the key issues section of this report. In brief, the rearrangement of the layout of apartments in the north eastern part of the rear building improves solar access to these apartments’ living rooms. Similarly, reconfiguration of the layout of apartments at the north eastern part of the front building also improves solar access. However, as assessed in the key issues section the sites aspect at the rear limits the degree to which these apartments are able to meet the minimum levels of solar access.

 

In relation to cross ventilation, the Panel does not accept that U1 (and above) achieves this due to the reliance on a window that is inoperable due to fire safety. The layout on Level 5 illustrates the success of through-units in this context, where corner units aren’t achievable due to party walls and site configuration. Whilst the redesign of Block A to only feature through-units would dramatically reduce yield, if the Panel isn’t convinced that adequate amenity (solar and cross ventilation) is achieved then this is our recommendation.

 

Planning comment: The side window opposite the neighbours has been removed and the total proportion of apartments with cross ventilation complies with the ADG controls.

 

The Panel suggests that an independent expert review the plans and provide a statement that includes graphic analysis of solar and cross-ventilation to clearly illustrate where this has been adequately addressed. The Panel won’t accept a letter simply stating compliance is achieved.

 

Access to Block B can be gained via Byng Lane, but it’s more likely that most residents and visitors will access the block via Anzac Parade, which takes pedestrians into the Block A lobby/lift and across the podium level, or through the ground floor servicing area to the Block B core. The Panel accepts this choice, but would like to see the addition of a stair from the Anzac Parade (Block A) lobby that leads directly to the podium level. This provides residents with a healthy alternative means of accessing Block B and the podium space. The stair and addition of natural light and air to the primary lobby space would be a positive addition to the scheme.

 

Balcony sizes should be checked to ensure compliance with ADG sizes and depths.

 

Planning comment: Access is considered acceptable as amended. The balcony sizes meet the minimum controls in the ADG. The additional solar access diagrams submitted by the applicant are verified as accurate.

 

 

7.       Safety

Previous comments in relation to safety have been adequately addressed.

 

8.       Housing diversity and Social Interaction

Despite a reduction in yield from the pre-Da scheme, this proposal still represents a good mix of units

 

9.       Aesthetics

The architect has restrained the palette of materials and colours proposed, particularly to the Anzac Parade frontage. This is supported by the Panel.

 

The restrained design of the building will rely on crispness in its materiality and detailing. The portal frames on the balconies provide a modulation on the façade but rely on a clean appearance on the walls behind them to read properly. Consideration should be given to matching window framing elements with the wall colour to provide a cleaner appearance to these walls (this is an observation from the 3D renderings).

 

The undersides of balconies on Anzac Parade form a part of the visual effect of the façade. The Panel supports the use of a timber look finish to the underside of these balconies. Details of how this material is terminated at the edge of the balconies should be provided.

 

Planning comment: The required details are the subject of a condition of consent.

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The panel wish to see independent analysis of the solar and cross-ventilation compliance, and further refinement of the podium landscape plan (including the stair to Anzac Parade). If these are adequately addressed the Panel doesn’t have a need to review this application again.

 

Planning comment: The applicant provided plans demonstrating the level of solar access for key apartments. The analysis shows 61.54% of apartments will comply with the ADG controls requiring two hours of solar access to 70% of apartments within the development. This has been addressed in the key issues section of this report under Part 3B-1 Orientation.

 

4.2        Development Engineering and Landscape Officer

An application has been received for the demolition of existing structures, construction of a part 3 part 6 storey shoptop housing development in 2 building forms with 23 dwellings, 3 retail shops, 2 levels of basement carparking for 45 cars with associated works at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

    Amended Architectural Plans by SGAMMOTTA Architects, dwg’s DA000 – 810,  stamped by Council 20 June 2018;

    Statement of Environmental Effects by ABC Planning dated December 2017;

    Detail & Level Survey by Geometra consulting dated 19th August 2012;

    Traffic and Parking Assessment dated;

    Amended Landscape Plans by Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects, dwg 01 – 02 & D1, rev B, dated 13/06/18.

 

General Comments

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

 

Site Consolidation Comments

The proposed development site currently comprises of 4 lots being Lots 13, 14, 15 & 16 in DP 13331. In consideration of the boundary to boundary basement construction and inconsistencies between the survey and title dimension demonstrated on the site survey, it will be required that a ‘Plan of Consolidation’ amalgamating the 4 lots and redefining the site’s boundaries be prepared and  registered at NSW LPI prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate.

 


 

Roads and Maritime (RMS) Comments

The assessing officer is advised that Anzac Parade is a classified ‘state road’ at this location and is owned and operated by the RMS. It is noted the application has not been referred to the RMS for comment in this instance most likely because there is no vehicular access proposed from Anzac Parade.

 

Notwithstanding excavation for the basement, construction traffic, and stormwater runoff may impact on Anzac Parade, hence RMS referral was advised.

 

Subsequently RMS have provided a response and RMS conditions have been included in this report where appropriate.

 

Flooding Comments

The subject site lies within the catchment of the recently completed Bird Gully Flood study

The study does not predict the site will be impacted by flooding however some minor surface flows would be expected along the Anzac Parade and Byng Lane frontages during major storm events.

Floor levels are located sufficiently above the roadway to mitigate this minor risk.

Alignment levels for the driveway on Byng lane will also be set at 150mm above gutter levels to protect the basement carpark.

 

Drainage Comments

On site stormwater detention is required for this development.

 

The Planning Officer is advised that the submitted drainage plans should not be approved in conjunction with the DA, rather, the Development Engineer has included a number of conditions in this memo that relate to drainage design requirements. The applicant is required to submit detailed drainage plans to the certifying authority for approval prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

The stormwater must be discharged (by gravity) either:

 

i.      Directly to the kerb and gutter in front of the subject site in Anzac Parade or Byng Lane  or

 

ii.     Directly into underground drainage system located in Anzac Parade street via a new and/or existing kerb inlet pit; or

 

Parking Comments

Parking Requirements for the development have been assessed as per the following applicable parking rates specified in Part B7 of Randwick Council’s Development Control Plan 2013.

    1 space per 1 bedroom unit

    1.2 spaces per 2 bedroom unit

    1.5 spaces per 3 bedroom unit

    1 visitor space per 4 units

    1 space per 40m2 for commercial tenancies

 

The proposed development will comprise of

 

    4 retail shops fronting Anzac Parade & Byng lane with total GFA of 351m2

    26 Dwellings including 12 x one bedroom, 13 x two bedroom, and 1 x 3 bedroom dwellings.

    One of the 1 bedroom units (U19) is associated with commercial unit 4, fronting Byng Lane.

 

Parking Required (Residential)                = (12 x 1) + (13 x 1.2) + (1 x 1.5) + (26/4) visitor

                                                           = 12 + 15.6 + 1.5 + 6.5(visitors)

                                                           = 35.6 spaces

                                                           = say 36 spaces

                                                          

Parking Required (commercial)               = 351/40 = 8.8 = say 9 spaces

 

 

TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED              = 36(residential) + 9(commercial)

                                                           = 45 spaces

 

TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED              = 45 spaces (complies)

 

Motorbike Parking

Part B7 of the DCP requires motorbike parking to be provided at 5% of the vehicle parking provision

 

Motorbike parking Required = 0.05 x 45 = 2.25 = say 2 spaces

 

Motorbike Parking provided = 3 spaces (2 residential + 1 commercial) complies

 

Bicycle Parking

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

 

Bicycle Parking Required                     = Residential (26/2 + 26/10) + commercial (1 per 10 car spaces)

                                                         = 15.6 + 1

                                                         = say 17 spaces

 

Bicycle Parking proposed                    = 17 spaces (complies)

 

Service and Delivery Parking

Service and Delivery Parking is to be provided at the rate of 1 space per 50 units up to 200 dwellings, plus 1 space per 100 dwellings thereafter.

 

None required being less than 50 units however 1 space has been provided (complies)

 

Carpark Layout

The vehicular access driveways, internal circulation ramps and the carpark areas, (including, but not limited to, the ramp grades, carpark layout and height clearances) are to be in accordance with the requirements of Australian Standard 2890.1:2004.


Geotechnical Comments

The submitted geotechnical report by Assetgeo dated 13th November 2017 is essentially a desktop study with no borehole investigations carried out. The study suggests that the level of ground water is approximately 7m below ground level based on observations from a nearby development at 169-171 Maroubra Road. The depth of bedrock is expected to be around 10-13m below ground level.

 

It should be noted however that the development at 169-171 Maroubra Road is located approximately 230m to the northwest of the subject site and may be experiencing quite different groundwater conditions. Council is aware of constant seepage flows to the gutter near the front of the subject site, which infers groundwater/seepage may be an issue in this locality. A site inspection on 23/04/2018 has confirmed the presence of seepage flows to Anzac Parade. (see photos below)

 

In the absence of any other evidence to the contrary it is therefore considered that the groundwater table is likely to be closer to the surface in this locality. Conditions have therefore been included in this report that will ensure adequate management of groundwater including full tanking & waterproofing of the basement.

 

Undergrounding of site feed power lines

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

 

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

 

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

 

Waste Management Comments

The assessing officer is advised that the submitted Waste Management Plans should not be approved as part of any Development consent. Rather the Development Engineer in consultation with Council’s Waste Management Coordinator has included a number of conditions in relation to waste management. An amended waste management plan is required to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Waste Management Coordinator prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

Comments on the number of Waste Bins - Residential

Appendix 3 in Part B6 of Council’s DCP specifies a waste bin requirement rate for residential flat buildings houses of 1 x 240L  bin per 2 rooms for normal garbage and 1 x 240L bin per 2 rooms for recycling. This is based on a waste generation rate of 120L per unit per day for garbage (weekly collection) and 60L per unit per day for recycling (fortnightly collection). Although other bin sizes may be used the submitted WMP proposes the use of 240L bins.

i.e. Garbage/recycling Bins Required = 26/2 = 13 (rounded up to nearest whole number))

 

Total Number of BINS required            = 13 (normal) + 13 (recycling) +

                                                         = 26 x 240L BINS

         

Council’s Waste management Coordinator and Development Engineering have concerns on the relatively high number of bins to be presented to Byng Lane for collection, which will likely lead to bins being scattered about the laneway on collection days. To improve the situation it is considered the use of 660L should be utilised which will reduce the number of garbage bins to 5 x 660L bin. The number of recycling bin will however remain at 13 x 240L as recycling bins are not available in the 660L configuration.

 

It has therefore been conditioned in this report that 660L bins be used for collection of residential waste and facilities designed to incorporate the 660L bins. The waste management plan will also be required to be amended to reflect this requirement.

                  

Comments on the number of Waste Bins for commercial Component

As the future use of the commercial tenancies is not yet known an accurate determination of expected waste demand is not able to be determined but to ensure a variety of uses are catered for, it was advised in prelodgment advice that adequate space for a total of 12 x 240L bins be provided comprising of 7 x 240L bins for garbage + 5 x 240L bins for recycling.

 

The plans indicate space for 10 x 240L bins which is under the requirement however this has been addressed in the Waste Management Plan.

                            

In addition the bin areas for the commercial and residential components of the development must be physically separated with each bin room sized appropriately to contain the required number of bins. 

 

Road Dedication Comments

The applicant is to dedicate to Council a strip of land along the Byng Lane frontage at ground level so as to allow the construction of a 1.3m wide Council footpath adjacent to the kerb line. This will necessitate a Stratum Plan of subdivision to be prepared for the site which can be done in conjunction with the consolidation, if required.

 

Landscape Comments

There is no vegetation within this site at all, with conditions relating purely to the requirement to fully implement the submitted landscape scheme, which involves podium planting on Level 1, within both private courtyards and communal open space, including feature trees within up to 1.5m of soil depth (RL 36.10 – RL 34.61). 

 

The footpath on Anzac Parade has already been upgraded with feature paving, and as access will be gained off Byng Lane at the rear, conditions are not needed, with the repair of any damage on this frontage to be covered by standard civil conditions.

 

4.3        Environmental Health

 

Proposed Development:

The proposal seeks to demolish the existing buildings on the subject site and construct a 3 and 5 storey with recessed 6th level shop top housing development comprising 2 levels of basement parking for 45 cars, 3 retail shops at ground level and 25 residential apartments (plus 1 x commercial/residential unit) split over two built forms.

The subject land is located within the groundwater embargo / shortage area and is subject to a license by NSW Department of Primary Industries - Office of Water.

 

Comments:

An initial request was made by Councils EHU on 21 May 2018 (D03229159) for a preliminary site investigation to be prepared by suitably qualified and experienced environmental consultant. A geotechnical report was submitted the next day however the applicant was advised in writing this was not adequate and again reiterated the need for a preliminary site investigation.  A further email was sent to the assessing planning officer on 6 August 2018 seeking the information requested (D03322746).  On 31 August 2018, a letter (D03307284) prepared by ABC Planning was submitted in an effort to satisfy the request for additional information.

 

This information does not satisfy the request for additional information.  The applicant should be further requested to seek the services of suitably qualified and accredited 

 

The NSW EPA has included on their website several documents which detail and explain what the minimum standards are for including information in a report and who is deemed qualified to prepare and sign reports on contaminated site investigations. In this regard, please refer to “Contaminated Land Consultant - Certification Policy issued January 2018 and also the “Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites” reprinted August 2011 which details the minimum requirements for the reporting.

 

In the absence of the additional information being submitted, if the application is to be approved, it is requested the following conditions be included on any consent.

 

Roads and Maritime Services

The application was referred to the RMS for comment. A response was received dated 2 July 2018 containing conditions should consent be granted for the development.

 

Sydney Airports Corporation Limited

The following comments were provided from Sydney Airport Corporation Limited in letter dated Friday, 5 January 2018 and registration number 18/0007 .

 

Application for approval pursuant to s.183 Airports Act - Notification of decision under Reg15A(2) of the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Reg's 1996

 

Proposed Activity: PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT

 

Location: 928-930 ANZAC PARADE, MAROUBRA

 

Proponent: SGAMMOTTS ARCHITECTS

 

Date: 05/01/2018

 

Sydney Airport received the above application from you.

 

This location lies within an area defined in schedules of the Civil Aviation (Buildings Control) Regulations which limit the height of structures to 45.72 metres above existing ground height (AEGH) without prior  approval of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. 

 

The application sought approval for the PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT to a height of 53.0 metres Australian Height Datum (AHD). 

 

In my capacity as Airfield Design Manager and an authorised person of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority  (CASA) under Instrument Number: CASA 229/11, in this instance, I have no objection to the erection of this development to a maximum height of 53.0 metres AHD.

 

The approved height is inclusive of all lift over-runs, vents, chimneys, aerials, TV antennae, construction cranes etc.

 

Should you wish to exceed this height a new application must be submitted.

 

Should the height of any temporary structure and/or equipment be greater than 45.72 metres AEGH, a new approval must be sought in accordance with the Civil Aviation (Buildings Control) Regulations Statutory Rules

1988 No. 161.

 

Construction cranes may be required to operate at a height significantly higher than that of the proposed development and consequently, may not be approved under the Airports (Protection of

Airspace) Regulations.

 

Sydney Airport advises that approval to operate construction equipment (ie cranes) should be obtained prior to any commitment to construct.

Information required by Sydney Airport prior to any approval is set out in Attachment A.

 

"Prescribed airspace" includes "the airspace above any part of either an Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) or Procedures for Air Navigation Services – Aircraft Operations (PANS-OPS) surface for the airport (Regulation 6(1)).

 

The height of the prescribed airspace at this location is 76 metres above AHD.

 

Planning for Aircraft Noise and Public Safety Zones Current planning provisions (s.117 Direction 3.5 NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979) for the assessment of aircraft noise for certain land uses are based on the Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF). The current ANEF for which Council may use as the land use planning tool for Sydney Airport was endorsed by Airservices in December 2012 (Sydney Airport 2033 ANEF).

 

Whilst there are currently no national aviation standards relating to defining public safety areas beyond the airport boundary, it is recommended that proposed land uses which have high population densities should be avoided.

 

"Prescribed airspace" includes "the airspace above any part of either an Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) or Procedures for Air Navigation Services – Aircraft Operations (PANS-OPS) surface for the airport (Regulation 6(1)).

 

The height of the prescribed airspace at this location is 75 metres above AHD.

 

Planning for Aircraft Noise and Public Safety Zones

 

Current planning provisions (s.117 Direction 3.5 NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979) for the assessment of aircraft noise for certain land uses are based on the Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF). The current ANEF for which Council may use as the land use planning tool for Sydney Airport was endorsed by Airservices in December 2012 (Sydney Airport 2033 ANEF).

 

Whilst there are currently no national aviation standards relating to defining public safety areas beyond the airport boundary, it is recommended that proposed land uses which have high population densities should be avoided

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the RLPP grants development consent under Sections 4.16 and 4.17 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 806/2017 for Demolition of existing structure, construction of part 3 part 6 storey shop-top housing development in 2 building forms with 23 dwellings, 4 commercial premises and 2 levels of basement carparking for 45 cars with associated works at No. 928-930 Anzac Parade Maroubra, subject to the development consent conditions attached to this report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

RDAP Development Consent Conditions (medium density residential)

 

 

 

 


RDAP Development Consent Conditions (medium density residential)

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


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

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                                                                             11 October 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D78/18

 

Subject:                       146 Carrington Road, Coogee (DA/106/2018)

Folder No:                      DA/106/2018

Author:                          Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                       Demolition of existing structures, construction of 3 storey residential flat building containing 5 dwellings, basement car parking for 8 vehicles, landscaping and associated works.

Ward:                             North Ward

Applicant:                      Ms T Savidis

Owner:                           Mr C Elmat

Summary

Recommendation:          Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 


 

Executive summary

 

The application is referred to the Randwick Local Planning Panel (RLPP) as the development is subject to the State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65).

 

The proposal seeks development consent for demolition of existing structures, construction of 3 storey residential flat building containing 5 dwellings, basement car parking for 8 vehicles, landscaping and associated works.

 

The proposal was advertised and notified in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP) and re-notified following receipt of amended drawings and documentation. Five submissions were received as part of the initial advertising and notification period and one additional submission was received after re-notification. Six submissions were received in total (from 3 property addresses) raising concerns with bulk and scale, lack of a variety in housing types, floor space ratio (FSR) and building height, number of storeys, reduced natural light, overshadowing, loss of suburban views, privacy and acoustic impacts, location of trees, construction of the basement, decreased on-street parking, loss of property values, setbacks, wall height, building entry location and apartment design guide (ADG) compliance.

 

The proposal contravenes the maximum permitted FSR standard (maximum 0.75:1 permitted and 0.76:1 proposed) pursuant to the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP) (1.3% variation). The applicant submitted a written request to vary the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the RLEP. The variation is supported given the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the FSR standard and the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone in that the proposal is consistent with the desired future character of the area and will protect the amenity of residents.

 

The proposal also contravenes the maximum permitted Height of Buildings standard (maximum 9.5m permitted and proposed maximum of 10.315m measured from the lift overrun (RL58.78) to the existing ground level (RL48.465 - interpolated). It is also noted that the southern elevation has an overall height of between 10.02m and 10.27m measured from the roof (RL58.02) to existing adjacent ground levels of RL48.00 and RL47.75. The applicant submitted a written request to vary the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the RLEP. The variation is supported given the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the height standard and the R3 Medium Density Residential zone in that the proposal is compatible with the desired future character of the locality will reasonably protect the amenity of residents.

 

The key issues related to building height and solar access to the proposed units and southern adjoining property.

 

With regards to solar access, 60% (3 out of 5) of apartments receive 2 hours solar access between 9am and 3pm during the winter solstice and does not meet the 70% minimum required under the ADG. The non-compliance is supported considering development on east-west orientated sites makes southern properties vulnerable to overshadowing. Also, the applicant provided shadow diagrams demonstrating future medium density development of the site and neighbouring properties will allow for 2 hours of solar access between 8am and 4pm during the winter solstice.

 

Subsequently, the proposal is recommended for approval subject to the recommended conditions.

 

Proposal

 

Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a three storey residential flat building (RFB) containing 5 x 2 bedroom apartments, basement level for 8 parking spaces, bin storage, residential storage and lift access to the units above with communal open space.

 


 

Amendments:

Amended plans and documentation were received by Council on 16 July 2018.

 

The amendments relate to the following:

 

    Relocated garage entry from the northern high side of the site to the southern low part of the site.

 

    Relocated lift to the northern side of the site.

 

    Reduced height of the front sandstone wall to minimise massing relative to street level and southern neighbour’s property. Planter box and privacy screen added to planter to restrict overlooking.

 

    Reduced wall height and building height by lowering basement level by 220mm.

 

    Reduction in ground level surrounding the southern side of the development to limit the height of boundary fencing above the southern neighbour’s.

 

    Reduced floor area and floor space ratio (FSR) from 0.77:1 to 0.76:1 (continues to exceed the maximum 0.75:1 standard).

 

    Removal of communal open space from the front whilst retaining communal open space at the rear resulting in an overall reduction in communal open space.

 

 

Figure 1. Photomontage of original scheme (left) and amended scheme (right).

 

Relevant history:

Pre-lodgement advice was provided under PL/29/2017. The key matters raised in the advice related to the following:

 

    Solar access for surrounding development: 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.

    The plans indicate a 9.3m wall height (8m maximum permitted). Any variation from the control must be justified having regard to the Objectives of Clause 4.4 of Section C2 of the DCP.

    Subsection (3) of Section B2 of the RDCP should also be addressed as it relates to retention of significant sandstone walls where possible.

 

The current application substantially addresses the above matters. Suitable conditions are also included requiring reuse of sandstone.

 

Site Description and Locality

The subject site is rectangular, orientated on an east-west axis and located on the western side of Carrington Road. The site has a frontage of 12.19m and side depths of 42.67m with a total site area of 520.3sqm. The site is steeply sloping having two gradients of 9.8% from front to rear and 18.4% from the northern side to the southern side of the site. At the front, the site sits generally around 3m above the pedestrian path level rising further to the rear by approximately 3m.

 

Figure 2. Aerial view of the subject site and surrounding area. Note - The closer position of contour lines demonstrates steeper slopes within the site.

 

The sloping topography of the site is characteristic of the surrounding area. Adjoining the subject site to the right is the northern neighbour’s property identified as No. 144 Carrington Road and to the left is the southern neighbour’s property identified as No. 148 Carrington Road.

Figure 3. Subject site shown centre. The single dwelling at right is identified as No. 144 Carrington Road the single dwelling at left as No. 148 Carrington Road.

 

Submissions

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

 

    149 Carrington Road, Coogee

    148 Carrington Road, Randwick

    9 Glen Avenue, Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

The bulk and scale is incompatible with the existing established streetscape character. Existing single dwellings characterise this section of the street with unified details, which is disregarded by the proposal.

The proposal is assessed as compatible with the desired future character of the area as part of the transitioning R3 Medium Density Residential zone. Notwithstanding, the proposal responds well to the existing context, incorporating appropriate massing and articulation.

The demolition of single dwellings and their replacement with flat buildings will not result in a variety of housing types, which is one of the objectives of the R3 zone. This will result in an undesirable precedent.

The proposed residential flat building will contribute to the housing types in the locality.

Exceedance of the FSR control is unacceptable. Compliance should be achieved.

The proposed variation to the FSR control is supported given the proposal is in accordance with the objectives of the FSR control and the R3 Medium Density Residential zone pursuant to the RLEP (refer to detailed assessment).

Given the ceiling heights are 2.7m which are beyond the standard 2.4m ceiling height, the building height does not comply.

The minimum ceiling height required by the ADG for habitable rooms is 2.7m. The building complies with the building height objectives pursuant to the RLEP.

The lift overrun, which the SEE notes is the highest point of the building, is not necessary. The third storey should be deleted along with the need for a lift.

The proposal complies with the building height objectives pursuant to the RLEP and therefore the number of stories is appropriate for development envisaged for the area.

Reduced natural light and overshadowing of surrounding properties.

Based on the submitted shadow diagrams, surrounding properties will continue to receive compliant solar access and natural light.

Loss of suburban views from 144 Carrington Road due to the proposed building and landscaping.

No key iconic views or views with a land and water interface will be affected by the proposed development from 144 Carrington Road. District views across the side boundaries will be impacted by the proposed development, however given the high level of compliance with the relevant site coverage provisions in the RDCP and compliance with the building height objectives pursuant to the RLEP, it is considered that views lost as a result of the development will not be inordinate to that which would be expected of development in the medium density zone.

Privacy impacts due to balconies and entertainment areas and windows.

Noted. A condition is recommended to reduce the depth of the front-facing terrace to Level 2 to a maximum depth of 3m and to reduce the depth of the rear-facing terrace on Level 2 to a maximum depth of 1.5m with privacy screens provided to the northern and southern sides and planter boxes to the west.

 

With regards to windows, privacy screens are shown on the drawings to the north and south facing windows on all levels. Conditions requiring appropriate privacy screening from habitable rooms are provided.

Tree planting in the north west corner will increase pool maintenance. The tree should be relocated.

There is suitable separation from the proposed landscaping to the pool and therefore relocation is not necessary. The landscaping is desirable in this location to help soften the development when viewed from surrounding properties.

Construction of the basement carpark may structurally compromise adjoining properties.

Standard conditions are provided ensuring a dilapidation report is carried out prior to works commencing and that adjoining properties are suitable supported during construction.

The development will result in decreased availability of on-street parking.

Compliant parking is provided as part of the basement level therefore the proposal is not expected to result in additional on-street parking. The proposal will only marginally decrease the area available in front of the site for parking given the access is located to the south of the site.

Loss of surrounding property values.

This is not a matter for consideration pursuant to Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended).

The front of the building is not aligned with neighbouring buildings.

The proposed front building setback is considered to be generally consistent with the prevailing front setback in accordance with the RDCP.

Documentation does not show details of 144 Carrington Road.

The location of adjoining dwellings and window placement relevant to each proposed level is shown on the drawings.

The non-compliant wall height and rear setback is unacceptable.

It is acknowledged that the proposal does not comply with the maximum permitted wall height along the southern side boundary. However, the variation is supported noting the topography of the site, and given that the proposal is provided with sufficient articulation and complies with the objectives of the maximum height pursuant to the RLEP, which minimises visual amenity impacts.

 

The rear setback is largely compliant, with the rear-facing balconies protruding into the minimum required setback. However, these are considered to be minor projecting elements that do not unreasonably contribute to adverse visual bulk and a condition is recommended to reduce the depth of the rear-facing terrace from level 2.

The development will require a sprinkler system for fire protection.

A standard condition is provided requiring the development to comply with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

The GFA calculation is inaccurate. E.g. the patio on the eastern balcony is adjacent to the northern external wall that has a height greater than 1.4m, and therefore should be included as GFA.

The GFA has been calculated by Council Officer and is assessed as accurate. The patio is not considered to be enclosed on all sides and is therefore not counted as additional GFA in accordance with the definitions of the RLEP.

All setbacks should be increased given the ADG guidelines state that increased side and rear setbacks should be considered where new development is uphill to minimise overshadowing and to assist with visual privacy.

The proposal complies with the minimum setback requirements of the RDCP, with increased setbacks provided where the building steps in from the southern side boundary. The setback requirements of the RDCP are considered most applicable given compliance with the ADG in terms of building separation would sterilise the site.

The entry is not in accordance with the ADG with the side entry to be adjacent to the adjoining property’s bedroom resulting in safety concerns and noise impacts.

Given the narrow lot width and low number of apartments, a side entrance in this instance is considered acceptable. Suitable side boundary fencing is proposed that will mitigate privacy impacts and will help to reduce any acoustic impacts.

The proposal is not in accordance with the design quality principles of the ADG.

The proposal has been assessed by Council’s Design Excellence Panel and is considered to be in accordance with the design quality principles of the ADG.

Acoustic and privacy impacts to 9 Glenn Avenue from windows and POS.

Conditions are recommended to ensure privacy screens are provided where necessary and the front and rear facing terraces to Level 2 is reduced. Given the proposed use is residential and the terraces and balconies are not considered to be excessively sized (subject to conditions), adverse acoustic impacts is not expected to occur.

 

Key Issues

 

Clause 4.6 exceptions to development standards

– Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

The proposed development exceeds the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) development standard pursuant to Clause 4.4 of the RLEP. The proposed floor space ratio is 0.76:1, which exceeds the maximum 0.75:1 FSR standard; a variation of 1.3%.

 

The applicant has submitted an exception to the development standard as required under Clause 4.6 of the RLEP and assessed in the detailed assessment section further below in this report.

 

In short, the applicant provides well-founded planning arguments stating that the maximum standard for the FSR should not be strictly applied and that the overall bulk and scale of development will satisfy the objectives under the RLEP. The variation from the standard is relatively minor and the overall bulk and scale of the development will be consistent with the part two and part three storey scale of development envisaged by the standards in the RLEP. There are no inordinate or unreasonable adverse impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

 

The development will contribute to the existing and future streetscape character, is reflected by the well-articulated and stepped in elements of built form and provide appropriate spatial separation between neighbouring properties and the street frontage.

 

- Height of buildings

The proposed development exceeds the maximum height of buildings development standard of 9.5m pursuant to Clause 4.3 of the RLEP. The proposed height of the building is between 10.02m at the rear southern elevation and 10.315 at the lift overrun, representing a variation up to 8.6%.

 

The applicant has submitted a Clause 4.6 exception to the development standard.

 

The table below identifies the maximum height of the development above existing ground levels:

 

Development

Ground level existing

Maximum height of development

Compliance with 9.5m RLEP height standard

Roof (RL58.02)

RL48.00 (south-west

RL47.75 (south-east)

10.02m

10.27m

Does not comply

Lift (RL58.78)

RL48.465

10.315m

Does not comply

Skylight (RL58.62)

RL48.48

10.14m

Does not comply

Awnings (front and rear (RL57.78)

RL48.82 (rear)

RL48.39 (front)

8.96m

9.39m

Complies

 

Although the lift overrun exceeds the standard by the greatest amount, there are only minor on the streetscape and neighbouring properties given its limited mass, and it is located well away from the street frontage, and neighbouring properties.  The most pronounced impacts occur as a result of the proposed development exceeding the height of buildings standard across the southern elevation opposite No. 148 Carrington Road where the building will have a maximum height of between 10.02m (rear) and 10.27m (front) as shown in the figure below:

 

Figure 4. Southern elevation and height of development measured from adjacent ground level along the southern side of the site.

 

Measured from the interpolated levels dropping from the higher northern side to the lower southern side of the site, the proposed southern elevation exceeds the height standard by between 520mm and 815mm representing a variation of between 5.5% and 8.6%. Despite the exceedance, the height of the development along the southern side boundary is considered acceptable for the following reasons:

 

    The proposed development responds appropriately to the sloping nature of the site and characteristic topography of the surrounding area. The wall height breaches along the southern low parts of the site are an inherent response of built form to the topography in the surrounding area particularly along this side of Clovelly Road and for other sites within the foreshore area.

 

    The additional overshadowing to the southern neighbour is largely unavoidable due to the east-west orientated subdivision and development pattern of the site and surrounding area; notwithstanding the applicant has demonstrated that suitable levels of solar access will be retained to the neighbouring properties and the development itself.

 

    The proposed two storey scale with a third storey contained within a reduced floor plate is consistent with the envelope envisaged by the standards in the RLEP and RDCP provisions for medium density residential development.

 

    The amendments such as relocating the lift to the northern side and stepped in larger southern side setbacks than the minimum RDCP controls improves the neighbour’s visual amenity and solar access.

 

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

This part of the report contains the key elements of non-compliance to the design criteria controls and includes a merits based assessment against the design guidance provided for in the Apartment Design Guide. Where relevant reference is also made to controls and or objectives under Part C2 of the RDCP 2013 relating to Medium Density Residential development.

 

    3B–2 Orientation – Solar access to neighbouring property

 

The ADG requires 6m setbacks for the purposes of providing solar access to neighbouring properties under objective 3B-2 of the ADG.

 

The proposed development has setbacks less than the 6m and an assessment of setbacks is carried out having regard to solar access to neighbouring properties. Under the ADG, a merit assessment is required against the design guidance.

 

The ADG acknowledges that compliance with 6m separation control for the purposes of solar access may be difficult to achieve particularly where in suburban areas older flat buildings and detached housing are located on narrow allotment with established existing setbacks.

 

Having particular regard to the subject site and surrounding area, there is a pattern of development on east-west subdivided sloping sites, containing narrow pathways at side boundaries, which makes southern properties, namely No. 148 Carrington Road, particularly vulnerable to overshadowing.

 

This area also displays setbacks of medium density developments that are more consistent with the RDCP side setback controls. 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 2m minimum side setbacks 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 largely a result of existing steeply sloping site rather than a consequence of any inordinate bulk or scale when compared with the scale of existing medium density development within the surrounding area. Moreover, the applicant has suitably demonstrated that appropriate solar access will be retained to a similarly scaled and sited development for both the undeveloped neighbouring property and the subject site itself as shown in Part 4A – Solar and daylight access discussion further below.

 

Overall, the wall height breaches are located over the low parts of the site which is an appropriate response of built form to the orientation and sloping topography in the surrounding area along Carrington Road. The proposed development has a spatial setting that is compatible with the local character of the area and requiring compliance with the 6m ADG control would result in a poorer planning outcome having regard to the streetscape character in the medium density residential zone.

 

    3F-1 Visual Privacy

 

The ADG requires for the purposes of visual 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 5. ADG diagram figure 3F-3 showing the application of the visual privacy controls.

 

The proposal has side setbacks that meet the RDCP controls however, they do not comply with the 6m minimum separation control in the ADG. As considered earlier under Orientation 3B-2, it is impractical to provide 6m building separation as it would physically constrain and sterilise development of the site. The ADG also acknowledges existing patterns of development which in this instance contain buildings with narrow pathways at side boundaries which are well below the 6m control in the ADG. As such, it is considered more reasonable to place a greater emphasis on ensuring the new development is designed so that occupants and neighbour’s 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 windows and balconies.

 

The proposal generally seeks to mitigate privacy impacts with physical screens, placement of windows and forward and rear location of areas of private open space.

 

However, there are concerns that the large size of the roof terrace and overreliance on physical screen unnecessarily contributes to visual bulk and widely spaced screens across the site don’t adequately restrict sightlines. Therefore conditions are recommended as discussed further below.

 

Roof terrace

 

The front roof terrace has an area of 42sqm which is four times the 10sqm minimum required for a two bedroom apartment under the ADG. The large size of the balcony has the potential to be used by large groups of people for entertaining purposes, potentially resulting in adverse acoustic impacts on the neighbouring properties. In addition, the privacy screens used adds unnecessary visual bulk and detracts from the streetscape character.

 

Whilst a reduction in the size of the terrace is considered necessary, it needs to be weighed against the expected levels of privacy protection in the area. In this respect, the site is elevated well above street level and has views of the district and distance ocean and examples of terraces larger than the ADG are within the surrounding area. Most relevantly, examples are located at No. 133 and 135 Carrington Road and at No. 130-138 Carrington Road. Having regard to the above, although a reduction in the depth is considered necessary for both reasonable privacy protection and minimising mass, it is not considered that the ADG minimum should be insisted upon given the existing conditions of the site and the surrounding area.

 

A condition is therefore recommended requiring a reduction in the depth of the rooftop terrace to a maximum of 3m which allows for the retention of the BBQ cabinets, space for table and chairs with passive and active uses. A reduction in the length of the privacy screens to 3.7m measured from the eastern face of the living room wall will also reduce the visual bulk. Conditions are also recommended requiring the appropriate placement and design for privacy screens.

 

Subject to the above, the proposed development is considered to provide for adequate privacy relationship with neighbouring properties.

 

    4A – Solar and daylight access

 

The ADG requires under Part 4A – Solar and daylight access, a minimum of 2 hours of solar access to 70% of apartments within the development is required.

 

The proposed development provides 2hrs of solar access to 3 out of the 5 apartments between 9am and 3pm during the winter solstice representing 60% of the apartments within the development.

 

At the outset, the ADG states that achieving the minimum design criteria, may not be possible on some sites and that the proposal is required to demonstrate how site constraints and orientation preclude meeting the design criteria and how the development meets the objective. In this respect, the ADG states that Solar and daylight access are important for apartment buildings, reducing the reliance on artificial lighting and heating, improving energy efficiency and residential amenity through pleasant conditions to live and work.

 

Despite non-compliance with this provision of the ADG and having regard to the above, it is considered that adequate solar access is provided for the development and neighbouring properties for the following reasons:

 

    The applicant has demonstrated that despite not meeting the ADG design criteria, 80% of apartments will have 2hrs of direct solar access to living areas between 8am and 4pm during the winter solstice which is one hour earlier and one hour later than the ADG criteria. Despite the non-compliance, it is considered that solar access during the earlier and later period will be of great benefit to the living and working conditions of future occupants as people are generally more active during the earlier and later periods after 9am and after 3pm respectively.

 

    The development and subdivision pattern of the site and surrounding sites are orientated on an east-west axis which constrains the ability to provide solar access in accordance with the ADG design criteria. Notwithstanding, the applicant has demonstrated that a similarly scaled development at the northern lot and southern lot would still retain two hours of solar access to at least 80% of apartments between 8am and 4pm.

 

    The development contains photovoltaic cells maximising energy efficiency and relying less on artificial means of lighting and heating.

 

    The proposed development does not have any apartments that do not receive solar access which is greater than 15% maximum permitted under the ADG.

 

Overall, it is considered that the applicant has suitably demonstrated that there are sufficient planning reasons for not meeting ADG controls between 9am and 3pm during the winter solstice and that the 80% of apartments receiving solar access between 8am and 4pm will satisfy the design guidance provided in the ADG.

 

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 10.27m at the front and a maximum 10.02m at the rear taken from the underside of eaves at the southern side elevation.

 

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:

 

    In terms of the bulk and scale of the development, level 2 floor area has a smaller footprint than the level below with stepped in setbacks presenting as a subservient differentiated built form thus avoiding presentation of the top level as a full storey above a design outcome that is encouraged by the RDCP for Medium Density Residential development.

    The gradually increasing wall heights over sloping lower land levels is characteristic of development in the area and will be compatible with other existing flat buildings as well as other development along Carrington Road.

    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.

    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 earlier and 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 unreasonable overshadowing and adverse visual amenity impacts on neighbouring properties. Despite the variance to the external wall height control, the RDCP objectives for the height control will be satisfied and the proposed development will be compatible with the streetscape, provide for appropriate amenity for future occupants and is therefore considered acceptable.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:            Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

That the application to demolish existing structures, construction of 3 storey residential flat building containing 5 x 2 bedroom dwellings, basement car parking for 8 vehicles, landscaping and associated 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 as amended and conditioned is consistent with the objectives in SEPP 65 and the design guidance contains in the Apartment Design Guide (ADG).

 

    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 Height of Buildings in Clause 4.3 of RLEP 2012 can be varied.

 

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

 


 

Detailed Assessment

1.         Section 4.15 matters for consideration

 

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

 

Section 4.15 ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

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 (RDCP). See table below and where necessary key issues section of the report.

 

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

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

 

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

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

The proposed development as amended is suitable for the site.

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

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

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

The proposed development as amended with specific reference to the amendments made to minimise the adverse impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring property to the south and the streetscape form an essential element in considering that the proposal will be in the public interest.

 

The proposal is also in the public interest, provides additional housing within an envelope that responds appropriately to the existing sloping site conditions and surrounding area.

 

The proposal will not result in any significant or unreasonable adverse impact on the streetscape character or on the amenity of neighbouring properties.

 


 

2.         Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

2.1        State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPS)

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

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

 

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

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (BASIX) 2004

In accordance with the SEPP BASIX, all new housing in NSW is required to meet a designated target for energy and water reduction. A BASIX Certificate was submitted with the application, which indicates that the proposal meets the required reduction targets. The proposal therefore satisfies the requirements of BASIX.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality Residential Flat Buildings

SEPP 65 aims to promote quality design of Residential Flat Buildings (RFB’s). The proposal is subject to the policy as it involves the alterations and additions to a residential flat building being 3 storeys and more in height containing four or more dwellings. Council’s Design Excellence Panel (DEP) commented on one occasion that the panel is generally supportive of the proposal, subject to the points noted in their comments being addressed. In this respect, the key issue raised by the DEP relates to minimising the massing of the development at the front and demonstrating that the southern neighbour’s future development potential will not be unreasonably impacted by the proposed development. The amended scheme was not referred to the DEP given their concerns were adequately addressed as the massing was reduced and the development potential of the southern property was adequately demonstrated.

 

As required by SEPP 65, the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) is considered by way of an assessment below. The ADG is used in conjunction with SEPP 65 and is a guide containing objectives, design criteria and design guidance to improve the planning and design of residential apartment development in NSW.

 

Having regard to the ADG, an assessment is carried out against the key design criteria requirements in Part 3: Siting the Development and Part 4: Designing the Building. The ADG provides guidance about how development proposals can achieve the nine design quality principles identified in SEPP 65. Any non-compliance to the design criteria includes a merits based assessment as per the design guidance of the Apartment Design Guide.

 

Clause

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

Part 3: Siting the Development

3A-1

Site Analysis

 

 

 

Each element in the Site Analysis Checklist should be

addressed

 

Site analysis plan is adequate.

3B-1

Orientation

 

 

 

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

Complies.

 

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

Units are orientated to the east and west with northern solar access attainable to each unit.

 

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

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

Three out of the five units receive solar access between 9am and 3pm during the winter solstice.

Solar access will be retained for at least two hours to four of the five apartments between 8am and 4pm. Unit 2 receives 1½ hrs of solar access between 8am and 4pm.

Does not comply see key issues section of this report.

 

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

Solar access is retained to the private open space of the southern neighbour’s. The applicant has also provided shadow diagrams demonstrating solar access and overshadowing impacts of the potential future built form to the subject site, the neighbouring southern property will attain adequate levels of solar access between 8am and 4pm.

Complies.

See also key issues section of this report relating to future development of the southern neighbours property to the south.

 

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

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

Proposed development has side setbacks less than 6m however, it is not considered necessary given compliance is achieved with the design guidance. Moreover, compliance with the 6m control would sterilise development of the site located in the medium density zone which envisages development of a similar bulk and scale to that envisaged by the standards.

Does not comply with the 6m setback control. See comment at left and key issues section of report.

 

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

The proposed development responds appropriately to the topography of the site and surrounding area. It has a bulk and scale that is consistent with the RDCP controls and where non -compliance occurs, the associated objectives have been suitably satisfied.

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

Complies.

 

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

solar collectors on neighbouring buildings

Complies.

3D-1

Communal and Public Open Space

 

 

 

Communal open space has a minimum area equal to

25% of the site

 

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

Proposed: 12% provided at the rear of the site. The original scheme provided 26% of the site as communal open space and complied. However, it was considered that communal open space was more appropriately located at the rear of the site consistent with other property’s rear yard areas. The proposed location of communal open space at the front of the site had the potential to have a negative impact on the uses on neighbouring properties.

Does not comply. The communal open space is sufficient however given the low number of units and the proximity of other high quality open space areas in the vicinity of the site such as Coogee Beach and parklands that provide passive and active recreational use. Further, each unit is provided with compliant POS.

 

Solar access to the communal open space in the rear yard is compliant.

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

18% deep soil.  

 

Complies.

 

3F-1

Visual Privacy

 

 

 

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

buildings to the side and rear boundaries are as follows:

 

Building height

Habitable rooms and balconies

Non-habitable rooms

Up to 12m (4 storeys)

6m

3m

Up to 25m (5-8 storeys)

9m

4.5m

>25m (9+ storeys)

12m

6m

 

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

The proposal has varying side setbacks that do not meet the minimum 6m control in the ADG.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does not comply, see key issues section of 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.

 

NA see assessment in part B7 of the RDCP.

Part 4: Designing the Building

4A

Solar and Daylight Access

 

 

 

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

60% of apartments will have two hours of solar access between 9am and 3pm.

Does not comply, see key issues section of report.

 

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 are cross ventilated.

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.

Complies.

4D

Apartment Size and Layout

 

 

 

Apartments are required to have the following minimum internal areas:

 

Apartment Type

Minimum Internal Area

Studio

35m2

1 bedroom

50m2

2 bedroom

70m2

3bedroom

90m2

5sqm for each additional bathroom

Complies.

 

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

Complies.

 

Habitable room depths are limited to a maximum of

2.5 x the ceiling height

Complies.

 

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

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

Complies.

 

Master bedrooms have a minimum area of 10m2 and

other bedrooms 9m2 (excluding wardrobe space)

Complies.

 

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

Complies.

 

Living rooms or combined living/dining rooms have a

minimum width of:

    4m for 3 bedroom apartments

Complies.

 

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

Complies.

4E

Private open space and balconies

 

 

 

All apartments are required to have primary balconies as follows:

 

Dwelling Type

Minimum Area

Minimum Depth

Studio Apt.

4m2

-

1 bed Apt.

8m2

2m

2 bed Apt.

10m2

2m

3+ bed Apt.

12m2

2.4m

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Complies.

4F

Common Circulation and Spaces

 

 

 

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

Complies.

 

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

NA

4G

Storage

 

 

 

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

 

Dwelling Type 

Storage Size Volume

Studio

4m3

1 bedroom

6m3

2 bedroom

8m3

3bedroom

10m3

 

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

Ample cupboard space provide storage within each apartment.

Complies.

 

2.2        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP)

The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposed residential flat building 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 contribute to the desired future character of the area and will not result in any significant adverse impacts on 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)

0.75:1 (390.22sqm/520.3sqm)

0.76:1 (395.9sqm)

Does not comply - see Clause 4.6 assessment in detailed section of report.

Height of Building (Maximum)

9.5m

10.315m

Does not comply - see Clause 4.6 assessment in detailed section of report.

 

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to a Development Standard

 

a)   Building Height

The proposal contravenes the maximum height of buildings development standard contained in clause 4.3 (2) of RLEP 2012. The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012.

 

Height

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Building Height

Development Standard

9.5m

Proposal

10.315m (RL58.78 – RL48.465)

Excess above RLEP Standard

8.6%

 

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 FSR standard are set out in clause 4.3 (1) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

Officer’s assessment of the Clause 4.6 exception

It is considered that the proposal as amended relocating the lift overrun to the northern part of the site and 220mm reduction in the height of the main roof meets the objectives of the height of buildings standard and the R3 Medium Density Residential zone. Strict compliance with the maximum is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case for the following reasons:

 

    The proposed development responds appropriately to the sloping nature of the site and characteristic topography of the surrounding area along this side of Carrington Road. The height breaches along the southern low parts of the site are an inherent response of built form to the topography of the site.

 

    The additional overshadowing to the southern neighbour is largely unavoidable due to the east-west orientated subdivision and development pattern of the site and surrounding area; notwithstanding the applicant has demonstrated that suitable levels of solar access will be retained to the neighbouring properties and the development itself between the hours of 8am and 4pm during the winter solstice.

 

    The proposed two storey scale with a third storey contained within a reduced floor plate is consistent with the envelope envisaged by the standards in the RLEP and RDCP provisions for medium density residential development.

 

    The amendments such as relocating the lift to the northern side, stepped in larger southern side setbacks than the minimum RDCP controls and reduction in the height of the main roof form by 220mm improves the neighbour’s visual amenity and solar access.

 

    The proposed development is suitably articulated and separated from the neighbouring properties that the height will not result in any significant adverse visual amenity, privacy or view impacts on the neighbouring properties.

 

Overall, the applicant’s written request has successfully demonstrated that compliance with the development standard in question is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

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

The proposal continues to satisfy the planning objectives for the locality and to fit in with the scale and character of development in the immediate context, whilst minimising additional adverse impacts on surrounding properties. 

 

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

 

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

 

1.   Consistency with the objectives of the Height of Buildings standard in the RLEP:

The objectives of the building height clause read as follows:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Assessment:

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

 

The justification provided in the applicant’s written request are considered acceptable in conjunction with the amendments made to reduce the height of the building and it is to be expected that some resultant variation to the height of the building occurs where a development is located on a sloping site. The proposal has a near compliant GFA, and there is a competing requirement for suitable floor to ceiling heights. The variation sought is limited to only small parts of the development such as the roof and southern elevation ensuring limited visibility from street level.

 

Importantly, the majority of the development will be fully compliant with the height standard. where the building does not meet the standard, there is greater than minimum separation through articulated and stepped in walls such that when viewed from the neighbouring properties, the development size and scale will be compatible with the desired future medium density character of the locality.

 

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

 

There are no contributory buildings in the vicinity of the subject site.

 

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

 

In relation to key aspects of neighbour’s amenity such as visual amenity, privacy and overshadowing, the height encroachment above the standard is limited to the roof profile and will not appreciably impact the neighbouring properties amenity. Further discussion of the amenity of neighbouring properties is contained in the key issues section of this report.

 

2.   Consistency with the objectives of the R3: Medium Density Zone 

The Site is zoned R3 under RLEP 2012.  The proposed development for a ‘residential flat building’ is permissible with consent under the zone.

 

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

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

     To 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.

 

Assessment:

The objectives of the zone are listed below followed by comments:

 

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

 

The development will cater for the need for housing within a medium density residential environment.

 

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

 

The development will provide variety in housing via the apartment’s size, layout and aspects.

 

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

 

N/A

 

     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 development provides a part two part three storey scale and will not be out of character with built forms in the surrounding area which have similarly responded to the characteristic sloping topography of land. The proposal reflects a suitable envelope including fenestration and façade treatment where the encroachment above the height standard will not deter from its contribution to the desired streetscape character of the area.

 

     To protect the amenity of residents.

 

The proposal will not result in loss of acoustic or visual privacy that cannot be overcome by the size of the balconies and adoption of additional privacy screening along the sides of the balconies. The proposed encroachment of the height of the development are minor and limited to small portions of the roof and does not result in unreasonable levels of overshadowing to the neighbouring properties.

 

     To encourage housing affordability.

 

The proposal does not provide affordable housing as defined under the SEPP Affordable Rental Housing, however it will provide housing choice where the degree of affordability is to a large extent dictated by improving the amenity and live ability of new housing stock closer to current standards of acceptability under SEPP 65.

 

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

 

N/A

 

Overall, it is considered that the key matters raised in the applicant’s submission and the assessment carried out against the amended application demonstrate that the resultant environmental impacts of the proposal as amended will be acceptable.

 

The variation to the height standard is a well-considered response to the development envisaged by the standards for the zone, the sites sloping topography, its orientation and the bulk and scale of medium density development along Carrington Road.

 

Moreover, if the development were made to comply it would not result in any appreciable difference in overall benefits to the neighbouring properties and will in most likelihood result in substandard floor to ceiling heights of the top level apartment.

 

The proposal is considered to maintain consistency with the size and scale of development envisaged in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone relative to the existing site conditions.

 

As such it is considered that in this case, strict compliance is unnecessary and unreasonable.

 

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

 

        The variation for a better planning outcome

The proposal does not result in any significant change to the existing bulk and scale and will continue to achieve the planning objectives for the locality. The proposal will fit in with the scale and character of development in the context of the medium density zone, whilst minimising potential adverse impacts on surrounding properties. 

 

The applicant’s written request inclusive amendments and additional information submitted with the application have successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

The assessment carried out above in relation to the objectives of the building height standard and the R3 Medium Density Residential zone demonstrates that there are sufficient environmental grounds to permit the building height variation.

 

The additional height area does not compromise the desired streetscape character, whereby the proposed development provides side setbacks that are in compliance with the RDCP controls for medium density development.

 

The variation to the building height development standard will not contribute to any significant or unreasonable adverse environmental impacts to the neighbouring properties in terms of solar access, privacy and views subject to appropriate conditions.

 

In terms of visibility from neighbouring properties, the proposed development whilst viewable from the neighbouring properties will be setback further than the existing development and the articulation along all elevations ensures suitable separation for the purposes of visual amenity.

 

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 seeks development consent under the relevant environmental planning policies of the state and local government area. An assessment of these policies and standards has been carried out throughout this report. The key issues have been identified and assessed as satisfactory in this report and the proposed development is considered to have achieved consistency with the state and regional planning policies.

 

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

 

•        The variation is within 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.

 

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

 

Variation from the adherence to the numerical building height 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 is considered to be in the public interest.

 

Clause 4.6 Exception to a Development Standard - Floor Space Ratio

The proposal contravenes the maximum floor space ratio of buildings development standard contained in clause 4.4 (2) of RLEP 2012. The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012.

 

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

Development Standard

0.75:1 (390.22sqm/520.3sqm)

Proposal

0.76:1 (395.9sqm)

Excess above RLEP Standard

1.3% (5.68sqm)

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

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

 

The concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure must also be obtained for development that contravenes a development standard. However, pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 18–003 (dated 21 February 2018) the concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Environment under clause 4.6(3) & (4) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed in certain cases.

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

The applicant has provided the following arguments (addressing both the objectives of the standard and the R3 medium density zone) in support of the Clause 4.6 exception:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Officer’s assessment of the Clause 4.6 exception

The exception sought to the standard is minor. Notwithstanding, the main considerations are whether the additional floor area across the whole of the site satisfies the key objectives of the FSR standard and the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

 

These objectives are assessed as follows:

 

R3 Zone: Medium Density Residential objectives

The key objectives of the R3 zone are listed as follows:

 

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

 

Provided. The five apartments provides for the housing needs of the community within the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

 

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

 

The proposed development provides only one type of housing - two bedroom apartments, which are compliant with the area required for 2 bed and 2 bath units under the Apartment Design Guide (ADG). The varying apartment sizes provides a degree of housing choice. The size and layout of the proposed two bedroom apartments display a high level of amenity, functionality and flexibility that will provide for the housing needs of the community within the wider area.

                                           

•        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 surrounding precinct comprises mainly single dwellings (that are not heritage items or within a heritage conservation area) with some newer medium density development and therefore the area is undergoing transition. Within the visual catchment of the site, there are buildings of various architectural styles, eras and built forms. The part two part three storey contemporary built form provides a sense of depth and openness as viewed from both the neighbouring properties, within the streetscape.

 

The proposed built form is an appropriate redevelopment of the subject site. The floor area is distributed appropriately in response to the sloping nature of the site and that of the surrounding area. The amended scheme which locates the larger elements at the northern end of the site minimises the scale of the development as viewed from the streetscape.

 

The proposed development will contribute to the desirable contemporary elements of the existing and future streetscape character.

 

•        To protect the amenity of residents.

 

The amenity of residents having regard to privacy, solar access, visual amenity and views are considered to be suitably maintained and the proposed density of the development will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on the future occupants or neighbouring residents.

 

•        To encourage housing affordability.

 

The degree of affordability is largely dictated by the valuable location of the site and it is considered that the proposed development provides good housing choice.

 

Floor space ratio objectives

The key objectives of the FSR standard are listed as follows:

 

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

 

The RDCP generally envisages a three storey built form with habitable roof level above / or reduced floor area at the top level and the proposed development provides a commensurate scale. From street level, the development has a four storey scale, however this scale is not intrusive given the sizable setbacks from the front and stepping in of the top level from the levels below.

 

The proposed size and scale is consistent with other medium density developments along this side of Carrington Road and the surrounding area with the exception of underdeveloped properties and older medium density housing stock.

 

Compliance with the relevant controls relating to site coverage, landscaped open spaces, front setbacks, side and rear setbacks including articulated and use of mixture of materials, and amendments made in the course of assessment of the application are fundamental in justifying that the proposed development will both contribute to and be compatible with the desired future character of the area.

 

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

 

The proposed development contains well-articulated elements supported by good distribution of floor area, setbacks and massing along all elevations. Providing only one apartment on each end of the building achieves good cross ventilation and access to daylight reducing reliance on artificial means of heating, lighting and ventilation. The proposed development also contains photovoltaic cells on the roof that will improve energy efficiency.

 

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

 

The proposed development does not detract from contributory buildings in a conservation area or any heritage items.

 

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

 

The amenity of neighbouring properties are considered to have been reasonably protected having regard to the development’s visual bulk and visual and acoustic privacy measures. The proposal does not cause unreasonable loss of views, and does not result in any unreasonable levels of overshadowing to neighbouring properties. 

 

Overall, with respect to the R3 medium density zone objectives and the floor space ratio standard, it is considered that the amendments made to the application and supporting material have appropriately justified that the strict compliance with the floor space ratio development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

Therefore, it is considered that the Clause 4.6 exception to the development standard can be supported as a good planning outcome.

 

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

 

As discussed above, the proposal achieves satisfactory compliance with the planning objectives for the locality. The applicant’s written request highlights the merits of the proposal both in terms of its articulation and amenity afforded for future occupants. It is also important to consider that the amendments made by the applicant to the application have minimised impacts on neighbouring properties whilst maintaining a high level of amenity for the units and neighbouring properties. 

 

Overall, it is considered that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

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

 

Based on the above assessment, the proposed development is consistent with the aims of the RLEP 2012 and the objectives of the standard and the objectives of the R3 zone in that the floor space provided achieves good amenity within the units both in terms of natural light and ventilation, and will present well within the streetscape character. The proposed development does not result in any unacceptable and unreasonable impact on the amenity of residents.

 

Overall, given the above assessment, the proposed development is in the public interest because it is an orderly use of the site.

 

Council delegation exercising concurrence function for development that contravenes a development standard is subject to:

 

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

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

 

Pursuant to the assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4), it is considered that the:

 

The proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. Strict adherence to the numerical standard is not considered necessary in this case, as the proposed development is generally consistent with the medium density housing forms envisaged by the RLEP 2012 for this locality with particular regard to its topographical features. The proposed FSR does not result in significant adverse impacts on the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the desired streetscape character.

 

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

 

Overall, the proposed development as amended and conditioned will be suitable for the site, and the applicant’s written justification for contravening the floor space ratio standard is considered to be well founded and therefore supportable.

 


 

3.        Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013

 

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

 

The provisions of the DCP are addressed below.

 

B6 Recycling and Waste Management

 

DCP Clause

Control

Proposal

Compliance

On-Going Operation

 

 

 

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

Complies.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Condition to comply.

 

B7

Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access

3.

Parking & Service Delivery Requirements

 

Car parking requirements:

1space per 2 studios

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

1.2 spaces per 2-bedroom unit

1.5 spaces per 3- or more bedroom unit

1 visitor space per 4 dwellings

See Development Engineering comments.

 

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

 

Complies.

 

2.2

Landscaped open space and deep soil area

 

2.2.1

Landscaped open space

 

 

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

53.7%

Complies.

 

2.2.2

Deep soil area

 

 

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

18%

Does not comply however the ADG provisions overrides the RDCP pro