BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Randwick Local Planning Panel

Meeting

 

 

 

  Thursday 22 November 2018    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Randwick City Council		1300 722 542
30 Frances Street			council@randwick.nsw.gov.au
Randwick NSW 2031			www.randwick.nsw.gov.au
 



Randwick Local Planning Panel            22 November 2018

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Randwick Local Planning Panel

 

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, 22 November 2018 at 1:00pm

 

 

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

D91/18         11 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra (DA/9/2018).................................................................. 1

D92/18         162 Arden Street, Coogee (DA/63/2018)..................................................................... 75

D93/18         5/19 Melrose Parade, Clovelly (DA/141/2018)............................................................ 141

D94/18         252-254 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (DA/199/2018)..................................................... 185

D95/18         15 Winchester Road, Clovelly (DA/240/2007/C)......................................................... 275

D96/18         9 Carlton Street, Kensington (DA/92/2018)................................................................ 287

D97/18         238-242 Alison Road, Randwick (DA/434/2018)......................................................... 337

Miscellaneous Reports

Nil    

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Kerry Kyriacou

Director City Planning


Randwick Local Planning Panel            22 November 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D91/18

 

Subject:                      11 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra (DA/9/2018)

Folder No:                      DA/9/2018

Author:                          William Jones, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                       Alterations and additions to the existing building and conversion of the building into an attached dual occupancy including associated site and landscaping works.

Ward:                             Central Ward

Applicant:                      Brewster Murray Pty Ltd

Owner:                           Mr M G Ye

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 height of buildings development standard pursuant to Clause 4.3 and floor space ratio (FSR) development standard pursuant to Clause 4.4 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP) by more than 10%.

 

The proposal seeks development consent for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house and conversion of the building into an attached dual occupancy including associated site and landscaping works.

 

The proposal was notified in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP). Five submissions were received from 2 property addresses raising key concerns with view loss, privacy, non-complaint FSR and building height, and overshadowing.

 

The proposal includes a reduction in building height by 1.04m through provision of a flat roof and a reduction in gross floor area (GFA) by 130.7m2. Despite the reduced building height and FSR, the proposal contravenes the height of buildings standard under Clause 4.3 of the RLEP by 78.94% (measured to the uppermost roof), and contravenes the floor space ratio standard under Clause 4.4 of the RLEP by 49.3%.

 

The applicant’s written request pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the RLEP has adequately addressed that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. The variations are supported given the proposal seeks to reduce the extent of the existing variations and the proposed development will not result in adverse amenity impacts on adjoining properties (subject to conditions). The proposed development is in accordance with the objectives of Clause 4.3 Height of buildings standard and the objectives of the R2 Medium Density Residential zone pursuant to the RLEP.

 

The key issues relate to whether the existing approved building can accommodate the proposed dual occupancy use without compromising the amenity of occupants and adversely impacting the amenity of surrounding properties with regards to visual amenity and privacy impacts, overshadowing and view loss. The existing building is capable of accommodating the proposed use whist ensuring a high level of residential amenity is achieved. No adverse amenity impacts will occur to surrounding properties subject to conditions to reduce the extent of the proposed awnings and balconies (to reduce visual bulk and view loss and to reduce the extent of the building height variation), and to provide privacy screening and setbacks to balustrades (to reduce privacy impacts).

 

The proposal is considered to improve the existing building through a reduction in overall building height and FSR while providing an efficient use of the existing approved building envelope that is in accordance with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone. The proposal is subsequently recommended for approval.

 

Proposal

 

·      Change of use from a 4 storey dwelling house to a dual occupancy:

-       dwelling 1 located on Lower Level 1 comprising 3 bedrooms and terraced POS; and

-       dwelling 2 located across Lower Levels 2, 3 and 4 comprising 5 bedrooms, 2 living areas, sitting room, office, media room and balconies on Lower Levels 2 and 3 including a terrace, WC and plant room on the bottommost Lower Level 4, with a garden area set further below at existing ground level.

 

·      Additional external changes to existing balconies:

-       squaring the balcony at the ground floor (resulting in the balcony becoming larger at the corners);

-       provision of an awning across the balcony of Lower Level 1 (setback 3m from the northern side boundary);

-       squaring the balcony at Lower Level 2 (resulting in the balcony becoming larger in the centre) and provision of an awning (setback 3m from the northern side boundary and 2.8m from the southern side boundary);

-       reducing the existing GFA (eastern façade) to include a balcony at Lower Level 3 including squaring the balcony (resulting in the balcony becoming larger in the centre and at the northern corner) and provision of a support for the balcony above at the southern corner;

-       provision of an external access stair on the eastern side of the Lower Level 3 balcony, towards the southern side boundary; and

-       a terrace at Lower Level 4.

 

·      Vehicular access at the ground floor (street level) with internal parking for 4 vehicles (2 tandem spaces per dwelling).

·      Provision of a lift that runs from the ground floor to Lower level 3 and a common circulation lobby that runs from the ground floor to Lower Level 2.

·      Landscaping at the ground floor (at street level) and existing ground level (below Lower Level 4).

·      Replacement of existing windows with new windows to the sides of the dwelling, with all glazing compromising privacy screening or obscured gazing.

·      New glazing to the eastern façade fronting the ocean.

·      Additional articulation to the western façade (to the street frontage).

·      Removal of the pitched roof and replacement with a flat roof (resulting in a 1.04m reduction in building height).

·      New 1.8m high side boundary fencing at garden level.

Figure 1. 3D perspective drawing from Mermaid Avenue.

 

 

Figure 2. 3D perspective drawing of proposed development as viewed from the east (left) and existing house (right)

 

Site Description and Locality

 

The subject site is identified as 11 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra and is legally described as Lot 121 in DP 802704. The site is 1016m2, is generally rectangular in shape (aside from the irregularly shaped eastern end) and has a 15.54m frontage to Mermaid Avenue to the west. The site rises by approximately 37m from sea level to Mermaid Avenue (or by approximately 19.21m from the existing lower garden level).

 

The site comprises an existing 4 storey dwelling house with ground level parking off Mermaid Avenue and a pitched roof approved via DA/270/1983. The site does not contain any trees, is not subject to a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area. The site is subject to the foreshore building line and the foreshore scenic protection area pursuant to the RLEP.

 

The adjoining property to the north is a 5 storey dwelling house located at 9 Mermaid Avenue comprising a pool at the lower ground level. The adjoining property to the south is a 2 storey dwelling house located at 15 Mermaid Avenue with a pool at the lower ground level. The locality chiefly comprises larger single dwellings that step with the contours of the site, capitalising on ocean views to the east and land and water interface views to the north-east and south-east. Dwellings on the eastern side of Mermaid Avenue present as single storey to the street, with dwellings on the western side of Mermaid Avenue presenting 3 and 4 storeys to the street with podium open space above semi-basement garages.

 

Relevant history

 

Pre-lodgement advice – PL/38/2017

Pre-lodgement advice was provided to the applicant on 17 November 2017 raising concerns with privacy impacts, overshadowing, and highlighting the need for justification for any non-compliances with the RLEP and the RDCP. Notably, the applicant was advised that the proposed projections beyond the existing building envelope (awnings, stairs and landing) should be light-weight structures, and that a more skilful design is required to minimise potential view loss to key land and water interface views.

 

The proposed DA responded to the pre-lodgement advice by pulling back sections of the east-facing balconies in response to key views to the east and south-east, providing “light weight” awning structures and a detailed view loss analysis.

 

Request for additional information

Following review of the submitted documentation, the applicant was requested to address the following:

·      Demonstrate existing and proposed shadow impacts to 15 Mermaid Avenue in elevation drawings.

 

·      Demonstrate the extent of cut and fill proposed as part of the lower garden area that is within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

 

·      Reduce the number of bedrooms (originally 6) proposed as part of the lower dwelling noting that the office and media rooms could also potentially be used as bedrooms.

 

·      Improve the disproportionate size of the 2 living areas as part of the lower dwelling.

 

·      Improve the size of the POS directly accessed off the main living areas as part of the lower dwelling.

Amended drawings were provided that adequately addressed Council’s concerns, with the lower dwelling comprising a total of 5 bedrooms and an increased size of the living areas and POS on Lower Level 2. The enlarged living area was achieved by deleting a bedroom and enlarging the POS by increasing the depth of the balcony into the living space. As a result of the increased POS there was a reduction in GFA by 19.6m2 (130.7m2 reduction proposed in total) and the applicant has submitted a revised variation request pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the RLEP.

It is noted that there were no changes to living room or kitchen windows and the balcony was not extended outwards, therefore the amended drawings were not re-notified given there were no additional potential impacts to neighbours.

In addition, revised shadow diagrams were provided and photos of the northern elevation of 15 Mermaid Avenue illustrating no windows in the neighbouring dwelling’s façade. The extent of cut and fill was also illustrated on the drawings for assessment purposes.

 

Figure 3. Original Lower Level 2 living area and POS (left) and amended drawing (right). 

 

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:

 

·      9 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra

·      15 Mermaid Parade, Maroubra

 


 

Issue

Comment

Potentially moderate to severe view loss due to increased bulk associated with the balcony awnings. The balconies should be reduced in size by being set back from the northern boundary and the awning deleted. Additional bulk due to balcony awnings will impact visual amenity.

Noted. Conditions are recommended to reduce the extent of the balcony awnings to Lower Levels 1 and 2, and to exclude the additional proposed balcony areas at the Ground Floor, and Lower Levels 2 and 3 that will help to improve views and reduce visual bulk (refer to Key Issues).

Privacy impacts due to increased size of balconies. The balconies should be setback further from the northern boundary and northern windows should be provided with frosted / obscured glazing or raised window sills.

Noted. Conditions are recommended to ensure balustrades are clear, and are setback 0.9m from the northern edges of the balconies at the Ground Floor level, and Lower Levels 1 and 2. A condition is also recommended so that privacy screening is provided to the northern side of the balcony to Lower Level 3. All side-facing windows are provided with either frosted glazing or privacy screening, and conditions are recommended to enforce this (refer to Key Issues).

Conversion of the pool and recreation areas into habitable living areas and replacement of the shed at Lower Level 4 with an outdoor deck will intensify the use of the building.

The exiting approved pool area is enclosed and already used as a habitable space associated with the existing residential use. The proposed Lower Level 4 terrace is not the principal private open space and is not excessively sized, therefore it is not expected to result in adverse amenity impacts to surrounding properties.

The existing building already exceeds the current FSR and height controls. The substantial upgrade to the building in conjunction with the increased intensity of the residential use should be grounds to reduce bulk.

Only the proposed development is assessed in accordance with Clause 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) and not the existing approved building. The proposal has been assessed in terms of its suitability for the site throughout this report and is supported subject to conditions (refer to Key Issues).

The development is inconsistent with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone in that the amenity of surrounding residents will not be protected.

Subject to conditions to reduce proposed additional bulk, the proposal will protect the amenity of surrounding residents and is considered to be in accordance with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

The proposed development does not comply with the maximum permitted building height and FSR standards pursuant to the RLEP and is not in accordance with the objectives of the standards.

The proposed variations are assessed against the requirements of Clause 4.6 of the RLEP and are supported (refer to Detailed Assessment).

Overshadowing, particular to the southern adjoining property. The proposed additions should not increase existing overshadowing particularly considering the size and scale of the existing building. This will also limit the future development of the southern property. The privacy screens on the southern side of the balconies should be setback 2m to improve solar access and provide opportunity for landscaping to help visually soften the development.

Noted. Some additional overshadowing will occur to the POS of the southern adjoining property which is largely a result of the additional balcony awnings. Conditions are recommended to reduce the balcony awnings, and to replace the southern privacy screening with balustrades to the Ground Floor level and Lower Levels 1 and 2 that are setback 0.9m from the southern side of the balconies (refer to Key Issues). This will ensure that direct overlooking of the southern property does not occur and will reduce visual bulk and improve solar access.

The width of the new roof will contribute to bulk and scale at the streetscape. Removal of the existing roof will reduce articulation at the street.

Despite the slight horizontal increase to bulk, the resulting flat roof will reduce overall bulk when viewed from the street with a reduced height of 1.04m, which is generally consistent with the roof height of 9 Mermaid Avenue. As a result of the proposed works, the building will be more in keeping with the established streetscape character.

Enclosing the area at proposed Lower Level 4 will have visual impacts when viewed from Lurline Bay. The treatment of the façade and terrace should be further considered.

Lower Level 4 is not proposed to be enclosed, with an open terrace proposed at this level. Lower Level 3 is currently enclosed, and the proposal seeks to reduce the extent of the enclosed area by introducing a balcony within the existing envelope.

The proposed Banksia Serrata tree in front of the new terrace has the potential to block views and a smaller species should be opted.

Council’s Landscape Officer advises that the selected species is slow-growing, reaching a mature height of 6 to 8 metres after approximately 20 years. The tree is a native coastal species and will benefit the local environment and fauna, have an upright/compact habit, and will achieve similar dimensions to the street trees that already exist along the length of Mermaid Avenue. The proposed tree is therefore supported.

Relocating the stair from the northern side to the southern side will impact views from the southern adjoining property. The stair should be set back further from the southern boundary.

The proposed stair will not impact views from the southern adjoining property (refer to Key Issues section).

 

Key Issues

 

Change of use / additional bulk

The submissions raised concerns with the proposed dual occupancy (comprising a total of 8 bedrooms), stating that the proposal is a gross intensification of the existing dwelling house (comprising a total of 6 bedrooms). The submissions suggest that a reduction in the existing non-compliant FSR of the building should be proposed so that compliance with the RLEP is achieved.

 

Although the RLEP separately defines a dwelling house and a dual occupancy (attached), both of these land uses are defined as a type of residential accommodation. The type of use (residential accommodation) therefore remains the same. The proposed addition of 2 bedrooms compared to the existing use is not considered to be a significant intensification of the residential use of the site noting that the existing dwelling house could be altered to provide additional bedrooms. The proposed dual occupancy is permitted with consent in the R2 Low Density Residential zone, and is therefore an appropriate and efficient use for the subject site and the existing building envelope.

 

The existing building has been previously assessed and approved via DA/270/1983. The proposed works include a reduction in the GFA of the building and a reduced overall building height, which will reduce the bulk and scale of the building when viewed from the street, surrounding properties and the foreshore. The key consideration is whether the proposal can be accommodated within the existing building envelope without compromising the amenity of occupants, and whether the use in conjunction with the additional works will result in adverse amenity impacts to surrounding properties.

 

With regards to internal amenity, Council initially had concerns with the number of bedrooms proposed for dwelling 2 (originally 6 bedrooms) and the disproportionate living area and POS. Amended drawings were provided illustrating deletion of a bedroom and increased size of the living area and POS at Lower Level 2. The changes were accommodated within the existing building envelope and will provide good internal residential amenity.

 

With regards to amenity impacts on adjoining properties, the proposed use and additional works will not result in adverse amenity impacts, namely visual amenity and privacy impacts, overshadowing and view loss (refer to other Key Issues) subject to the below recommended conditions:

 

·      Reduce the extent of the balcony awnings to Lower Levels 1 and 2.

·      Delete the additional proposed balcony areas at the Ground Floor, and Lower Levels 2 and 3.

·      Provide a 0.9m setback to balustrades from the northern sides of the balconies at the Ground Floor and Lower Levels 1 and 2.

·      Provide a privacy screen to the northern side of the balcony at Lower Level 3.

·      Provide a privacy screen to the northern side of the terrace at Lower Level 4.

·      Replace the privacy screens shown on the southern sides of the balconies at the Ground Floor and Lower Levels 1 and 2 with clear balustrading that is setback 0.9m from the southern sides of the balconies.

·      Ensure the privacy screening shown to the southern sides of the balcony at Lower Level 3 and the terrace at Lower Level 4 is appropriately designed.

·      New balustrading shall be clear to permit views.

 

As the existing building already exceeds the maximum permitted FSR and height of buildings standards pursuant to the RLEP, any additional bulk must be carefully considered in terms of additional impacts on the locality. Although a reduction in GFA and the building height of the uppermost roof is proposed, the additional building elements including the awnings and balcony area, as well as the privacy screening all add to additional visual bulk and as discussed throughout this report, the additional building elements will result in view loss, overshadowing, visual amenity impacts and an increased building height (associated with the awnings).

 

Subject to the recommended conditions, the extent of additional works can be reduced to ensure additional adverse impacts on the locality do not occur whist ensuring that a reasonable level of residential amenity is maintained for occupants whilst also reducing the extent of the building height variation associated with the awning to Lower Level 1.

 

Building Height

The proposal seeks to vary the height of buildings development standard contained within Clause 4.3 of the RLEP. A Clause 4.6 exception has been submitted to Council. Pursuant to Clause 4.3 of the RLEP, the height of buildings must not be more than 9.5m on the site. A building height of 17m is proposed, measured from the eastern point of the uppermost roof to existing ground level, being the underside of the existing slab to Lower Level 3.

 

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

Development Standard

9.5m

Existing building height

18.04m measured to the ridge of the existing uppermost roof.

Proposed building height

17m measured to the top of the uppermost roof (being the parapet on the southern and northern sides of the roof at the easternmost points).

 

16.2m to the top of the proposed awning to the balcony on Lower Level 1.

 

12.1m to the top of the proposed awning to the balcony on Lower Level 2.

Exceedance of the Development Standard

78.94% (uppermost roof).

 

70.52% (Lower Level 1 awning).

 

27.36% (Lower Level 2 awning).

 

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

 

·      The applicant’s written request pursuant to clause 4.6 of the RLEP has adequately addressed that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

·      A reduction in the maximum building height is proposed by 1.04m that will improve the existing building by reducing visual bulk. Subject to conditions to reduce the extent of the balcony awning to Lower Level 1, the extent of the building height variation will be decreased from 16.2m to 14m for this balcony (NOTE despite the recommended reduced awning depth to Lower Level 2 there will be no change to the building height for this awning, however the reduction will reduce bulk and overshadowing).

 

·      The proposed variation is in accordance with the objectives of Clause 4.3 height of buildings as the proposal will reduce the size and scale of the building and therefore is compatible with the desired future character of the locality and the development will not result in adverse amenity impacts to adjoining properties.

 

·      The proposal is in accordance with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone as the development will provide for the housing needs of the community, recognises the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form through the proposed reduced height of the building, will protect the amenity of residents and encourage housing affordability.

 

Floor Space Ratio

The proposal seeks to vary the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) development standard contained within the RLEP. A Clause 4.6 exception has been submitted to Council. Pursuant to Clause 4.4 of the RLEP, the FSR must not be more than 0.5:1 on the site. A FSR of 0.827:1 is proposed.

 

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

Development Standard

0.5:1 (508m2)

Existing FSR

0.875:1 (889.4m2)

Proposed FSR

0.746:1 (758.7m2)

Exceedance of the Development Standard

49.3%

 

The applicant has submitted an amended clause 4.6 exception request following the amended drawings. The exception has been discussed in the detailed assessment section of this report. In summary, the exception has been considered with respect to the provisions of clause 4.6 and is not accepted on the grounds that:

 

·      The applicant’s written request pursuant to clause 4.6 of the RLEP has adequately addressed that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

·      A reduction in FSR by 130.7m2 is proposed that will reduce bulk at Lower Levels 2 and 3, whist accommodating an additional dwelling that will serve to more efficiently use the existing building envelope, providing for the housing needs of the community and encouraging housing affordability.

 

·      The proposed variation is in accordance with the objectives of Clause 4.4 floor space ratio as the development seeks to reduce the size and scale of the existing building, which will result in the building being more compatible with the desired future character of the locality, and the proposal will not result in adverse amenity impacts to adjoining properties.

 

·      The proposal is in accordance with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone as the development will provide for the housing needs of the community, recognises the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form through the proposed reduced bulk of the building, will protect the amenity of residents and encourage housing affordability.

 

View Sharing

Clause 5.5 of part C2 of the Randwick DCP requires a reasonable level of view sharing from neighbouring dwellings, streets and public open space areas. View loss was also raised as a concern in both submissions relating to the additional awning structures and potential need for privacy screening on the northern side of the balconies.

 

It is noted that only the proposed works is assessed in terms of potential impacts to views given the existing building has already been approved.

 

The objectives of clause 5.5 are as follows:

 

·      To acknowledge the value of views to significant scenic elements, such as ocean, bays, coastlines, watercourses, bushland and parks; as well as recognised icons, such as city skylines, landmark buildings / structures and special natural features.

·      To protect and enhance views from the public domain, including streets, parks and reserves.

·      To ensure developments are sensitively and skillfully designed to maintain a reasonable amount of views from the development, neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

 

The applicant submitted a view loss analysis in accordance the four-step assessment of view sharing established by the legal precedent Tenacity Consulting v Warringah (2004) NSWLEC 140. The applicants view loss analysis included photos from 5 Mermaid Avenue only, noting that access was not available to 9 Mermaid Avenue (the most affected adjoining property to the north). The applicant’s view loss analysis concluded that no iconic views will be impacted and that vista and views containing land and water interface will be retained.

 

Figure 4. Insert from Applicant’s SEE showing view from upper level of 5 Mermaid Avenue and proposed additions.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The applicant’s view loss analysis is acknowledged, however the proposal is not considered to have a negligible impact on views. Based on a site inspection of the most affected property (9 Mermaid Avenue) and the view loss assessment below, the proposal will result in a moderate impact to water views and land and water interface views to the south-east. In summary of the below assessment, a reasonable level of view sharing can be maintained subject to conditions requiring the reduction in depth of the awnings to the balconies on Lower Levels 1 and 2 (maximum of 1m extending from the eastern façade) and deletion of the additional balcony areas at the Ground Floor level and Lower Levels 2 and 3.

 

This view loss assessment is guided by a four step process identified by the Land and Environment Court as a planning principle. In the matter of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah (2004) NSWLEC 140, the Land and Environment Court has established a Planning Principle to assess whether the extent of view loss, which would result from the proposal is reasonable. This provides a four stage method of assessing view loss:

 

1.    Quality of Views:

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The surrounding properties that are likely to have views affected by the proposed development are 5, 7 and 9 Mermaid Avenue (located to the north of the subject site). The southern adjoining property (15 Mermaid Avenue) will maintain views to the north-east, east and south-east. Existing views from 5, 7 and 9 Mermaid Avenue are unobstructed whole views to the ocean with land and water interface views to the east and south-east. There are no iconic views (e.g. Wedding Cake Island) from these properties.

 

Figure 5. Views from affected properties to the east and south-east (subject site highlighted).

 

IMG_0933

Figure 6. View south-east from Level 5 study/sitting room of 9 Mermaid Avenue.

 

IMG_0936

Figure 7. View south-east from Level 4 living room of 9 Mermaid Avenue.

 

IMG_0951

Figure 8. View north-east from upper floor living area of 15 Mermaid Avenue (no view loss will occur).

 

2.    From what part of the property the views are obtained?

The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. For example the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries. In addition, whether the view is enjoyed from a standing or sitting position may also be relevant. Sitting views are more difficult to protect than standing views. The expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: Views are obtained from the rear of the affected properties from both a standing and a seated position.

 

3.    An assessment of the extent of the impact.

The third step is to assess the extent of the impact. This should be done for the whole of the property, not just for the view that is affected. The impact on views from living areas is more significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though views from kitchens are highly valued because people spend so much time in them). The impact may be assessed quantitatively, but in many cases this can be meaningless. For example, it is unhelpful to say that the view loss is 20% if it includes one of the sails of the Opera House. It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: Access was obtained to the most affected property (9 Mermaid Avenue) to obtain photos from key rooms. Land and water interface views to the south-east will be affected from the Level 5 study / sitting room due to the proposed balcony awning to proposed Lower Level 1. Water views to the south-east will also be partially affected due to the squaring of the balcony at Ground Level, and therefore the view loss is assessed as moderate noting that the majority of the land and water interface view will be maintained / unobstructed to the east. Some south-eastern water views will also be affected from the Level 4 living room due to the balcony awning to proposed Lower Level 1. Other levels will not be subject to view loss.

 

Properties further north were not accessed given 7 Mermaid Avenue is a 2 storey dwelling that does not protrude beyond 9 Mermaid Avenue, and therefore views directly east will be unaffected. The applicant’s view loss analysis provided sufficient photos from 5 Mermaid Avenue and the view loss from this property is assessed as moderate, with land and water interface views affected by the proposed awning to Lower Lever 1. 15 Mermaid Avenue was also inspected and its views to the north-east, east and south-east will be unaffected by the proposal.

 

4.    An assessment of the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact.

The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours. If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: Although a reduction in the maximum building height is proposed associated with the new flat roof, the additional awning structures across the balconies of Lower Levels 1 and 2 results in an exceedance of the maximum permitted building height (16.2m and 12.1m in height respectably). The awnings are an introduced building element to the already non-compliant building envelope and therefore must be carefully considered in terms of additional amenity impacts.

 

Based on the assessment above, the balcony awning to proposed Lower Level 1 will result in view loss from 9 Mermaid Avenue. To ensure a reasonable level of view sharing is maintained, a condition is recommended so that the balcony awning for Lower Level 1 is reduced in depth by 5m (i.e. being a maximum depth of 1m as measured from the eastern façade). This will improve views and reduce the extent of the building height variation while maintaining adequate shelter / amenity for occupants. A condition is also recommended to ensure the additional balcony areas at the Ground Floor are deleted and that new balustrading is clear so as to permit views. Although not related to view loss, a reduced awning to Lower Level 2 is also recommended via condition to reduce the visual amenity impacts and overshadowing to the southern adjoining property.

 

In considering the 4 steps above established by the legal precedent, a reasonable level of views will therefore be maintained in accordance with the RDCP whist ensuring residential amenity for occupants will not be compromised, subject to conditions.

 

 

Figure 9. Balcony awning to Lower Level 1 with affected view from 9 Mermaid Avenue depicted by the applicant (dashed).

 

Solar Access to Neighbouring Development

Clause 5.1 of Part C1 of the RDCP requires neighbouring dwellings to receive solar access in accordance with the following:

 

iii) A portion of the north-facing living area windows of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. 

 

iv) The private open space of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. The area covered by sunlight must be capable of supporting passive recreation activities.  

 

v) Existing solar panels on neighbouring dwellings, which are situated not less than 6m above ground level (existing), must retain a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. 

 

Where the neighbouring dwellings do not contain any solar panels, direct sunlight must be retained to the northern, eastern and/or western roof planes of neighbouring dwellings, which are at least 6m above ground level (existing), so that future solar panels capturing not less than 3 hours of sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June may be installed. 

 

vi) Any variation from the above requirements will be subject to a merit assessment having regard to the following factors: 

 

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

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

-       Topography of the subject and adjoining allotments.

-       Location and level of the windows in question.  

-       Shadows cast by existing buildings on the neighbouring allotments.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The most affected property is the southern adjoining property at 15 Mermaid Avenue. This dwelling house is not provided with glazing in the northern façade therefore there will be no decreased solar access to living room windows. Upon review of approved drawings and a site inspection of 15 Mermaid Avenue, the balcony off the living area and kitchen is situated on the southern side of the dwelling on the upper floor and will not be additionally overshadowed. The additional overshadowing to POS occurs to the lower pool level of 15 Mermaid Avenue, which is at a similar level as proposed Lower Level 3.

 

The proposed development will result in additional overshadowing of the lower POS from approximately 8:00am until 12:00pm on 21 June. It is noted however that >3 hours solar access will be maintained to the POS of 15 Mermaid Avenue that is capable of supporting passive recreation activities. Notwithstanding, given the proposed variations to the FSR and height of buildings development standards pursuant to the RLEP, any additional overshadowing as a result of the additional building elements that result in the non-compliances is carefully considered. To improve solar access to the lower pool level (and to reduce visual bulk) conditions are recommended to reduce the extent of balcony awnings to Lower Levels 1 and 2, and to delete the additional infill balcony areas.

 

Visual Privacy

Clause 5.3 of Part C1 of the RDCP requires the following for balconies:

 

iii) Focus upper floor balconies to the street or rear yard of the site. Any elevated balconies or balcony returns on the side facade must have a narrow width to minimise privacy impacts on the adjoining properties.

 

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

 

Privacy screens must be permanently fixed and have a minimum height of not less than 1600mm as measured from the finished floor level. Privacy screens must achieve a minimum of 70% opaqueness and may be constructed with:

 

-       Translucent or obscured glazing - Fixed timber or metal slats mounted horizontally or vertically - Fixed vertical louvres with the individual blades oriented away from the private open space or windows of the adjacent dwellings

 

v) Screen planting and planter boxes may be used as a supplementary device for reinforcing privacy protection. However, they must not be used as the sole privacy protection measure.  

 

vi) For sloping sites, any ground floor decks or terraces must step down in accordance with the landform, and avoid expansive areas of elevated outdoor recreation space.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: Privacy impacts and the requirement for privacy screening must be carefully considered in conjunction with potential impacts on views as well as increased visual bulk. Comments are provided below with regards to each balcony and likely privacy impacts upon adjoining properties.

 

Ground Floor

A privacy screen is shown to the southern side of the existing balcony with no privacy screening provided on the northern side. The ground floor balcony is provided off a garage, and is therefore not considered to be main POS that will be used frequently. A condition is recommended to replace the privacy screening on the southern side of the balcony with a clear balustrade that is setback 0.9m from both the northern and southern sides of the balcony. This will ensure that direct overlooking into the principal POS of the adjoining properties at the lower levels does not occur, and will minimise visual bulk.

 


 

Lower Levels 1 and 2

A privacy screen is shown to the southern side of the existing balconies with no privacy screening provided to the northern sides. These balconies provide the principal POS for dwellings 1 and 2, which have the potential to directly overlook the northern and southern adjoining properties.

 

Privacy screening to the northern sides of the balconies is not desirable as this has the potential to impact views from the northern property and will increase visual bulk. The privacy screening on the southern sides also adds to visual bulk. Considering there is currently no privacy screening provided to the sides of the balconies, and considering that overlooking between dwellings occurs as a characteristic of the area (a result of the desire to obtain views), privacy screening is not considered necessary for these balconies.

 

To reduce visual bulk and to ensure that direct overlooking of the POS of adjoining properties does not occur, a condition is recommended so that the privacy screening on the southern sides of the balconies is replaced with clear balustrading, which is setback 0.9m from both the northern and southern sides of the balconies.

 

It is noted that the POS for dwelling 1 on Lower Level 1 exceeds minimum dimensions (6m x 6m required and 6m x 12m provided), and multiple POS areas are provided for dwelling 2, therefore a slight reduction in the area of POS as a result of the setback to the balustrading is supported.

 

IMG_0946

Figure 10. View from the lower POS of 9 Seaside Parade and potential for direct overlooking from existing balconies.

 

Lower Level 3

Privacy screening is shown on the southern side of the stairway granting access to Lower Level 4, which is setback approximately 2.4m from the southern property boundary. This privacy screen is supported given it will mitigate privacy impacts from the new stair and the setback will ensure adverse visual amenity impacts does not occur.

 

The northern side of the balcony does have the potential to directly overlooking the POS of the adjoining property to the north. As the balcony is proposed to occupy what is currently an enclosed floor area (refer to Figure 11 below), privacy screening will not result in additional view loss or visual amenity impacts. Therefore a condition is recommended so that a privacy screen is installed on the northern side of the balcony at Lower Level 3.

 

IMG_0944

Figure 11. View from the lower POS of 9 Seaside Parade to location of proposed Lower Level 3 balcony (that is currently enclosed).

 

Lower Level 4 and garden

The terrace is located close to the existing ground level, with the 1.8m side boundary fence along the southern boundary preventing direct overlooking. There is potential for the terrace to directly overlook the northern adjoining property, therefore a condition is recommended so that a privacy screen is installed on the northern side of the terrace. This privacy screen will not significantly increase visual bulk and will not result in view loss. The garden area below is provided close to existing ground level therefore the 1.8m fencing will ensure direct overlooking of adjoining properties will not occur.

 

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 building and conversion of the building into an attached dual occupancy including associated site and landscaping works be approved (subject to conditions) for the following reasons:

 

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

·      The proposal is consistent with the objectives contained within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the relevant requirements of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013.

·      The proposal is consistent with the objectives contained within the State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018, State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017, and State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

 

Detailed Assessment

1.         Section 4.15 matters for consideration

 

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

 

Section 4.15 ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

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

The proposal is in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018, State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017, State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004, and is in accordance with the relevant controls and objectives of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (see assessment below).

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

Nil.

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

The proposal generally satisfies the objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (see assessment below).

 

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

The proposal promotes the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone and is consistent with the objectives of the height of buildings and floor space ratio development standards pursuant to the RLEP. The proposal 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 (Coastal Management) 2018

The State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018 (Costal Management SEPP) came into effect in NSW on 3 April 2018.

 

The aims of the Costal Management SEPP are:

 

“(a)   managing development in the coastal zone and protecting the environmental assets of the coast, and

 

(b)   establishing a framework for land use planning to guide decision-making in the coastal zone, and

 

(c)   mapping the 4 coastal management areas that comprise the NSW coastal zone for the purpose of the definitions in the Coastal Management Act 2016.”

 

Assessing officer’s comment: In response to Clause 13 of Division 3 and Clause 14 of Division 4 of the SEPP, subject to conditions to reduce the extent of the awnings and to delete the additional infilled area of the balconies, the proposal will not have an adverse impact upon coastal environmental values. Subject to conditions, the proposed works to the existing building envelope and the additional cut and fill at the lowermost existing ground level are minimal and will not result in adverse visual bulk as viewed from public places and surrounding properties. The proposed works will not disrupt the scenic qualities or natural processes of the coast given they are sufficiently setback from the coastline and are largely proposed as part of the existing building envelope.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017

The State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017 (Vegetation SEPP) came into effect in NSW on 25 August 2017.

 

The aims of the Vegetation SEPP are:

 

“(a) to protect the biodiversity values of trees and other vegetation in non-rural areas of the State, and

 

(b) to preserve the amenity of non-rural areas of the State through the preservation of trees and other vegetation.”

 

Clause 7(1) requires a permit to be granted by the Council for the clearing of vegetation in non-rural areas (such as City of Randwick). Consent for the removal of vegetation within the site is being sought under this DA.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: Council’s Landscape Officer has assessed the proposal and advises there is minimal vegetation on the site, comprising bamboo and shrubs that hold no landscape value. Therefore there removal is supported with additional landscaping proposed in the frontage and lower level helping to protect biodiversity values.

 

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

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

 

2.2        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposed dual occupancy (attached) is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will provide for the housing needs of the community, recognises the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form, will protect the amenity of residents and will encourage housing affordability.

 

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

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

Height of Building (Maximum)

9.5m.

17m measured to the top of the uppermost roof (being the parapet on the southern and northern sides of the roof at the easternmost points) to existing ground level (the underside of the existing slab to Lower Level 3).

Does not comply.

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

0.5:1 for a dual occupancy (508m2).

0.746:1 (758.7m2)

Does not comply.

Minimum lot size for dual occupancies (attached)

450m2 minimum lot size for a dual occupancy (attached) in the R2 zone.

The subject site is 1016m2.

Complies.

Foreshore building line

Ensure development in the foreshore will not impact natural foreshore processes or affect the significance and amenity of the area.

A portion of the proposed terrace at Lower Level 4 and the lower garden area (subject to cut and fill) is within the foreshore building line. The proposed works are minor and will not impact natural foreshore processes or affect the significance and amenity of the area.

Complies (refer to assessment below).

Foreshore scenic protection area

Ensure development protects and enhances environmental and scenic qualities and protects significant public views to and from the coast.

The entire site is within the foreshore scenic protection area. The proposed additions to the existing building are minor and will not impact environmental and scenic qualities or public views to and from the coast.

Complies (refer to assessment below).

 

Clause 4.6 – Exception to Development Standard – Height of Buildings

The proposal seeks to vary the height of buildings development standard contained within Clause 4.3 of the RLEP. A Clause 4.6 exception has been submitted to Council. Pursuant to Clause 4.3 of the RLEP, the height of buildings must not be more than 9.5m on the site. A building height of 17m is proposed, measured from the northern and southern parapets of the uppermost roof at the easternmost points to existing ground level, being the underside of the existing slab to Lower Level 3.

 

The additional balcony awnings at Lower Levels 1 and 2 also exceed the maximum permitted building height, being 16.2m and 12.1m respectably (should the height of the proposed additions be measured to original existing ground level based on the original approved drawings, the proposed height would be similar given the finished building slabs directly below these points closely follow the original contours of the site).

 

Despite the reduced maximum building height of the uppermost roof by 1.04m (due to replacement of the pitched roof with a flat roof), the proposal does not comply with the building height standard and therefore a merits assessment against the requirements of Clause 4.6 of the RLEP is required.

 

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

Development Standard

9.5m

Existing building height

18.04m measured to the ridge of the existing uppermost roof.

Proposed building height

17m measured to the top of the uppermost roof (being the parapet on the southern and northern sides of the roof at the easternmost points).

 

16.2m to the top of the proposed awning to the balcony on Lower Level 1.

 

12.1m to the top of the proposed awning to the balcony on Lower Level 2.

Exceedance of the Development Standard

78.94% (uppermost roof).

 

70.52% (Lower Level 1 awning).

 

27.36% (Lower Level 2 awning).

 

Clause 4.6 RLEP Request to Vary Development Standard

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

 

(a)    the consent authority is satisfied that:

 

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

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

 

(b)    the concurrence of the Secretary has been obtained.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: With regards to the concurrence of the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment, pursuant to the notification of assumed concurrence of the Secretary under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 18–003 (dated 21 Feb 2018) the concurrence of the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed in certain cases.

 

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

 

Has the applicant’s written request adequately addressed that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case and has the applicant’s written request adequately addressed that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard?

 

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

 

 

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The applicant’s written request above has adequately addressed that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case given the proposed variation will not result in adverse amenity impacts to surrounding properties.

 

Are there sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard?

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The applicant’s written request above adequately addresses that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard given the proposed development as a result of the variation will result in a reduced building height that is consistent with the objectives of the height of buildings standard and objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

 

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?

 

Assessing officer’s comment: It is considered that the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the height of buildings development standard and the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

 

Consistency with the objectives of the height of buildings standard:

 

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

 

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposed works will reduce the maximum height of the building by 1.04m. Therefore, the proposed development will result in the size and scale of the existing building becoming more compatible with the desired future character of the locality.

 

It is noted that the proposed awnings contribute to the maximum building height. A condition is recommended to reduce the extent of the balcony awning to Lower Level 1, which will reduce the extent of the building height variation to this awning from 16.2m to 14m. Despite the recommended condition to also reduce the depth of the awning to Lower Level 2, there will be no change to the building height for this awning, however the reduction will reduce visual bulk and will improve solar access to the adjoining property to the south.

 

(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.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposal will not adversely impact the amenity of adjoining properties in terms of visual amenity, privacy, overshadowing and views (refer to Key Issues).

 

Consistency with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone: 

 

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

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

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

·      To protect the amenity of residents.

·      To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposal will provide for the housing needs of the community within the R2 Low Density Residential zone. The surrounding area comprises established dwellings and is therefore not considered to be a precinct undergoing transition. The proposal seeks to reduce the maximum building height (and GFA) of the existing building and therefore is considered to recognise the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form through a reduction in height and bulk. The proposed dual occupancy has been designed to protect the amenity of residents, and will encourage housing affordability through the introduction of an additional dwelling within the existing envelope.

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

Variation from the adherence to the height of buildings standard on this occasion is of benefit to the orderly use of the site given the proposal will result in a reduced overall building height whilst not adversely impact residential amenity, which is compatible with the existing streetscape.

 

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

 

Clause 4.6 – Exception to Development Standard – Floor Space Ratio

The proposal seeks to vary the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) development standard contained within the RLEP. A Clause 4.6 exception has been submitted to Council. Pursuant to Clause 4.4 of the RLEP, the FSR must not be more than 0.5:1 on the site. A FSR of 0.827:1 is proposed.

 

Based on Council’s calculation, the existing approved building (DA/270/1983) has a FSR of 0.87:1 (889.4m2). Based on the current FSR standard a maximum permitted FSR for a dwelling house on a lot > 600m2 is 0.6:1. The proposal therefore results in a reduced FSR by 130.7m2. Some of the reduction is by virtue of the proposed dual occupancy use, which introduces common vertical circulation and the need for an additional 2 car parking spaces within the existing building envelope, which in accordance with the RLEP can be excluded as GFA. The physical reduction in GFA occurs at Lower Level 2 whereby a 19.6m2 reduction is provided due to the enlarged balcony, and at Lower Level 3, whereby a 28m2 reduction is provided due to inclusion of a balcony.

 

Despite the reduced FSR, the proposal does not comply with the FSR standard and therefore a merits assessment against the requirements of Clause 4.6 of the RLEP is required.

 

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

Development Standard

0.5:1 (508m2)

Existing FSR

0.875:1 (889.4m2)

Proposed FSR

0.746:1 (758.7m2)

Exceedance of the Development Standard

49.3%

 

Clause 4.6 RLEP Request to Vary Development Standard

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

 

(d)    the consent authority is satisfied that:

 

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

(iv)   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

 

(e)    the concurrence of the Secretary has been obtained.

Assessing officer’s comment: With regards to the concurrence of the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment, pursuant to the notification of assumed concurrence of the Secretary under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 18–003 (dated 21 Feb 2018) the concurrence of the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed in certain cases.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The applicant’s written request above has adequately addressed that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case given the proposed variation will not result in adverse amenity impacts to surrounding properties.

 

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The applicant’s written request above has adequately addressed that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard given the proposed variation will reduce the GFA of the building that is consistent with the objectives of the height of buildings standard and objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

 


 

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?

 

Assessing officer’s comment: It is considered that the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the floor space ratio development standard and the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

 

Consistency with the objectives of the floor space ratio standard:

 

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

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposed works will reduce the exiting GFA of the building by 130.7m2 (physical reduction being 19.6m2 at Lower Level 2 and 28m2 at Lower Level 3), therefore, the proposed development will result in the size and scale of the existing building becoming more compatible with the desired future character of the locality.

 

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposal will not adversely impact the amenity of adjoining properties in terms of visual amenity, privacy, overshadowing and views (refer to Key Issues).

 

Consistency with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone: 

 

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

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

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

·      To protect the amenity of residents.

·      To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposal will provide for the housing needs of the community within the R2 Low Density Residential zone. The surrounding area comprises established dwellings and is therefore not considered to be a precinct undergoing transition. The proposal seeks to reduce the GFA (and maximum building height) of the existing building and therefore is considered to recognise the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form through a reduction in height and bulk. The proposed dual occupancy has been designed to protect the amenity of residents, and will encourage housing affordability through the introduction of an additional dwelling within the existing envelope.

 

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:

 

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

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

 

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

 

Variation from the adherence to the floor space ratio standard on this occasion is of benefit to the orderly use of the site given the proposal will result in a reduced GFA whilst not adversely impact residential amenity and which is compatible with the existing streetscape.

 

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

 

Foreshore Building Line Assessment

A portion of the proposed terrace at Lower Level 4 and the lower garden area (subject to cut and fill) is within the foreshore building line. It is noted that the applicant’s depiction of the foreshore building line on the submitted drawings is accurate based on Council’s measurement. The proposed development is therefore assessed against Clause 6.6 of the RLEP below.

 

Figure 12. Insert from the RLEP Foreshore Building Line map with distance shown from the western boundary of the subject site.

 

(1)    The objective of this clause is to ensure that development in the foreshore area will not impact on natural foreshore processes or affect the significance and amenity of the area.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposed terrace and lawn is significantly elevated above sea level and therefore will not impact natural foreshore processes. The portion of terrace within the foreshore building line is minor and is situated close to existing ground level atop some minor additional fill that will not affect the significance and amenity of the area. The proposed lawn and associated cut and fill is relatively minor, and is designed to step down with the contours of the site with additional landscaping proposed that will enhance the amenity of the area and will improve the foreshore according to Council’s Landscape Officer.

 

(2)    Development consent must not be granted for development on land in the foreshore area except for the following purposes:

 

(a)      the extension, alteration or rebuilding of an existing building wholly or partly in the foreshore area,

(b)      the erection of a building in the foreshore area, if the levels, depth or other exceptional features of the site make it appropriate to do so,

(c)      boat sheds, sea retaining walls, wharves, slipways, jetties, waterway access stairs, swimming pools, fences, cycleways, walking trails, picnic facilities or other recreation facilities (outdoors).

 

Assessing officer’s comment: An alteration to an existing building is proposed that is partly within the foreshore area.

 

(3)    Development consent must not be granted under this clause unless the consent authority is satisfied that:

 

(a)      the development will contribute to achieving the objectives for the zone in which the land is located, and

(b)      the appearance of any proposed structure, from both the waterway and adjacent foreshore areas, will be compatible with the surrounding area, and

(c)      the development will not cause environmental harm such as:

 

(i)         pollution or siltation of the waterway, or

(ii)        an adverse effect on surrounding uses, marine habitat, wetland areas, flora or fauna habitats, or

(iii)        an adverse effect on drainage patterns, and

 

(d)      the development will not cause congestion or generate conflicts between people using open space areas or the waterway, and

(e)      opportunities to provide continuous public access along the foreshore and to the waterway will not be compromised, and

(f)       any historic, scientific, cultural, social, archaeological, architectural, natural or aesthetic significance of the land on which the development is to be carried out and of surrounding land will be maintained, and

(g)      in the case of development for the alteration or rebuilding of an existing building wholly or partly in the foreshore area, the alteration or rebuilding will not have an adverse impact on the amenity or aesthetic appearance of the foreshore, and

(h)      sea level rise or change of flooding patterns as a result of climate change has been considered.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposed development is in accordance with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone. The works within the foreshore are minor and will not impact the amenity and aesthetic appearance of the foreshore as viewed from public places and as viewed directly from the water. The works will be generally compatible with the surrounding area, which comprises lower level garden areas. The proposed reduced GFA at Lower Level 3 will improve the appearance of the building as viewed from the publically accessible foreshore.

 

IMG_0959

Figure 13. Subject site as viewed from the publically accessible foreshore.

 

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area Assessment

The subject site is located within the foreshore scenic protection area therefore the proposed development is assessed against Clause 6.7 of the RLEP below.

 

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

 

(a)      to recognise, protect and enhance the natural, visual and environmental qualities of the scenic areas of the coastline,

(b)      to protect and improve visually prominent areas adjoining the coastal foreshore,

(c)      to protect significant public views to and from the coast,

(d)      to ensure development in these areas is appropriate for the location and does not detract from the scenic qualities of the coast.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposed development includes a reduction in the maximum building height and a reduction in GFA. The proposal will therefore reduce the visual bulk of the development and will improve the visually prominent scenic protection area. Subject to conditions to reduce the extent of the proposed balconies and awnings, the additional building elements will be a minor contribution to the built form that will not significantly increase visual bulk and will not result in decreased views from public places. Therefore, the proposed development is in accordance with the objectives of Clause 6.7 of the RLEP.

 

(2)    This clause applies to land identified as “Foreshore scenic protection area” on the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area Map.

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

 

(a)      is located and designed to minimise its visual impact on public areas of the coastline, including views to and from the coast, foreshore reserves, open space and public areas, and

(b)      contributes to the scenic quality of the coastal foreshore.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposed development minimises visual impact through a reduction in the maximum building height and a reduction in GFA. The proposal will therefore contribute to the scenic quality of the coastal foreshore (subject to conditions).

 

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.

 

DCP Clause

Controls

Proposal

Compliance

 

Classification

Zoning = R2

 

2

Site planning

 

 

2.1

Minimum lot size and frontage

 

Minimum lot size (RLEP):

·    R2 = 400sqm

1016m²

Complies.

 

Minimum frontage

 

 

 

i)     Min frontage R2 = 12m

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

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

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

Min = 15m

Existing =15.54m

Complies.

2.3

Site coverage

 

601 sqm or above = 45%

Site = 1016m²

Proposed = 37%

Complies.

2.4

Landscaping and permeable surfaces

 

i)      601 sqm or above = 35%

i)      Deep soil minimum width 900mm.

ii)      Maximise permeable surfaces to front

iii)     Retain existing or replace mature native trees

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

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

Site = 1016m²

Proposed = 53.4% (374.98m2).

 

Complies.

2.5

Private open space (POS)

 

Dual Occupancies (Attached and Detached) POS

 

 

 

601sqm or above = 6m x 6m each

ii) POS satisfy the following criteria:

·      Situated at ground level (except for duplex

·      No open space on podiums or roofs

·      Adjacent to the living room

·      Oriented to maximise solar access

·      Located to the rear behind dwelling

·      Has minimal change in gradient

Site = 1016m²

 

Dwelling 1 (Lower Level 1) = 6m x 12m.

 

Dwelling 2 (Lower Levels 2, 3 and 4) = 4.5m x 7.4m (Lower Level 2), 3.2m x 6.8m (Lower Level 3), and 5.4m x 7.2m (Lower Level 4).

 

Although dwelling 2 does not have a 6 x 6m POS area adjacent to the main living area at Lower Level 2, the area of POS provided is 42m2 and is sufficient. Further, additional POS is provided off the secondary living area at Lower Level 3, with further POS provided at Lower Level 4 that will ensure a range of passive recreational activities can occur. Therefore the minor variation is supported.

Dwelling 1 complies. Minor variation supported for dwelling 2.

3

Building envelope

3.1

Floor space ratio LEP 2012 = 0.5:1

Site area = 1016m²

Proposed FSR = 0.746:1

Does not comply. Refer to Detailed Assessment.

3.2

Building height

 

 

 

Maximum overall height LEP 2012  = 9.5m

Proposed = 17m

Does not comply. Refer to Detailed Assessment.

 

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

ii)    Sloping sites = 8m

iii)   Merit assessment if exceeded

No changes to the existing wall height is proposed.

N/A

3.3

Setbacks

3.3.1

Front setbacks

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

ii)    Corner allotments: Secondary street frontage:

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

-     1500mm for all other sites

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

The front setback is proposed to increase (nil front setback increasing to 0.6m to entry portico, which is generally consistent with adjoining properties.

Complies.

3.3.2

Side setbacks:

Dwellings:

·      Frontage less than 9m = 900mm

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

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

 

Refer to 6.3 and 7.4 for parking facilities and outbuildings

The existing balconies are excluded from the side setback control given they are unroofed. The proposal includes roofs to the balconies, which are therefore now subject to minimum setbacks. New minor additions at the ground floor associated with the common stairway and garage, and minor additions at Lower Level 1 associated with squaring of the living area and common stairway are also assessed.

 

Due to the building configuration a typical floor arrangement is not provided, therefore a conservative approach is taken whereby a minimum 1.8m side boundary setback applies to all balconies.

 

Minimum = 1.8m

Proposed = 1.2m setback to northern side boundary and 2m setback to southern side boundary, increasing to 2.8m setback to southern boundary at Lower Levels 2 and 3. The Lower Level 4 terrace is also partially covered and is setback 3m from the northern side boundary and 2.5m from the southern side boundary.

 

The setbacks are appropriate given there will be no adverse increased bulk that will result in adverse amenity impacts, subject to conditions. The balcony awnings and squaring of the balconies however are considered to contribute to view loss and a condition is recommended for the extent of the awnings to be reduced and the balcony additions to be deleted (refer to Key Issues).

Minor variation supported subject to conditions.

3.3.3

Rear setbacks

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

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

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

-     protect the privacy and solar access

Minimum = 8m

Proposed = 25m

Complies.

4

Building design

4.1

General

 

Respond specifically to the site characteristics and the surrounding natural and built context  -

·    articulated to enhance streetscape

·    stepping building on sloping site,

·    no side elevation greater than 12m

·    encourage innovative design

The building generally complies with the building design controls in the DCP. The proposed flat roof will help reduce visual bulk and will be in accordance with the established streetscape character.

Complies.

4.3

Additional Provisions for Attached Dual Occupancies

 

Should present a similar bulk as single dwellings

i)     Garage for each dwelling shall have a single car width only

ii)    Articulate and soften garage entry

iii)   Minimise driveway width

iv)   Maximum 2m setback of front entry from front façade

v)    Maximise landscape planting at front

4 car parking spaces are provided at the ground floor level. Although a double width garage is proposed, the allocated parking spaces are tandem and therefore are single width for each dwelling.

 

The driveway width is minimised and landscaping is proposed in the front setback. The garage entry is setback 3.6m from the front façade, however the minor variation is supported given the setback is existing and follows the splayed front boundary, and will help to articulate the building when viewed from the street.

Minor variation supported.

4.4

Roof Design and Features

 

 

 

Rooftop terraces

i)     on stepped buildings only (not on uppermost or main roof)

ii)    above garages on sloping sites (where garage is on low side)

Dormers

iii)   Dormer windows don’t dominate

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

v)    Multiple dormers consistent

vi)   Suitable for existing

Celestial windows and skylights

vii)  Sympathetic to design of dwelling

Mechanical equipment

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

No rooftop terraces or dormer windows are proposed.

N/A

4.5

Colours, Materials and Finishes

 

i)     Schedule of materials and finishes

ii)    Finishing is durable and non-reflective.

iii)   Minimise expanses of rendered masonry at street frontages (except due to heritage consideration)

iv)   Articulate and create visual interest by using combination of materials and finishes.

v)    Suitable for the local climate to withstand natural weathering, ageing and deterioration.

vi)   recycle and re-use sandstone

(See also section 8.3 foreshore area.)

The nominated colours and finishes are satisfactory.

Complies.

4.6

Earthworks

 

i)     excavation and backfilling limited to 1m, unless gradient too steep

ii)    minimum 900mm side and rear setback

iii)   Step retaining walls.

iv)   If site conditions require setbacks < 900mm, retaining walls must be stepped with each stepping not exceeding a maximum height of 2200mm.

v)    sloping sites down to street level must minimise blank retaining walls (use combination of materials, and landscaping)

vi)   cut and fill for POS is terraced

where site has significant slope:

vii)  adopt a split-level design

viii) Minimise height and extent of any exposed under-croft areas.

Earthworks is limited to the cut and fill associated with the Lower Level 4 garden. The proposed cut is 2.7m, however this is due to the steep gradient and does not extend for a significant length or depth.

Complies.

5

Amenity

5.1

Solar access and overshadowing

 

Solar access to proposed development:

 

 

 

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

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

The north facing living rooms and POS will receive compliant solar access.

Complies.

 

Solar access to neighbouring development:

 

 

 

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

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

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

vi)   Variations may be acceptable subject to a merits assessment with regard to:

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

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

·      Topography of the subject and adjoining allotments.

·      Location and level of the windows in question.

·      Shadows cast by existing buildings on the neighbouring allotments.

There will be no additional overshadowing of the northern adjoining property. Some additional overshadowing will occur to the southern adjoining property.

 

Refer to Key Issues.

5.2

Energy Efficiency and Natural Ventilation

 

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

·      Skylights (ventilated)

·      Clerestory windows

·      Fanlights above doorways

·      Highlight windows in internal partition walls

i)    Where possible, provide natural lighting and ventilation to any internalised toilets, bathrooms and laundries

ii)    living rooms contain windows and doors opening to outdoor areas

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

The design of the dwellings allows for light and ventilation throughout all levels.

Complies.

5.3

Visual Privacy

 

Windows

 

 

 

i)     proposed habitable room windows must be located to minimise any direct viewing of existing habitable room windows in adjacent dwellings by one or more of the following measures:

-    windows are offset or staggered

-    minimum 1600mm window sills

-    Install fixed and translucent glazing up to 1600mm minimum.

-    Install fixed privacy screens to windows.

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

ii)    orientate living and dining windows away from adjacent dwellings (that is orient to front or rear or side courtyard)

Privacy screens and obscured glazing is shown to all side-facing windows. A condition is recommended to ensure privacy screening is appropriately designed.

 

 

Complies.

 

Balcony

 

 

 

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

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

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

v) For sloping sites, step down any ground floor terraces and avoid large areas of elevated outdoor recreation space.

The proposal rear-facing balconies have the potential to overlook adjoining properties.

Refer to Key Issues.

5.5

Safety and Security

 

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

ii)    Street numbering at front near entry.

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

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

The entry to each dwelling is to the street. Due to the topography of the site, it is not possible for any habitable room windows to be provided. Notwithstanding, the inclusion of an additional dwelling will ensure there is more activity then presently provided as part of the common entrance, and therefore passive street surveillance will be improved.

Complies.

6

Car Parking and Access

6.1

Location of Parking Facilities:

 

 

 

i)     Maximum 1 vehicular access

ii)    Locate off rear lanes, or secondary street frontages where available.

iii)   Locate behind front façade, within the dwelling or positioned to the side of the dwelling.

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

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

Double width if:

-     Frontage >12m,

-     Consistent with pattern in the street;

-     Landscaping provided in the front yard.

v)    Minimise excavation for basement garages

vi)   Avoid long driveways (impermeable surfaces)

1 vehicle access is provided, with the parking facility located behind the front façade. A double width garage is proposed and the site frontage is >12m.

Complies.

6.3

Setbacks of Parking Facilities

 

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

ii)    1m rear lane setback

iii)   Nil side setback where:

-     nil side setback on adjoining property;

-     streetscape compatibility;

-     safe for drivers and pedestrians; and

-     Amalgamated driveway crossing

 

The garage complies with the minimum setback requirements.

Complies.

6.4

Driveway Configuration

 

Maximum driveway width:

-     Single driveway – 3m

-     Double driveway – 5m

Must taper driveway width at street boundary and at property boundary

 

A 6m wide driveway is proposed, however this is considered appropriate given it serves 2 dwellings with > 2 bedrooms each and sufficient landscaping is provided in the frontage that will help soften the appearance of the driveway.

Minot variation is supported.

6.5

Garage Configuration

 

i)     recessed behind front of dwelling

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

-     Single garage – 3m

-     Double garage – 6m

iii)   5.4m minimum length of a garage

iv)   2.6m max wall height of detached garages

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

vi)   600mm max. parapet wall or bulkhead

vii)  minimum clearance 2.2m AS2890.1

The garage doors are recessed behind the façade and the internal dimensions are satisfactory.

Complies.

7

Fencing and Ancillary Development

7.6

Air conditioning equipment

 

i)     Minimise visibility from street.

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

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

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

A condition is recommended to ensure compliance.

Complies.

7.8

Clothes Drying Facilities

 

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

There is ample area on site to provide for clothes drying facilities behind the front alignment as part of POS.

Complies.

 

4.         Referral Comments

 

4.1       Development Engineer and Landscape Officer

An application has been received for alterations and additions to the existing building and conversion of the building into an attached dual occupancy including associated site and landscaping works (variation to building height and floor space ratio controls).at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Architectural Plans by Brewster Murray dated Dec 2017;

·      Landscape Plans by Site Design Studios, dwg’s L01-02, rev C, dated 15/12/17;

·      Statement of Environmental Effects by Kim Samuel dated December 2017;

·      Detail & Level Survey by Rygate Surveyors dated 3rd Feb 2017.

 

General Comments

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

 

Parking Comments

Under Part B7 of Council’s DCP 2013 the proposed 3 bedroom & 5 bedroom residences are each required to provide a minimum of 2 off-street car spaces. The submitted plans demonstrate compliance with this requirement with 4 spaces (2 x 2 tandem spaces) provided in the proposed garage. It is also noted that additional parking would be available on the internal driveway as grades are less than 1 in 14 (7.14%).

 

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

 

No objections are raised on the parking provision and configuration

 

Drainage Comments

Stormwater detention is not generally required for this development. Stormwater runoff from the site shall be likely required with any future development consent for the subject proposal to be discharged either:

 

a.         To the kerb and gutter along the site frontage by gravity; OR

 

b.         To Lurline Bay at the rear of the property via a suitably designed and discreet outlet (with scour protection).

 

NOTE:

All stormwater must pass through a sediment silt arrestor prior to discharging to Lurline Bay or Council’s stormwater system.

 

Undergrounding of power lines to site

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

 

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

 

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

 

Geotechnical Comments

The development proposes significant excavation on the site and it is likely ground/seepage water will be encountered at the soil rock interface. The development will be required to comply with the following requirements to ensure the adequate management of any site seepage and sub-soil drainage:

 

a)   Sub-soil drainage must not be connected or discharged directly or indirectly to Council’s street gutter.

 

b)   Adequate provision is to be made for the ground water to drain around the basement levels (to ensure the basement will not dam or slow the movement of the ground water through the development site).

 

c)   Any sub-soil drainage systems must be restricted from entering the basement areas of the building and the stormwater drainage system, by tanking/waterproofing the basement areas of the building.

 

d)   Subsoil drainage may discharge to Lurline Bay

 

Landscape Comments

There is minimal vegetation at this site, comprising established Bamboo in the northern side setback, at the lower ground floor level, around the northeast corner of the existing dwelling, which is an undesirable, exempt species in Council’s DCP, along with a variety of lower growing shrubs in the rear setback, of which, none are significant in anyway, so will not pose a constraint to the works and new landscape scheme as shown, with conditions allowing their removal where necessary.   

 

Due to the steep fall of this site down to the east, and the difficulties associated with access and maintenance, the rear setback has been largely overrun with invasive weeds (as is the case with most other sites nearby), with the plans showing that a 7m wide area, below the Level 4 terrace, will be turfed and landscaped at existing grades, and will be this sites main/only area of private open space, with access stairs to be provided along the southern boundary to link these different levels.

 

Planting in this area will comprise evergreen boundary screening, with a mature height of between 1.5 – 3m, one native coastal Banksia tree, three deciduous Frangipani’s, as well as a variety of other lower growing grasses and decorative mass planting.

 

The remaining area, further to the east, is shown as remaining untouched, with conditions requiring that these two areas be formally separated so as to prevent the invasion of weed species from the lower, untouched area, into the new area of private open space, with erosion/sediment control measures also needing to be implemented to prevent runoff entering Lurline Bay during works, in the time between when existing vegetation is removed and all of the new planting is being established.

 

The submitted Landscape Plans shows that the amount of plant material will be substantially increased at this site, including feature planting at street level, on either side of the vehicle entry, to assist with integration of the development into the streetscape; as well as at the rear, off the Lower Level (4) terrace, as described above, all of which will be an improvement compared to the current situation, using a combination of native and exotic species, so conditions require its full implementation as part of any approval.

 

As this site is within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Zone, the provisions of SEPP 71 – Coastal Protection apply, with Council required to ensure that the development is designed in such a manner that it will not detract from the natural settings of the area, with the plans showing that the new building will be terraced down the steeply sloping block, in the same manner as can be seen with all other adjoining properties in this area, so is seen to be consistent with established standards, and importantly, will be contained behind the Foreshore Scenic Protection Building Line, with the exception of planting in the lowest, eastern end of the site.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.      That the RLPP is satisfied that the matters required to be addressed under clause 4.6(4) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 have been demonstrated and that consent may be granted to the development application, which contravenes the height of buildings development standard in Clause 4.3 and floor space ratio standard in Clause 4.4 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The concurrence of the Director of the Department of Planning & Environment may be assumed.

 

B.      That the RLPP grants development consent under Sections 4.16 and 4.17 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 9/2018 for Alterations and additions to the existing building and conversion of the building into an attached dual occupancy including associated site and landscaping works, at No. 11 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra, subject to the development consent conditions attached to this report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

RLPP Development consent - DA/9/2018 - 11 Mermaid Avenue, MAROUBRA  NSW  2035

 

 

 

 


RLPP Development consent - DA/9/2018 - 11 Mermaid Avenue, MAROUBRA  NSW  2035

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


Randwick Local Planning Panel            22 November 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D92/18

 

Subject:                      162 Arden Street, Coogee (DA/63/2018)

Folder No:                      DA/63/2018

Author:                          James Arnold, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                       Demolition of existing structures and construction of a four storey residential flat building comprising seven apartments.

Ward:                             East Ward

Applicant:                      Robert Stevenson

Owner:                           Robert Stevenson

Recommendation:          Approval

 

Note. A total of 8 submissions were received. The known addresses are indicated by a red dot.

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 


 

Executive Summary

 

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

 

The proposed development is for demolition of existing structures and construction of a four storey residential flat building comprising seven apartments, at 162 Arden Street, Coogee.

 

The proposal is generally consistent with the relevant planning instruments including SEPP 65, the Apartment Design Guide, Randwick LEP 2012 and Randwick DCP 2013.  The development is permissible in the R3 zone and complies with the height and floor space ratio development standards. The proposal responds well to the constraints of the small site and minimises impacts on adjoining properties as far as practical for a new infill apartment development. The proposed apartments will have high levels of amenity with each having three frontages enabling good solar access and cross ventilation.

 

Given the above, the proposal is recommended for approval.

 

Proposal Description

 

The proposed development is for demolition of existing structures, construction of a four storey residential flat building comprising seven apartments and associated works.

 

Details of the proposed development are as follows:

 

·      Demolition of the existing single storey rendered brick and weatherboard dwelling house;

 

·      Removal of all existing vegetation and trees at the rear of the site;

 

·      Construction of a four storey residential flat building containing seven apartments (6 x studios and 1 x two-bedroom); and,

 

·      The development utilises a ‘flip-flop’ plan with each of the first three levels comprising a studio at the front and a studio at the rear around a central circulation core and the top level comprising a two-bedroom penthouse apartment.

 

Amendments

The proposal was amended during the assessment process in response to issues raised by Council. The key amendments are summarised as follows:

 

·      FSR reduced from 0.95:1 to 0.897:1 to comply with the maximum 0.9:1. This was achieve through the reduction in the size of the studio apartments and opening up the central core to create a genuine breezeway;

 

·      Building height lowered to comply with the 12m height limit;

 

·      Provision of a genuine breezeway for the central core;

 

·      Reduction in the size of the studios to represent genuine studios and not 1 bedroom apartments;

 

·      Increased upper level side setbacks to make the building read as a three storeys plus loft building rather than a solid four storeys;

 

·      Provision of additional secured bicycle parking spaces;

 

·      Deletion of balcony planter boxes and replacement of side blade walls with open screening to improve view sharing;

 

·      Size of rear courtyard reduced and replaced with additional landscaped areas; and,

 

·      Boundary walls reduced in height to a maximum of 1.8m.

 

Figure 1. Streetscape Elevation (as amended)

(Source: ESS, 2018)

 

Figure 2. Northern side perspective (as amended)

(Source: ESS, 2018)

 

Site and Locality Description

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Arden Street approximately 300m north of Coogee Beach. The site is rectangular with a 10.06m frontage, length of 40.26m and an area of 404.7m2.

 

Improvements on the site comprise a one storey dwelling house of brick construction with a gabled tiled roof. The site falls 3m to the rear and 1m to the southern side. The majority of the fall occurs in the rear half of the site. In terms of vegetation, the existing front yard of the site comprises lawn and the rear yard is overgrown and includes eight mature trees.

 

The site is located within a residential area comprised of a mixture of existing one and two storey dwelling houses with pitched roofs, mid-century brick 3 to 5 storey flat buildings, and contemporary 3 to 5 storey flat buildings. The built form in the area is typically original with brick construction materials and pitched tiled roofs. Recent developments in the area have flat roofs with render and cladding. The site is adjacent to a heritage listed sandstone retaining wall which extends along either side of Arden Street. Due to this retaining wall, the site does not have any vehicular access.

 

The site is adjoined on either side (160 and 164 Arden Street) and to the rear (15 Arcadia Street) by properties which contain one and two storey dwelling houses. 164 Arden Street has an approval for alterations and additions to convert to a two storey dual occupancy development which is yet to be completed.

 

Figure 3. Front of subject site (middle) from Arden Street opposite side of Arden Street.

(Source: James Arnold, 2018)

 

Figure 4. Rear of subject site.

(Source: James Arnold, 2018)

 

Relevant History / Application History

 

8 February 2018

Lodgement – The subject development application was lodged with Council.

12 March 2018

Design Review Panel – The proposal was considered by the design review panel who were generally supportive of the application subject to amendments. Refer to SEPP 65 section of this report for details.

April 2018

Additional Information Request 1 – The DRP comments were provided to the applicant to address.

14 June 2018

Amended plans and additional information – Amended plans and documents were submitted to Council which partly resolved the issues of the DRP. The key amendments were the provision of a genuine breezeway for the central core, lowering of the building height within the height limit, revised landscaping, new clothesline, blade walls replaced with open screening to allow view sharing, and additional information provided in relation to solar access and Arborist Report.

11 July 2018

Additional Information Request 2 – Further information was requested with regards to the reduction of the size of the nominated ‘studios’ to genuine studios and not 1 bedroom apartments, upper floor setbacks to be increased, reduction of bulk around balconies for view sharing, side window privacy measures, greater opening to breezeway, reduced courtyard at rear for more landscaping, details of ongoing waste management arrangements, details of construction, and other more minor issues.

23 August 2018

Amended plans and additional information – Amended plans and documents were submitted to Council which generally resolved the issues. The key amendments were the reduction in the size of the studios, increased upper level setback, deletion of balcony planters to open up views, more open breezeways, reduced rear courtyard and more landscaping, and additional details on waste management and construction.

4 October 2018

Additional Information Request 3 – Further information was requested by Council’s Development Engineer and Traffic Engineer regarding the details of the Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP).

16 October 2018

Additional information – An amended CTMP was submitted which generally resolved the concerns of Council’s Engineers subject to conditions.

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. In response, eight submissions were received, all of which contained objections to the proposal.

 

Amended plans were submitted in June and August 2018 to address the various issues raised by Council. The amended plans were not re-notified as the amendments were considered relatively minor and resulted in reduced impacts on adjoining properties.

 

The known addresses of the submitters are as follows:

 

·      Unknown number on Arcadia Street, Coogee

·      11 Arcadia Street, Coogee

·      15 Arcadia Street, Coogee

·      4/19 Arcadia Street, Coogee

·      158 Arden Street, Coogee

·      160 Arden Street, Coogee

·      13/166-172 Arden Street, Coogee

 

Issue

Assessment

Lack of on-site car parking

Having consideration for a range of factors, the car parking non-compliance is supported. A comprehensive discussion on car parking is contained in the Key Issues section.

Bulk and scale out of character

The development achieves compliance with the key planning provisions which control bulk and scale such as floor space ratio, height, and setbacks. Further, the design of the proposal reduces perceived bulk through variation in materials, upper level setback and distinction of materials, and a semi-open core to break-up the length of the development into two pavilions. The development is consistent with the existing and emerging character of the area.

Height and FSR variation

The proposal has been amended to comply with height and FSR.

Impacts of building height, privacy, solar access to 11 and 15 Arcadia Street

15 Arcadia Street adjoins the rear of the subject site and 11 Arcadia Street is one property further along to the west. The development is setback 7.5-9m at the rear which exceeds the 6m DCP and ADG requirements and will provide an adequate level of privacy. Further, a deep soil planting area is proposed for a large portion of the rear setback which will provide landscape screening. This rear setback area has been conditioned to include additional landscaped areas to replace part of the proposed rear terrace which will further improve privacy to the rear.

In regards to height and overshadowing, the building complies with the height limit and will not cast any shadows on 11 or 15 Arcadia Street.

Overlooking to 160 Arden Street

The proposal has generally been designed to provide privacy for the units and adjacent properties through positioning and orientation of the main living spaces to the front and rear, privacy treatments including angled louvres to the sides of the balconies, and privacy screened side windows. Conditions have been imposed regarding the details of the privacy treatments which will ensure overlooking potential is minimised.

Future redevelopment of 15 Arcadia views blocked

The adjoining development to the rear at 15 Arcadia Street does not currently have any views across the subject site, as the subject site slopes up to Arden Street which blocks views towards Coogee Bay. Any impact on views from a future taller redevelopment of that site are considered acceptable as the proposed building envelope is compliant with height and setbacks and provides a greater rear setback than required, which will allow for view sharing.

Insufficient landscaping

The proposal complies with the landscaping requirements under Council’s DCP and the ADG. Further landscaping will also be required to be provided replacing some of the proposed rear terrace.

View impacts

View impacts are considered minor and acceptable. Refer to Key Issues section for full discussion.

Wall height non-compliance

The wall height non-compliance is considered acceptable. Refer to Key Issues section for full discussion.

Waste bin collection location – existing only 2 bins at the corner, however 11 bins will be a hazard and eye-sore

A detailed Waste Management Plan has been submitted with the amended application. Given the heritage retaining wall fronting the site and that there is no road verge space available on Arden Street for bin collection, bins are proposed to be transported to the nearest corner with Arcadia Street for collection. Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed this proposal and considers it an acceptable arrangement given the constraints of the site and area.

Insufficient front setback

The proposal complies with the front setback control.

Tree removals

The proposal includes the removal of eight existing trees located at the rear of the site. These trees include some medium and large trees including a mature pine tree which has been identified as having visual and landscape significance.

The trees to be removed are located within the proposed building footprint. The footprint provides front, side and rear setbacks which are consistent with the planning controls and in some areas, such as at the rear, well in excess of requirements. The design of the proposal in relation to the tree locations has been reviewed and there are no reasonable amendments which could be made to accommodate the trees which are located well into the middle of the site.

Council’s Landscape Technician has reviewed the proposed tree removals and raised no objection. In particular, it was noted that the existing major Norfolk Island Pine is located within 2m of the existing dwelling and can therefore be removed without Council consent.

Studios attract short term rentals

There is no evidence to suggest that the proposed studios would result in any unreasonable adverse social or economic impact on the area.

Construction access to site

Construction access was raised as an issue by Council. The amended proposal included a Construction Management Plan which has been reviewed by Council’s Development Engineer and no objections were raised subject to conditions.

Overshadowing to south

The adjoining properties to the south have been assessed as achieving compliance with solar access provisions. A detailed assessment is provided under the RDCP section of this report.

Construction noise

Standard conditions of consent have been imposed that include measures to minimise the impact of construction noise.

 

Key Issues

 

Communal open space

ADG Part 3D–1 1. Communal open space has a minimum area equal to 25% of the site.

 

The ADG requires 25% of the site area to be provided as communal open space. The proposal does not provide any communal open space which does not comply. This is considered acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The objective of this control relates to enhancing residential amenity and providing opportunities for landscaping. The development is considered to achieve these objectives as detailed in the following points;

 

·      The proposal achieves a high level of residential amenity and opportunities for landscaping by utilising the ground open space areas for oversized private terraces and private landscaped areas. The provision of private landscaping at the rear is preferable to communal open space as communal space in this area would result in a significant loss of landscaping as access paths and communal facilities would be necessary (Figure 5). Landscaping and trees on this site are paramount as the proposal will result in the loss of an existing substantial canopy of trees and the proposed compensatory plantings are crucial for the amenity of surrounding properties;

 

·      Residential amenity is provided to the upper level apartments through oversized balconies. The balconies for the studios are 19m2 where only 4m2 is required under the ADG and 16m2 for the 2 bedroom penthouse apartment where 10m2 is required. These oversized balconies will compensate for the lack of communal open space on site; and,

 

·      The site is within close proximity of a wide variety of public open space areas including Coogee Oval (200m), Coogee Beach (300m), Bardon Park (300m), and Dunningham Reserve (300m) – an aerial image showing these areas is shown in Figure 6.

 

Figure 5. Landscaping diagram indicating the proposed rear private landscaped areas which is considered a preferable outcome for the site than provision of COS.

(Source: SOD, 2018 / Marked: J Arnold)

 

Figure 6. Aerial image showing the range of public open spaces within a short walking distance of the site.

(Source: google.com.au/maps)

 

Side setbacks and separations

RDCP Section C3 3.4.2 – Comply with the minimum side setback requirements stated below for residential flat buildings and multi dwelling housing: Site frontage width <12 – merit.

 

ADG Part 3F – 1. 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: 6m habitable areas / balconies, 3m non-habitable.

 

The proposed development has 1.7m side setbacks which is considered to comply with the DCP merit based provisions, however does not comply with the 6m ADG requirement. The setbacks/separations are considered acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The objectives of the ADG separation requirements relate to providing a reasonable level of visual privacy between sites. The proposal as originally lodged included large side windows extending across the living and bedroom of the studios. These were considered excessive in size and would impact adjoining visual privacy given the high use nature of these rooms and the close proximity to the boundary. The proposal has been amended to split these large windows into smaller windows with privacy screening. To ensure there are no opportunities for direct overlooking to the sides, a condition has been imposed for these privacy screens to be fixed angled louvres to direct views to the front and rear of the site only;

 

·      The site is less than 12m in width (10.06m) which the DCP stipulates a merit assessment for side setbacks. When considering the side setback requirement for site widths 12-14m is 2m, the provision of 1.7m side setbacks would seem proportionally consistent. These setbacks are also greater than the existing developments either side of the site, albeit those sites contain only one and two storey dwellings. Importantly, amendments were made to the top level to further setback from the sides to 2.7m which will ensure the development will be comfortably spaced in the streetscape and bulk and scale is minimised with the upper floor reading as a recessive component (Figure 7);

 

·      The facades of the development will not be overly bulky for adjoining properties as they are well resolved with a stepped building design, upper level setbacks, prominent windows, central breezeway articulation, and textured cladding.

 

Figure 7. Streetscape elevation diagram showing the side setbacks and upper setback relative to adjoining developments.

(Source: ESS, 2018 / Marked: J Arnold)

 

Wall height

RDCP C2 3.2 i) The maximum external wall height is 10.5m.

 

The proposed development has a maximum external wall height of 11.77m which does not comply with the maximum 10.5m control (Figure 8). The wall height is considered acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The development provides a contemporary design with a flat roof within the overall building height limit of 12m. A development achieving the 12m overall height would have to include a pitched roof design to comply with the 10.5m wall height control which is measured to the underside of the eaves. The proposed flat roof design provides an upper level setback (as amended) of 1m (2.7m setback from the southern side boundary) at the front and 0.5m at the rear to achieve a similar outcome to a compliant pitched roof form;

 

·      The solar perspectives indicate that the proposal will provide more than compliant solar access to the adjoining property to the south, 164 Arden Steet. 164 Arden Street contains a front living room which will receive 2 hours sunlight from 8-10am and a rear living room that will receive 4 hours from 11am-3pm. The rear courtyard will receive 5 hours sunlight to over 50% of the space between 10am-3pm. Further, the approved dual occupancy conversion of 164 Arden Street has also been reviewed and would receive the same levels of sunlight as the existing dwelling given the living areas and POS are located in the same areas;

 

·      The upper level setback of 1m from the building edge and 2.7m from the side boundary will ensure the main portion of the walls extend only 3 storeys up to a maximum of 10m. The visual impact of the wall height is offset with increased upper level setbacks which will result in an architecturally separate upper building element clearly distinguished from the lower portion; and,

 

·      The facades of the development will not be overly bulky for adjoining properties as they are well resolved with a stepped building design, upper level setbacks, prominent windows, central breezeway articulation, and textured cladding.

 

 

Figure 8. Southern side elevation showing the portion over the wall height limit.

(Source: ESS, 2018 / Marked: J Arnold)

 

Views

The views available across the subject site have been taken into consideration in the assessment process. Views that will be potentially affected by the proposal have been identified from two key locations being the first floor living room and front balcony of the dwelling house at 158 Arden Street (two properties north) and the front porch of the dwelling house at 160 Arden Street (adjoining to north). The views are to the Coogee bay and valley area to the south/south-east of the site and are shown in Figure 9-14

 

The view sharing provisions in the DCP are based on the planning principle within the Land and Environment Court judgement of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004]. In Tenacity, the Court determined a 4-step process to determine whether the loss or sharing of views is reasonable. The four step process has been followed as detailed below and the view impacts are considered to be satisfactory.

 

·      Step 1. Assess the views to be affected - water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views.

 

Assessment: 158 Arden Street – The views are from the first floor living and balcony to the Coogee bay and valley area. The South Coogee headland and Wedding Cake Island are visible. These views are partial views, with much of Coogee Bay obstructed by buildings on the eastern side of Arden Street and large trees.

 

160 Arden Street – The views are from the ground level front porch to the Coogee Bay area. Part of the South Coogee headland is visible, however Wedding Cake Island is not. These views are partial views obtained across the front corner of the site, with most of the view obstructed by the buildings on the eastern side of Arden Street.

 

·      Step 2. Assess what part of the property the views are obtained from. Is the view from the side, front or rear boundaries? Is the view enjoyed from a standing or sitting position? Is the expectation to retain the view realistic?

 

Assessment: 158 Arden Street – The views are obtained from the first floor living area and front balcony across the front and side boundary of the site. The views are available from standing and seated positions, however are far less obstructed from standing. The views angle across the front setback areas of adjacent properties to the south (including the subject site) and are realistic to be retained. The views directly south across the side boundary towards the Coogee shops are more difficult to retain.

 

160 Arden Street – The views are obtained from the front porch of the dwelling across the side boundary of the site. The views are available from standing and seated positions, however are highly obstructed from both positions. The views across the front setback area of the subject site are realistic to be retained.

 

·      Step 3. Assess the extent of the impact having regard to the whole of the property, not just for the view that is affected. Views from living areas are more significant than from bedrooms etc. A qualitative assessment is usually more useful (i.e. the view loss is negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating) than comparing percentages.

 

Assessment: 158 Arden Street – The proposed building will result in a loss of the western-most portion of the view to the Coogee valley area. There will be no impact on the views to the water and headland. Overall the impact is considered minor. See Figure 11 & 13.

 

160 Arden Street – The proposed building will be further setback than the existing dwelling and as such it is likely the view will be slightly improved.

 

·      Step 4. Assess the reasonableness of the proposal causing the impact. Is the application compliant (and therefore more reasonable) or involve variations to development standards?

 

Assessment: The impact on the view from 158 Arden Street is considered reasonable as the impact is minor and has been reduced as far as practical. In response to concerns raised by Council, the proposal was amended to reduce the bulk of the front balconies to improve view lines. The original proposal had large solid balustrades including planter boxes and side blade walls which have been replaced with part solid, part clear balustrades, and half-length open style privacy louvres. The design measures along with the compliant front setback of the building ensures the view impact is minimal and aligned with expectations from the planning controls.

 

Given the above, the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of its impact of views.

 

Figure 9. Existing views available across site towards Coogee bay and valley area to the south and south-east of site. (Source: google.com.au/maps / Marked: J Arnold, 2018)

 

Figure 10. 160 Arden Street approximate views from the front porch towards Coogee Bay.

(Source: J Arnold, 2018)

 

Figure 11. 158 Arden Street standing view from first floor front balcony towards Coogee Bay with the proposed building envelope superimposed.

(Source: ESS & J Arnold, 2018)

 

Figure 12. 158 Arden Street seated view from first floor front balcony towards Coogee Bay.

(Source: J Arnold, 2018)

 

Figure 13. 158 Arden Street view from far eastern first floor living towards Coogee Bay with the proposed building envelope superimposed.

(Source: ESS & J Arnold, 2018)

 

Figure 14. 158 Arden Street view from first floor living towards Coogee Bay.

(Source: J Arnold, 2018)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Car parking

RDCP B7 3.2 i) Development must comply with the vehicle parking rates as detailed in Table 1 Vehicle Parking Rates. Residential flat buildings: 1 space per 2 studios, 1.2 spaces per 2 bedroom apartment.

 

The proposed development generates a DCP car parking requirement of 5.2 spaces (4.2 spaces residents and 1 visitors). No car parking is proposed which does not comply with the requirement. The lack of car parking provision is considered acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The site is landlocked by the heritage sandstone retaining wall along the frontage to Arden Street which restricts vehicular access to the site. Tunneling through this wall would significantly detract from the heritage item and streetscape presentation. Council’s Heritage Officer has previously commented on similar DAs on the opposite side of Arden Street that tunneling through the wall would not be supported and the Design Excellence Panel for the subject DA were also not supportive of such an approach. Accordingly, there is no opportunity to provide car parking on the site;

 

·      The proposal has been amended to provide more genuine studio apartments to ensure the parking demands of the development are minimised. The originally submitted plans were for studios however they were of the size and layout of one bedroom apartments. The amendments have reduced the size of the studio apartments to 45m2 (ie. below the minimum one-bedroom ADG unit size – 50m2) which will serve to reduce the potential number of residents and subsequent parking demands;

 

·      The site has relatively good public transport links with major bus terminus at the bottom of Arden Street at Coogee Beach, just 250m walk from the site. A range of high frequency buses service this terminus providing access regionally to the CBD and locally to Bondi Junction, Randwick Junction, and The Spot. These locations are a short bus trip from the site and contain a wide range of services and facilities;

 

·      The site is located within 400-600m walking distance of the main Coogee Beach shopping strip along Coogee Bay Road. This strip contains some key services and facilities such as a full sized supermarket, gyms, pubs, and a wide range of cafes and restaurants. Further, also within a short walk of the site are a range of public open spaces and recreational facilities including Coogee Oval, tennis courts, dog parks, and Coogee Beach;

 

·      The amended proposal has incorporated one bicycle parking space for each apartment within a secured room in a highly convenient location at the ground floor; and,

 

·      A condition has been imposed that requires the applicant to provide seven car share memberships (one for each apartment) for a period of 10 years.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:           Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

That the proposed development for demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a four storey residential flat building, be approved (subject to conditions) for the reasons below.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

·      The environmental impacts are acceptable.

 


 

Detailed Assessment

 

1.0        Matters for Consideration

 

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

 

Section 4.15 ‘Matters for Consideration’

Assessment of Proposal

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

See below.

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

Nil.

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

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

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submissions were received which are addressed in this report.

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

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

 

 

2.0        Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments and Development Control Plans

 

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

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

 


 

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

The proposed development includes BASIX affected buildings. A compliant BASIX certificate has been submitted and in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 the environmentally sustainable commitments within the certificate are required to be fulfilled as a prescribed condition of consent. Accordingly, the proposal satisfies the provisions of the SEPP.

 

2.3       State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

The site has a frontage and is adjacent to a classified road being Arden Street and therefore the Infrastructure SEPP has been considered.

 

·      Clause 101 Development with a frontage to a classified road – No vehicular access is currently available to Arden Street and no new access is proposed. As such, the proposal will not have any impacts on the function of the road.

 

·      Clause 102 Impact of road noise or vibration on non-road development – This clause is not applicable as Arden Street fronting the site does not have an annual average daily traffic volume of more than 40,000 vehicles.

 

·      Clause 104 Traffic-generating development – This clause is not applicable as the proposal has does not meet the size or capacity requirements in the SEPP.

 

Given the above, the proposal satisfies the Infrastructure SEPP.

 

2.4       State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017

The Vegetation SEPP provides approval pathways for the removal of vegetation in non-rural areas and matters for consideration in the assessment of applications to remove vegetation.

 

The proposal includes the removal of the eight existing trees located at the rear of the site. These trees includes some medium and large trees include a mature pine tree which has been identified as having visual and landscape significance.

 

The trees to be removed are located within the proposed building footprint. The footprint provides front, side and rear setbacks which are consistent with the planning controls and in some areas, such as at the rear, well in excess of requirements. The design of the proposal in relation to the tree locations has been reviewed and there are no reasonable amendments which could be made to accommodate the trees which are located well into the middle of the site.

 

Council’s Landscape Technician has reviewed the proposal tree removals and raised no objection. In particular, it was noted that the existing major Norfolk Island Pine is located within 2m of the existing dwelling and can therefore be removed without Council consent.

 

Given the above context and that a range of replacement plantings are proposed, the tree removals are considered acceptable and satisfy the provisions of the Vegetation SEPP.

 

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

SEPP 65 applies to the proposed development as it contains three or more storeys and contains four or more dwellings.

 

Clause 28(2) stipulates that the consent authority is to take into consideration the advice of the design review panel, the design quality principles, and the Apartment Design Guide (ADG).

 

The proposal has been assessed against the Design Quality Principles and the ADG. A summary of the assessment against the ADG is provided in the compliance table below and areas of non-compliance have been discussed within the table and in the key issues section of this report. Overall, the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the ADG.

 


 

Design Review Panel and the Design Quality Principles

The Randwick Design Review Panel considered the subject proposal. The panel was generally supportive of the application and provided the below advice. The Assessing Officer’s comments on the DRPs advice is also provided.

 

Principle 1: Context and Neighbourhood Character

The subject site is located on Arden Street on the heights above Coogee Beach.  In this immediate area, Arden Street slopes down towards the valley of Coogee Beach steeply; the footpath sits on a retaining wall separate from the street, running on a gentler slope.  The sandstone retaining wall is a heritage item, and a major feature in the area. It restricts access from the street and therefore there is no opportunity to provide on-site parking.

 

The subject site is neighboured by one and two storey residential buildings, some of which are in the process of being replaced by larger multi-unit developments.  It was noted by the applicants that the site immediately to the north, at 160 Arden Street, currently has approval for a new development.  The site is within close proximity to the major retail and hospitality precinct of Coogee Beach, and is well served by public transport.  The Coogee bus terminal is within 200 meters of the site.

 

Comment: The proposal is consistent with this principle as per the DRPs comments.

 

Principle 2: Scale and Built Form

The proposal exceeds height, FSR and wall height, though marginally in parts.  The stair and associated circulation are not designed as an open breezeway, and therefore should also be counted as FSR.  Despite claims in the proposal that the scheme is a 3 story development with a secondary roof from, the overall building reads very clearly as a four-story block, especially when seen from the sides.  The proposal also requests removal of all the mature trees at the rear of the site.

 

The panel feels that the entire building should be shifted to the east, towards the street – this would make the form less dominant over the contiguous open spaces of the adjoining back yards, and should allow retention of some of the existing trees.  The overall form should be refined more, to bring the massing within the controls, and express the top floor more clearly as a recessed secondary roof form, and not part of a four-story block.

 

The applicant should illustrate clearly the impacts of overshadowing on the indoor and outdoor living spaces of the adjoining property at 164 Arden.  Similarly, the drawings should indicate the extent of the approved development at 160 Arden, so the performance objectives (light, ventilation) for this proposal can be future-proofed.

 

Comment: To resolve the DRPs issues regarding the building envelope and siting, the proposal has been amended to comply with the height and FSR. The wall height remains non-compliant however, consistent with the DRPs advice, the upper level has been further setback from the sides to ensure the building truly reads as three storeys with a recessed fourth storey. The building siting remains unchanged, however additional landscaping is now provided at the rear through the reduction in paved areas. A condition has been imposed to further reduce hard paving at the rear so that substantial plantings are provided to screen the rear of the built form.

 

Comprehensive ‘view from sun’ solar perspectives have been submitted which accurately demonstrate the overshadowing impacts of the development on the adjoining property. These impacts comply with the relevant provisions.

 

The amended proposal is considered to be consistent with this principle.

 

Principle 3: Density

The long, narrow site necessarily results in a proposal with a most of its massing directly adjacent to neighbouring properties.  The resulting continuous side walls should be modulated to offer some relief – expressing (via a recess) the breezeway and circulation space would improve the north elevation, while the entry opposite offers a similar opportunity on the south elevation.

 

Comment: Consistent with the DRP’s advice, the proposal has been amended to provide genuine breezeways across the core of the building which assists in breaking up the continuous mass of the side elevations. Further, the top floor has been further setback from the sides which ensures the bulk of the side elevations is minimised. The amended proposal is considered to be consistent with this principle.

 

Principle 4: Sustainability

The natural ventilation solution for the units appears to rely on small windows or doors opening out to an external mechanical area – this configuration, and the location of AC units, should be reconsidered.  Establishing the stair and circulation zone as a genuine breezeway would assist.  Solar studies suggest north facing windows as primary source of natural light, but these windows are screened – the application should include details of the screens, to ensure requisite light to the units’ living spaces.  Rainwater and stormwater should be collected, stored and re-used, in gardens and WC’s and laundries.  The extensive flat roof should incorporate PV solar panels and solar hot water units.

 

Comment: Consistent with the DRPs advice, the proposal has been amended to provide a genuine breezeway which will assist cross ventilation of the units. Whilst the side windows of the units will be privacy screened, each has a large eastern or western frontage to the living area and private open space which will receive compliant levels of sunlight. The development incorporates the sustainability measures as required by the BASIX Certificate. Any additional sustainability measures are not considered warranted in this instance. The amended proposal is considered to be consistent with this principle.

 

Principle 5: Landscape

The site currently contains a stand of large established trees in the rear (west) backyard – these contribute significantly to the site and surrounding properties.  The arborist’s report seems to misidentify some of these items, including the major Norfolk Pine on the adjoining property – these details should be reviewed and corrected where necessary.  Changes to the building footprint and potential massing should aim to allow for the retention of some of these mature specimens.

 

In the event of removal of mature trees, the replacement trees specified in the landscape plan should offer (over time) a similar degree of canopy and amenity, with as large as possible specimens planted.  The planters on the terraces and in the entry lobby seem too small to sustain the size density of planting suggested in the drawings and landscape plans – these should be detailed to allow successful plant growth and longevity.

 

Comment: The proposal has been reviewed by Council’s Landscape Technician who raised no objections subject to conditions. In relation to the significant trees at the rear of the site, the Landscape officer noted that the major Norfolk Island Pine (Tree 8 in Arborist Report) is located within 2m of the existing building and can therefore be removed without consent. The remaining trees are considered to be too far into the site to reasonably accommodate within a new development. The neighbouring tree near the northern boundary at the rear will be retained and protected. A condition has been imposed to reduce the rear courtyard to increase compensatory landscaping on site. Having regards to the location of the existing site vegetation and the compensatory plantings proposed, the proposal is considered to consistent this principle.

 

Principle 6: Amenity

The waste storage area opening directly onto the entry lobby is not ideal, though the panel accepts that options are limited.  Ensuring the entry space is genuinely an open breezeway could alleviate some of the potential impacts.  The entire entry experience from the street could be enhanced, through planting, material details or building elements.  There is no communal open space in the development, nor an outdoor drying area.  Suggested changes noted above to building alignment may offer some possibilities to address these issues.

 

Comment: The central core has been amended to be a genuine breezeway and a door has been provided immediately adjacent to the bin room which will ensure bin transfer will be directly out of the building and not through the main part of the entrance lobby. The proposal has been amended to reduce the rear courtyard to provide additional landscaping. There is further scope for the courtyard to be pulled back which has been imposed as a condition. The lack of communal open space is supported for this small scale development as the private open spaces are oversized and have high levels of amenity and there are public recreation areas within a short walk of the site. The amended proposal is considered to be consistent with this principle.

 

Principle 7: Safety

There are no safety issues raised.

 

Comment: The proposal is consistent with this principle as per the DRPs comments.

 

Principle 8: Housing Diversity and Social Interaction

The proposal for studio apartments in a high-quality development is a positive addition to the area.

 

Comment: The proposal is consistent with this principle as per the DRPs comments.

 

Principle 9: Aesthetics

The mainly blank 4-story side walls need more development, especially when considering their impacts on the neighbouring properties immediately adjacent.  Blade walls to the northeast corner of the front (east) balconies should be designed to not obstruct ocean views from neighbouring properties, while also providing privacy to residents and neighbours.  Drainage solutions from planters and balconies should be considered, and details provided, to ensure rainwater appliances to not become obtrusive elements in the minimalist design.

 

Comment: Consistent with the DRP’s advice, the proposal has been amended to provide genuine breezeways across the core of the building which assists in breaking up the continuous mass of the side elevations. Further, the top floor has been further setback from the sides which ensures the bulk of the side elevations is minimised. The originally proposed balcony blade walls have been replaced with open style privacy louvres and reduced in width to minimise view impacts. The amended proposal is considered to be consistent with this principle.

 

Summary and Recommendations

The panel supports the overall approach to the project, but would like the opportunity to review the proposal with its amendments again.

 

Comment: The proposal as amended is considered to resolve the issues raised by the DRP and as such further review of the DRP was not considered warranted.

 

Apartment Design Guide

 


Provision

Assessment of Proposal

Complies?

Part 3 – Siting the development

3D Communal and Public Open Space

Design Criteria

 

 

1. Communal open space has a minimum area equal to 25% of the site (see figure 3D.3)).

Communal Open Space: Nil

No – Acceptable Refer to Key Issues

2. 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 9am and 3pm on 21 June (mid-winter).

No communal open space provided.

N/A

3E Deep soil zones

Design Criteria

Deep soil zones are to meet the following minimum requirements.

 

 

Site Area

Min dimensions

Deep soil zone (% of site)

Less than 650m2

-

7%

650-1500m2

3m

Greater than 1500m2

6m

Greater than 1500m2 with existing tree cover

6m

Deep Soil Area: 31% (126m2)

Yes

3F Visual privacy

Design criteria

 

 

1. 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:

Height

Habitable rooms and balconies

Non-habitable rooms

Up to 12m (4 storeys)

6m

3m

Up to 25m (5-8 storeys)

9m

4.5m

Over 25m (9+ storeys)

12m

6m

The following separations are proposed:

Southern side boundary (habitable)

Minimum: 1.7m (6m required, does not comply)

Northern side boundary (habitable)

Minimum: 1.7m (6m required, does not comply)

No – Acceptable Refer to Key Issues 

Note: Separation distances between buildings on the same site should combine required building separations depending on the type of room (see figure 3F.2).

Gallery access circulation should be treated as habitable space when measuring privacy separation distances between neighbouring properties.

Only a single building proposed. Internal separations not applicable.

N/A

3G Pedestrian access and entries

Objective 3G-1

Building entries and pedestrian access connects to and addresses the public domain.

 

The entries are clearly identifiable from the public domain and clearly distinguishable from private areas.

 

Yes

3H Vehicle access

Objective 3H-1

Vehicle access points are designed and located to achieve safety, minimise conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles and create high quality streetscapes.

 

No vehicular access.

 

N/A

3J Bicycle and car parking

Design Criteria

 

 

1. 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.

The site is not within 800m of a railway station or light rail stop. Car parking provisions from the DCP are applicable.

N/A

Objective 3J-2

Parking and facilities are provided for other modes of transport.

Bicycle spaces: 9 within a secured and covered location at ground floor.

Yes

Part 4 – Designing the building

4A Solar and daylight access

Design Criteria

 

 

1. 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.

Solar access: 100% of apartments will receive more than the required 2 hours solar access to living areas and private open space areas.

Yes

2. In all other areas, living rooms and private open spaces of at least 70% of apartments in a building receive a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm at mid-winter.

The proposed development is within the Sydney Metropolitan Area and as such this is not applicable.

N/A

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

No apartments will receive no direct sunlight in mid-winter.

Yes

4B Natural ventilation

Design criteria

 

 

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

Cross ventilation: 100% of the apartments

Yes

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

No cross-over and cross-through apartments.

N/A

4C Ceiling heights

Design criteria

 

 

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

·      Habitable rooms 2.7m

·      Non habitable 2.4m

·      2 storey apartments 2.7m for main living area floor, 2.4m for second floor

·      Attic 1.8m at edge with 30 degree minimum ceiling slope

·      Mixed use area 3.3m ground and first floor

These minimums do not preclude higher ceilings if desired.

Ceiling heights: 2.7m

Yes

4D Apartment size and layout

Design criteria

 

 

Apartments are required to have the following minimum internal areas:

·      Studio – 35m2

·      1B – 50m2

·      2B – 70m2

·      3B+ - 90m2

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

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

Studios: 45m2

2 bedroom apartment: 86m2

Yes

Yes

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 have windows to an external wall with a total glass area not less than 10% of the floor area of the room.

Yes

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

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

Yes

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

All apartments have open plan layouts. The maximum depth does not exceed 8m from the external windows / glazed balcony doors.

Yes

4D Apartment size and layout

Design Criteria

 

 

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

Minimum bedroom areas have been achieved.

Yes

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

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

Yes

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

·      3.6m for studio and 1 bedroom apartments

·      4m for 2 and 3 bedroom apartments

All living rooms have a minimum dimension of 4.1m for the studios and 4m for 2 bedroom apartments.

Yes

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

No cross over or cross through apartments proposed.

N/A

4E Private open space and balconies

Design Criteria

 

 

All apartments are required to have primary balconies as follows:

·      Studio – Area 4m2 / Depth none

·      1B – Area 8m2 / Depth 2m

·      2B – Area 10m2 / Depth 2m

·      3B+ - Area 12m3 / Depth 2.4m

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

All balconies meet the balcony size and depth requirements.

Yes

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

The ground floor apartments have been provided with a courtyard which meet the size and depth requirements.

Yes

4F Common circulation and spaces

Design Criteria

 

 

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

Two apartments per floor.

Yes

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

N/A – Not 10 storeys and over.

N/A

4G Storage

Design criteria

 

 

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

·      Studio – 4m3

·      1B – 6m3

·      2B – 8m3

·      3B+ - 10m3

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

Internal storage provided at 6m3 for the studios and 9.8m3 for the 2 bedroom apartment.

Yes

4K Apartment mix

Objective 4K-1

A range of apartment types and sizes is provided to cater for different household types now and into the future.

 

The proposed development includes a mixture of studios and 2 bedroom apartments which is an appropriate mix for a development with only seven apartments.

 

Yes

4L Ground floor apartments

Objective 4L-1

Street frontage activity is maximised where ground floor apartments are located.

 

Street frontage activity is maximised as it is a narrow street frontage with a clearly defined front entrance path provided.

 

Yes

 

2.6       Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The proposal is characterised as a ‘residential flat building’ as it contains 3 or more dwellings and is not an attached dwelling or multi dwelling housing (ie. each unit is not access from ground level).

 

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the R3 zone as it will replace an ageing single dwelling house with modern apartments with high levels of amenity.

 

The relevant provisions of the RLEP 2012 are addressed in the table below:

 

Provision

Assessment of Proposal

Complies?

Floor Space Ratio

0.9:1

FSR: 0.897:1

·      GFA 363.1m2

·      Site Area 404.7m2

Note. GFA has been calculated by the Assessment Officer in accordance with the LEP definition. The lobby area and bicycle parking room have been excluded on the basis of being sufficiently open on both sides to constitute a ‘breezeway’ and therefore are outside the external walls of the building and not counted as GFA.

Yes

Height of Building

Max 12m

Height (Lift overrun): 11.62m

·      Lift overrun: RL 44.85

·      EGL below: RL 33.23

Height (Front pavilion): 11.81m

·      Front pavilion: RL 44.55

·      EGL below: RL 32.74

Height (Rear pavilion): 12.00m

·      Rear pavilion: RL 43.40

·      EGL below: RL 31.40

Note. The heights have been assessed by the Assessment Officer in accordance with the LEP definition and utilising the levels on the survey plan. The maximum building height occurs at the rearmost point of the building at 12m which complies.

Yes

Heritage

Various requirements for protecting heritage

The site is adjacent to heritage item L44 of local significance which is a sandstone retaining wall along Arden Street fronting the site.

The proposal does not include any works to the wall and as such will not have any impact on the heritage significance of the wall.

Yes

 

2.7       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.

 

Section C2:  Medium Density Residential

 

Cl.

Control

Assessment of Proposal

Complies?

3. Building Envelope

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.

Prevailing front setback: Front setback of properties fronting to Arden Street within the urban block of the site are typically 4m including both of the adjoining properties.

Proposed front setback:

·      GF: 5.777m

·      Above: 4.777m

The proposed front setback exceeds the prevailing setback in street.

It is noted that pushing the building forward to allow for a greater rear setback is not considered an improved planning outcome due to the significant view impacts this would have on the properties north of the site.

Yes

3.4.2

Side setback

 

Residential flat building

Comply with the minimum side setback requirements stated below:

·      <12m – merit  

·      12m-14m – 2m

Side setbacks:

·      Southern 1.7m

·      Northern 1.7m

Yes – on merit, refer to 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.

15% of allotment depth 6.04m which is the applicable control.

 

Rear setback:

·      GF: 9.025m

·      Above: 7.58m

Yes

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.

Facades are well resolved broken up with a central breezeway, screening, cladding and large windows. The design is contemporary with a flat roof which is compatible with the highly varied style of original properties in the area and consistent with recent developments and approvals.

Yes

4.2

Roof design

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flat roof form proposed which is consistent with new developments in the area and will be compatible with traditional pitched roofs in the area.

Yes

 

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.

N/A – No habitable roof space proposed.

N/A

4.4

External wall height and ceiling height

 

(ii)    Where the site is subject to a 12m building height limit under the LEP, a maximum external wall height of 10.5m applies.

External wall height: 11.77m

·      Front pavilion southern wall edge: RL 44.55

·      EGL below: RL 32.78

No – Acceptable refer to Key Issues

 

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

Ceiling heights: 2.7m

Yes

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. 

Materials and finishes schedule submitted. Facades are primarily metal cladding with rectilinear metal framed windows. This is consistent with the highly varied character of the area.

Yes

4.12

Earthworks Excavation and backfilling

 

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

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

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

Excavation up to approximately 1.5m proposed within the building footprint. This is acceptable as a stepped design is proposed which works with the fall of the land and limits excavation. The majority of the building footprint will require less than 1m excavation.

No – Acceptable

 

Retaining walls

(iv)      Setback the outer edge of any excavation, piling or sub-surface walls a minimum of 900mm from the side and rear boundaries.

(v)       Step retaining walls in response to the natural landform to avoid creating monolithic structures visible from the neighbouring properties and the public domain.

(vi)      Where it is necessary to construct retaining walls at less than 900mm from the side or rear boundary due to site conditions, retaining walls must be stepped with each section not exceeding a maximum height of 2200mm, as measured from the ground level (existing).

Boundary wall shown on plan extending most of the length of the side and rear boundaries. The maximum height of the wall relative to adjoining properties has been reduced in the amended plans to a maximum of approximately 1.8m. This is acceptable as the boundary wall is only partially a retaining wall, with most of the height provided to act as a boundary fence. The portion of the wall acting as a retaining wall is mostly less than 900mm for cut within the site.

No – Acceptable

5. Amenity

5.1

Solar access and overshadowing

 

Solar access for surrounding development

 

(i)     Living areas of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours 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 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.

‘View from sun’ solar perspectives hourly from 8am to 4pm on 21 June were submitted in response to a request for additional information.

The development will primarily overshadow the adjoining property to the south, No 164 Arden Street, with negligible overshadowing of other properties. This property has living rooms at the front and rear and a private open space courtyard at the rear. Further, there is an approval for alterations and additions to convert to a dual occupancy which also has living rooms at the front and rear and POS at the rear.

Solar perspectives indicate that the front living room will receive 2 hours sunlight from 8-10am and the rear living room will receive 4 hours from 11am-3pm. The rear courtyard will receive 5 hours sunlight to over 50% of the space between 10am-3pm.

The future dual occupancy conversion would receive the same levels of sunlight given the living areas and POS are located in the same areas.

Given the above, the proposal complies with solar access.

Yes

5.3

Visual privacy

 

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

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

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

-     Translucent glazing

-     Fixed timber or metal slats

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

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

The proposal has generally been designed to provide privacy for the units and adjacent properties through positioning and orientation of the main living spaces to the front and rear and privacy treatments including angled louvres to the sides of balconies, and privacy screened side windows.

To ensure that the privacy measures to the side boundaries are adequate, conditions have been imposed to specify the details of the screens so that they angle views to the front and rear, to completely block any side views. This is discussed in the Key Issues under setbacks and separations.

Yes – Subject to condition

5.4

Acoustic privacy

 

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

Active areas within the development are appropriately separated from noise sensitive spaces.

Yes

5.5

View sharing

 

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. 

The development allows for view sharing.

Yes – Refer to Key Issues

5.6

Safety and security

 

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

The access is considered safe as it is near the street, is clearly identifiable, and the common stairs and lobby is clear with no opportunities for concealment or entrapment.

Yes

6. Car parking and access

DCP Section B7 – Car Parking Rates

 

MDH and RFB:

·      1 space per 2 studio

·      1 space per 1B apartment (over 40m2)

·      1.2 space per 2B apartment

·      1.5 space per +3B apartment

·      1 visitor space per 4 dwelling

·      Motorbike 5% of car parking requirement

Requirement: 4.2 residents / 1 visitors spaces

Proposed: Nil

No – Acceptable refer to Key Issues

6.1

Location

 

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

No car parking or vehicular access proposed to site.

N/A

 

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

As above.

N/A

 

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

As above.

N/A

 

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

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

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

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

As above.

N/A

6.2

Configuration

 

(i)     With the exception of hardstand car spaces and garages, all car parks must be designed to allow vehicles to enter and exit in a forward direction.

As above.

N/A

 

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

As above.

N/A

7. Fencing and Ancillary Development

7.2

Front Fencing

 

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

Front fencing height: 1.4m

Solid 1.4m front fence proposed. This is a minor variation of 200mm over the 1.2m permitted. This is acceptable as it is common in this street for high front fences and this is a main road where public private transition in the front setback is not so important. The slightly higher front fence also allows for additional privacy for the POS area of the ground floor unit within the front setback.

No – Acceptable

 

(iv)   Solid front fence of up to 1800mm in height may be permitted in the following scenarios:

- Front fence for sites facing arterial roads.

- Fence on the secondary street frontage of corner allotments, which is behind the alignment of the primary street façade.

       Such solid fences must be articulated through a combination of materials, finishes and details, and/or incorporate landscaping, so as to avoid continuous blank walls.

As above.

As above.

7.7

Laundry facilities

 

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

Large POS and balconies proposed which have sufficient space for drying.

Yes

 

(ii)       Provide internal laundry for each dwelling unit.

Each apartment includes laundry facilities.

Yes

 

3.0        Referral Comments

 

Referral Officer

Comment

Randwick Design Review Panel

Generally supportive, subject to amendments. Refer to SEPP 65 section for further details.

Development Engineer

No objections were raised to the proposal as amended with the exception of the car parking non-compliance. The car parking non-compliance is supported for the reasons discussed under the Key issues section of this report. The following comments were provided:

 

GENERAL COMMENTS

The application is not supported on parking grounds however as the assessing officer has requested conditions this report has been prepared on the basis the application will be approved. To address the parking shortfall, additional bicycle parking spaces above DCP requirements have been provided and a previously adopted condition requested car share memberships has been included.

 

The additional information requested on waste management has been received and is satisfactory, subject to conditions.

 

Additional information has been received on Construction Traffic Management however a further revision to the CTMP is required. Conditions of consent have been included in this report.

 

PARKING COMMENTS

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

·      1 space per 2 studio units

·      1.2 spaces per 2 bedroom unit

·      1 visitor space per 4 units (but none where development is less than 4 dwellings)

 

The proposal is for 7 residential apartments comprising of 6 x studio and 1 x 2 bedroom units.

 

Parking required under DCP           = (6 x 0.5) + (1 X 1.2) + 7/4 (visitor)

                                                    = 3 + 1.2 + 1.75

                                                    = 5.95

                                                    = say 6 spaces

 

Parking proposed                        = 0 spaces

 

Parking Shortfall                          = 6 spaces (100%)

 

Motorbike Parking

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

 

Motorbike Parking Required               = 0.05 x 6

                                                         = 0.3 (not required <0.5)

 

Motorbike Parking proposed              = 0 spaces (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                    = 7/2 + 7/10

                                                         = 3.5 + 0.7

                                                         = 4.2

                                                         = say 4 spaces

 

Bicycle Parking proposed                  = 6 spaces (complies)

 

Discussion on parking shortfall

Development Engineering acknowledges that the site is located close to amenities in Coogee and good public transport as highlighted in the traffic report by Traffix with regular and frequent bus services from Coogee Beach. There are also a number of car share pods operated by GoGet carshare within close proximity to the site.

 

Notwithstanding, a parking deficiency that represents 100% of Council’s DCP requirements is considered excessive and is generally not supported by Development Engineering.

 

The site is located within an area that is also experiencing high parking pressures for on street parking with most surrounding streets parked at capacity during many parts of the day. The situation is worse during summer months due to the sites proximity to Coogee Beach. At the time of site inspection being approx. 2:15pm on Wednesday 4th July 2018 it was not possible to find on-street parking within 100m of the site.

 

It should also be noted that the DCP parking rate for studio units being 1 space per 2 studio units already acknowledges that 50% of residents will not have a motor vehicle. A 100% parking deficiency based predominantly on this rate is therefore considered to be excessive.

 

The provision of additional bicycle parking is acknowledged however this is unlikely to provide little benefit. The immediate vicinity of the subject site does not lend itself to bicycle transport due to the narrow width of Arden Street and steepness of the surrounding streets. There is also no recognised cycleway in close proximity of the site.

 

Due to site constraints it is acknowledged that on-site parking will be difficult to achieve on the subject site with any proposed development likely to have a parking shortfall unless negotiations with neighbouring residents to the north results in a Right of Way being proposed from Arcadia St or there is a site consolidation with these properties.

 

The application in its present form may set an undesirable precedent in the locality potentially creating large and unacceptable impacts on kerbside parking.

 

If the assessing officer intends to approve the application then conditions requiring no-on-street parking permits to be granted to occupiers of this development have been recommended in this report. In addition a previously adopted condition requested car share memberships has also been included.

 

CONSTRUCTION SITE ACCESS COMMENTS

The site is highly elevated above the adjacent Arden Street roadway and there is no on-street parking available immediately in front of the site adjacent to the heritage stone retaining wall. Only one trafficable lane is available northbound adjacent to the site frontage which must be maintained as it is a major trafficable route northbound out of Coogee (RMS regional road No.7340)

 

It was therefore considered that site access for construction equipment and maintaining traffic flow and pedestrian safety/access will be a critical component of this proposal and should be considered prior to determination of the application. Accordingly additional information in the form of a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) was requested by the Development Engineer and subsequently prepared and submitted by “Safeway Consulting” in consultation with Council’s Department of Integrated Transport.

 

Council’s Development Engineers and Coordinator of Integrated Transport reviewed the submitted Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) by Safeway Traffic Management solutions dated 13.08.2018 (Version 1.6) and advised the applicant that it is not supported in its present form. The following issues were identified with the submitted CTMP prepared by Safeway Traffic Management solutions;

 

·      The proposed use of the high level footpath for medium-large delivery trucks and especially concrete mixer trucks or pumps is not supported due to the likely unacceptable structural loading on the adjacent heritage retaining wall fronting Arden Street. Concrete pouring will likely need to undertaken from Arden or Acadia Street via pump.

 

·      Only small rigid vehicles will be considered to access the Arden Street verge subject to measures ensuring no structural loading of the heritage retaining wall. It is advised that a structural engineer be consulted to determine how this will be achieved. It is Council’s preference that all loading unloading be undertaken in Arcadia St with materials transported to and from the site via forklift subject to suitable grades and access requirements.

 

·      The measures to protect the large Telstra Pit at the corner of Arcadia St and Arden St will need to be supported in principle by Telstra to ensure they are capable of meeting their standards and requirements while also ensuring that suitable grades and access requirements will be able to be provided for construction vehicles across the verge at the Arcadia/Arden St intersection.

 

·      Key loading/unloading/pouring/craning operations should be conducted outside of peak times as much as possible. This should be further elaborated upon and enshrined in the CTMP.

 

·      Sweeping paths for buses are to be included on Arden Street to demonstrate bus access can be maintained. Bus Route 353 currently uses this portion of Arden St

 

·      Likely swept paths including & reversing movements for vehicles accessing the Council Arden St verge shall be provided.

 

The applicant was also advised that careful consideration will have to be given on the structural design and construction methods of this development when considering the unusual constraints of this site. Aspects such as the length of concrete pours for example may be particularly critical when considering the restrictions on traffic management.

 

In response to the above comments the applicant provided a revised CTMP (still dated 13.08.2018 however Version 1.9).

 

This CTMP has now been assessed and the following comments have been received by Council’s Department of Integrated Transport:

 

1.   Concerns are still raised about the suitability/legal liability of accessing the site via the elevated footpath.

 

2.   The CTMP provides insufficient information to assess under what conditions trucks will reverse back along the elevated footpath.

 

3.   The document still refers to 8.8m trucks, which we deemed to be too big to drive along the elevated footpath.

 

4.   Specific measures to ensure the safe and unimpeded pedestrian access to adjacent properties need to be put in place.

 

5.   The engineer’s report submitted with the CTMP appears to have been prepared in isolation from the CTMP. The recommendations of the report (e.g. all vehicles to remain a minimum 2.0 metres from the face of the heritage sandstone retaining wall) are not referenced elsewhere in the CTMP

 

6.   Swept Paths for delivery / service vehicles and for construction vehicles have not been provided.

 

On 16/10/18 a further amended CTMP (Version 2.0) was provided with swept paths.

 

The Version 2.0 CTMP is still deficient however areas of concern have been addressed and the subject CTMP was prepared in consultation with one of Council’s Transport Engineers.

 

Rather than asking for further CTMP’s to be provided it is considered preferable that a final CTMP be prepared in full consultation with Council and all necessary road authorities. This CTMP will need to be prepared and approved by Council prior to the issuing of any Construction Certificate. This CTMP will use Version 2.0 as the base document. The CTMP must include an amended engineer’s report relating to protection of the heritage sandstone retaining wall in Arden Street, fronting the development site.

 

DRAINAGE COMMENTS

On site stormwater detention may be required for this development depending on discharge rates to Arden Street for design storm events.

 

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 gutter in front of the subject site in Arden Street

ii.     To a suitably designed infiltration area.

 

GEOTECHNICAL COMMENTS

As there is no basement carpark a maximum excavation of about 1.2m will only be required to accommodate the ground floor.

 

The geotechnical investigation indicates that excavation will generally be in sand and any footings will need to extend a minimum 3.2m (as recommended in report) to achieve suitable base. No bedrock was encountered within the depths investigated and groundwater was not encountered in any of the investigative boreholes.

 

It is therefore considered conditions relating to the management of groundwater will not be required in this instance.

 

UNDERGROUNDING OF POWER COMMENTS

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

 

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

 

The subject is not located within 15m of a power pole on the same side of the street hence the above clause is not applicable

 

WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMENTS

The Waste Management Plan initially submitted to Council was not acceptable as they proposed waste collection on Arden Street which has a narrow and busy roadway. Due to the restricted access the applicant was required to resubmit a fully detailed WMP to Council and have approved by Council’s Waste Management Coordinator

 

They have provided the following response in email dated 18th September

 

Comments on the number of Waste Bins

Appendix 3 in Part B6 of Council’s DCP specifies a waste bin requirement rate for residential flat buildings houses of 1 x 240L  bin per 2 rooms for normal garbage and 1 x 240L bin per 2 rooms for recycling.

 

i.e. Garbage/recycling Bins Required = 7/2 = 3.5 = 4 (rounded up to nearest whole number))

 

There are no specific requirements for green waste in Part B6 of the DCP  however as some landscape areas are proposed it is recommended that a minimum of  2 x 240L bins also be provided for green waste.

 

Total Number of BINS required           = 4 (normal) + 4(recycling) + 2 (green waste)

                                                         = 10 x 240L BINS

                            

Bins Provided = 10 x 240 bins (satisfactory)

Landscape Officer

No objections raised, subject to conditions. The following comments were provided:

The inspection of 15 May 2018 confirmed that all vegetation is restricted wholly to the rear setback of the subject site and adjoining properties, comprising firstly, a mature Araucaria bidwillii (Bunya Pine, T1 in the Arborist Report) of 14m x 8m, which was measured on-site to be a distance of 4150mm from the southwest corner of the existing dwelling, off the outside edge of its trunk, 1m above ground level.

 

It is a relatively rare, non-endemic native species that is covered by the DCP, and while in fair health, is in poor condition due to a combination of its co-dominant/included leaders at about 6m above ground level (as a result of past damage/topping), as well as competition from adjoining trees, with the plans showing that all aspects of the new footprint will occupy this same area of the site, in direct conflict with the tree, so has been shown for removal, as well as in the Arborist Report.

 

Its TPZ radius has been calculated as 6m, and its SRZ at 2.8m, and given both its size and location, even if a re-design was undertaken, it would still sustain a major impact that would affect its future status within the site, even with a heavily reduced footprint/scope of works. Their large/heavy seed cones (10kg) are also well known as presenting a safety hazard for both person and property when falling from a great height, so are generally regarded as unsuitable in such confined environments.

 

Due to the exclusion zones required both above and below ground to allow for its successful retention, any re-design would be major, and affect the layout of the whole development, with the tree then to remain in isolation, and likely be ‘boxed-in’, on most, if not all sides, and for these reasons, its removal is justified in this case, with the relevant consent for this provided. 

 

Immediately to its west, there is a similarly sized Pinus pinaster (Maritime Pine, T2) which is an exotic species that while covered by the DCP, offers no meaningful benefit to native fauna or the local environment.

 

It is also only in fair health and condition due to competition from other trees nearby (supressed), as well as the past poor heavy lopping of major structural limbs, and as this genus is unable to generate new growth from cuts after pruning, means that there is no way the tree can self-remedy this over time, and as it is also in direct conflict with all aspects of the works, no objections are raised to its removal, as has been shown.

On lower ground to the northwest of those described above, on the northern boundary, towards the northwest site corner, there is a semi-mature, 5m tall Livistona australis (Cabbage Palm, T3), which is a desirable, endemic coastal species of this LGA, that appears in good health and condition, and is also covered by Council’s DCP.

 

The amended, rev C Ground Floor plan shows that the footprint has been reduced to now be setback further away to the east of T3, rather than being in direct conflict as was originally shown, to provide a clearance of about 1m.

 

So while the Arborists Report recommends its removal, its retention as an existing site feature now appears feasible, especially as the fiborous root system of this genus has a high tolerance to disturbance, and as this is the preferred outcome for Council, conditions formally require that it be incorporated into the landscape scheme.

 

Re-designing the northwest corner of the Ground Floor will not be required in this case, as the 2m clause in Council’s DCP only applies to dwellings, not an unroofed, ground level terrace as shown.

 

Beyond the northern site boundary, located wholly in the rear yard of the adjoining private property at no.160, close to the common boundary, there is a mature, 10m x 10m Quercus robur (English Oak, T4), which is an exotic, deciduous species, that provides amenity to the neighbours/tree owners, and overhangs partially into the subject site.

 

It is covered by the DCP, with Council having a common law responsibility to ensure it is not affected in anyway by this development.

 

The original design occupied its entire southern aspect, extending past/to the west of its trunk, which was calculated as resulting in a 9.2% encroachment of its TPZ, which is categorized as minor in AS4970-2009.

 

However, the footprint has now been reduced by these rev C plans, to finish further away to the east, at a greater distance from this tree, so the amount of this incursion will be even less, which this tree can sustain, with relevant protection conditions to ensure its preservation included, along with those that permit selective clearance pruning where needed.

 

Back within the subject site, along the northern boundary, around the northwest corner of the existing dwelling, there is a row of three, 6-8m tall Olea europaea subsp. ‘Africanna’ (Wild Olives, T5-6 & 9), which are exempt from Council’s DCP due to being an undesirable, invasive weed species, and so as to eliminate this weed source form the local environment, and also given their direct conflict with the new footprint, can all be removed as shown and recommended, along with the dead tree (T7) in this same area.

 

Located centrally in this group is this sites most established specimen, being a mature, 15m tall Araucaria heterohylla (Norfolk Island Pine, T8) of good health and condition, which is a common, non-endemic native coastal species, and while appearing to be located on the neighbouring property at no.160, due to its position on the northern side of the informal, dilapidated dividing fence, the submitted survey confirms that it is actually located wholly within the subject site.

 

Its tapered crown can be seen from the street as well as surrounding properties, so is identified as having a presence in the local area; however, measurements taken on-site revealed that it is setback only 1100mm from the northwest corner of the existing dwelling, making it exempt from Council’s DCP, under Part B, Section B5, sub-clause 2, Exceptions, point iii.

 

This clause was adopted by Council in order to protect person and property from trees that are growing inappropriately close to habitable dwellings, and means that in this situation, it could already be removed by the owners; at anytime; irrespective of these works; and without needing to obtain any form of consent from Council.

 

On this basis, it is not legally possible for Council to require its retention as part of this application, and given its direct conflict with all aspects of the works in this part of the site, conditions reluctantly allow its removal.

 

Whilst not shown on any of the plans or in the Arborists Report, immediately to the southwest of T8, there is a 4-5m tall Howea fosteriana (Kentia Palm) which is also exempt from the DCP, as it was measured on-site to be only 1900mm from the northwest corner of the existing dwelling, also making it exempt from the DCP, so can also be removed.

 

 

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. 63/2018 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a four storey residential flat building comprising seven apartments, at No. 162 Arden Street, Coogee, subject to the development consent conditions attached to this report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

RLPP Conditions - DA.63.2018 - 162 Arden Street, Coogee (James Arnold)

 

 

 

 


RLPP Conditions - DA.63.2018 - 162 Arden Street, Coogee (James Arnold)

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


Randwick Local Planning Panel            22 November 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D93/18

 

Subject:                      5/19 Melrose Parade, Clovelly (DA/141/2018)

Folder No:                      DA/141/2018

Author:                          James Arnold, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                       Construction of a rooftop addition to the existing residential flat building to create an additional floor for Unit 5.

Ward:                             North Ward

Applicant:                      Gelder Architects

Owner:                           The Owners Corporation SP

Summary

Recommendation:          Refusal

 

Note. No submissions were received.

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 


 

Executive Summary

 

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

 

The proposal development is for a rooftop addition to the existing residential flat building to create an additional floor for Unit 5, at 19 Melrose Parade, Clovelly.

 

The proposal contravenes the height and FSR development standards of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012 by 17.9% and 7.8%, respectively. These variations are not supported as the proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the standards being incompatibile with the existing and desired future character of the area and because the proposal would adversely impact the amenity of surrounding properties by way of overshadowing, visual bulk, loss of privacy, and views loss. Further, the design quality of the proposal is considered poor and inconsistent with the Design Quality Principles of SEPP 65.

 

Given the above, the proposal is recommended for refusal.

 

Proposal Description

 

The proposed development is for a rooftop addition to the existing residential flat building to create an additional floor for Unit 5.

 

Details of the proposed development are as follows:

 

·      Removal of the rear portion of the existing pitched roof and construction of a loft addition for Unit 5 comprising a bedroom with walk-in-robe, study, bathroom, rear terrace, and stairs to the existing floor level of Unit 5 below. The loft is contemporary in style with timber cladding and a skillion metal roof; and,

 

·      Internal alterations to the existing floor level of Unit 5 including enclosing the balcony, and removal of internal walls to create an open plan living, kitchen and dining area.

 

Amendments

 

The proposal was amended during the assessment process in response to issues raised by Council. The key amendments are summarised as follows:

 

·      Loft floor plan rearranged to setback from the building edge resulting in the removal of the side portions of the terrace, and narrowing of the floor plate;

 

·      Addition of pitched metal roof around the base of the addition; and,

 

·      Flat roof converted to skillion roof.

Figure 1. Perspective view from north west.

Source: Gelder Architects, 2018

 

Figure 2. Site Plan.

Source: Gelder Architects, 2018

 

Figure 3. Western elevation.

Source: Gelder Architects, 2018

 

Site and Locality Description

 

The subject site is addressed as 19 Melrose Parade, Clovelly and comprises one allotment legally described as SP 3411. The site is located on the southern side of Melrose Parade, one block from the northern edge of Gordons Bay. The site is rectangular in shape with a 13.1m frontage to Melrose Parade, length of 37.6m, and an area of 489.93m2.

 

Existing development on the site consists of a part three, part four storey c.1970 rendered brick flat building. The building is three storeys at the street and four storeys at the rear as the site falls away. The front door and pedestrian access is located along the eastern side of the building. Vehicular access is provided within a driveway along the western side accessing lower ground level garages towards the rear. The site has a fall of approximately 2.5m from the street to the rear. The only landscaping on site is in the front garden containing open grass, boundary hedges and a small shrub.

 

The locality is a highly mixed residential area comprising 2-4 storey flat buildings of various ages and styles including art deco brick flats, c1970 brick flats with pitched tiled roofs, and contemporary rendered apartments with flat roofs. The flats are interspersed with older one and two storey dwelling houses and semis. There are also some large coastal dwellings to the rear fronting to Gordons Bay.

 

The adjoining properties are as follows:

 

·      Western side, 17 Melrose Parade – Four storey contemporary apartments incorporating brick, render and cladding with a flat roof;

·      Eastern side, 21A Melrose Parade – Single storey brick dwelling house with a gabled tile roof;

·      Rear – Row of large coastal dwelling houses facing Gordons Bay.

 

Figure 4. Front of site from Melrose Parade.

Source: James Arnold, 2018

 

Figure 5. Western side rear portion of the building where the roof addition is proposed.

Source: James Arnold, 2018

 

Relevant History

 

21 March 2018

Lodgement – The subject development application was lodged with Council.

9 April 2018

Design excellence panel – The DEP did not support the proposal for a range of issues relating to scale, density, and aesthetics. Significant amendments and clear evidence was recommended to be provided to demonstrate the proposal would not impact adjoining properties. The DEP comments were provided to the applicant to address.

27 June 2018

Amended plans – Amended plans and documents were submitted to Council which were referred back to the DEP.

6 August 2018

Design excellence panel – The DEP did not support the amended proposal for the same reasons as the original proposal. In particular, no justifications were given for the exceedance of the height, wall height, and FSR, nor the specific benefits that would be provided to the public. The amended design was considered worse than the original as the mass was made larger with a larger downturned roof extending out from the walls. Inadequate shadow diagrams and view loss assessment were provided to accurately determine impacts on surrounding properties.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Key Issues

 

Height

The maximum height of buildings on the site is 12m. The proposal has been assessed to have a maximum height of 14.15m which represents a 17.9% variation to the RLEP development standard. A full assessment of the proposed variation is provided in the detailed assessment section of this report. The variation is not supported and a brief summary of the reasons are as follows:

·      The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the height standard as the size and scale is incompatible with the existing and desired future character of the area;

 

·      The proposed additional height at the rear of the site is in conflict with the rear sloping coastal topography. The proposal would result in the building stepping up from three storeys at the street to five storeys at the rear. This is in direct conflict with the fall of the land and would be inharmonious with the newly constructed RFB to the western side which appropriately steps down with the land being four storeys at the street and four storeys at the rear;

 

·      The design of the proposed roof top addition is unsympathetic to the existing c1970 brick flat building presenting as a bulky rooftop addition with a large downturned roof form. The proposal is unexceptional in terms of materials and architectonic expression.  Given its prominent position, more consideration would be required to ensure the proposal reads as a genuinely positive addition to the building and to the coastal neighbourhood; and,

 

·      The roof top addition will adversely affect the amenity of the local area by way of additional overshadowing, visual bulk, loss of privacy, and views loss.

 

 

FSR

The maximum floor space ratio on the site is 0.9:1. The proposal has been assessed to have an FSR of 0.97:1 which represents a 7.8% variation to the RLEP development standard. A full assessment of the proposed variation is provided in the detailed assessment section of this report. The variation is not supported and a brief summary of the reasons are as follows:

 

·      The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the FSR standard as the size and scale is incompatible with the existing and desired future character of the area;

 

·      The proposed additional bulk on the roof at the rear of the site is in conflict with the rear sloping coastal topography. The proposal would result in the building stepping up from three storeys at the street to five storeys at the rear. This is in direct conflict with the fall of the land and would be inharmonious with the newly constructed RFB to the western side which appropriately steps down with the land being four storeys at the street and four storeys at the rear;

 

·      The design of the proposed roof top addition is unsympathetic to the existing c1970 brick flat building presenting as a bulky rooftop addition with a large downturned roof form. The proposal is unexceptional in terms of materials and architectonic expression.  Given its prominent position, more consideration would be required to ensure the proposal reads as a genuinely positive addition to the building and to the coastal neighbourhood; and,

 

·      The roof top addition will adversely affect the amenity of the local area by way of additional overshadowing, visual bulk, loss of privacy, and views loss.

 

Design Quality

 

The design quality of the proposed rooftop addition is considered poor and inconsistent with the Design Quality Principles of SEPP 65. The Randwick Design Excellence Panel reviewed the proposal on three occassions at pre-DA stage, the DA lodgement stage, and a third and final time for the latest set of amended plans the subject of this report. The panel were not supportive of any of the iterations of the proposal, with the latest amendments being considered inferior to the DA lodgement plans. A full assessment of the proposal against the Design Quality Principles is provided in the detailed assessment section of this report. The design is not supported and a brief summary of the issues are as follows:

 

·      The proposed large downturned skillion roof that extends out from all sides exacerbates the bulk of the structure. Further, the redundant roof around the base of the addition adds unneccessary mass to the building;

 

·      The proposal involves a significant change to the roof of the building which provides a important opportunity to install rainwater tanks and provide solar panels to improve the environmental performance of the building. The proposal does not include any of these sustainability measures; and,

 

·      The proposal is unexceptional in terms of materials and architectonic expression.  The expression is unresolved and lacks an architectural approach to fenestration, articulation and the relationship with the existing building. Given its prominent position, more consideration is required so that it reads as a genuinely positive addition to the building and to the coastal neighbourhood.

 

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 a rooftop addition to the existing residential flat building to create an additional floor for Unit 5 be refused for the following reasons:

 

·      The clause 4.6 requests relating to the variations to the Height of Buildings and Floor Space Ratio development standards of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 are not supported as the proposal is inconsistent with the objectives standards and there are not sufficient environmental planning grounds to support the variations;

 

·      The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of clause 6.7 Foreshore Scenic Protection Area of the RLEP 2012 as it will result in a visually jarring and prominent addition to the foreshore area;

 

·      The design of the proposal is poor and is inconsistent with the Design Quality Principles of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65;

 

·      The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives and design criteria of the Apartment Design Guide in relation to visual privacy;

 

·      The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 in relation to building facades, roof design, external wall height, ceiling height, solar access, visual privacy, view sharing and car parking;

 

·      The proposal will adversely impact the amenity of surrounding properties in terms of visual bulk, overshadowing, loss of privacy, and views loss; and,

 

·      The proposal would set an undesirable precedent for roof top additions to existing residential flat buildings over the height and FSR controls.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Detailed Assessment

 

1.0        Matters for Consideration

 

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

 

Section 4.15 ‘Matters for Consideration’

Assessment of Proposal

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

See below.

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

Nil.

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

The proposal does not satisfy 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 on the natural and built environment have been assessed throughout the EPI and DCP assessment within 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 proposal continues the residential use which is permissible in the zone and there are no salient site or contextual features which would make the site unsuitable for the development.

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

No submissions were received.

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

The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the height and FSR development standards and is therefore not in the public interest.

 

2.0        Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments and Development Control Plans

 

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

The provisions of SEPP 55 have been considered in the assessment of the application. The site and adjoining properties are currently used for residential purposes. There is no evidence to suggest any potentially contaminating activities have taken place on or near the site. The proposal does not involve any excavation or soil disturbance. Accordingly, the site is considered suitable for the proposed ongoing residential use and satisfies the provisions of the SEPP.

 

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

The proposed development is a BASIX affected building. A compliant BASIX certificate has been submitted and in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 the environmentally sustainable commitments within the certificate are required to be fulfilled as a prescribed condition of consent. Accordingly, the proposal satisfies the provisions of the SEPP.

 

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

SEPP 65 applies to the proposed development as the building is a residential flat building that is three or more storeys and contains four or more dwellings, and the proposal constitutes a substantial redevelopment the building,

 

Clause 28(2) stipulates that the consent authority is to take into consideration the advice of a Design Review Panel, the Design Quality Principles, and the Apartment Design Guide (ADG).

 

The Randwick Design Excellence Panel’s advice has been taken into consideration and the proposal has been assessed against the Design Quality Principles and the ADG. A summary of the assessment against the ADG is provided in the compliance table below and areas of non-compliance have been discussed within the table and in the key issues section of this report.

 

Design Excellence Panel and the Design Quality Principles

The Design Excellence Panel considered the original and amended proposals. The panel was not supportive of either version and the below comments were provided on the latest amendments. The assessing officer’s comments on the DEPs advice is also provided.

 

Principle 1: Context and Neighbourhood Context

 

DEP comment: This site is located in a dense residential neighbourhood on the coast, overlooking Gordons Bay.  The area is a mix of old and new detached houses, and 3-5 storey apartment blocks.  Given the topography of the coastal setting and surrounding bay, many properties enjoy direct views of the Bay and the ocean. The site is located within a short walking distance from local shops and nearby beaches. The area is serviced by local bus routes to local centres, Bondi Junction and the CBD.

 

Comment: The proposal will not positively contribute to the local area as it exceeds the maximum FSR and height provisions and results in additional overshadowing, loss of privacy, visual bulk, and view loss of surrounding properties. The design is also considered unresolved and incompatible with the existing c1970 brick flat building. Accordingly, the proposal is inconsistent with this principle.

 

Principle 2: Scale and Built Form

 

DEP comment: The proposal still exceeds the height, wall height and FSR controls for the site.  No justifications are given for these contraventions of the controls in the current submission, nor the specific benefits that would be provided to the public or the community outlined. 

 

The Panel had previously offered that the proposal might possibly be considered, if the walls were brought in from the building edge, in line with the bedroom space alignment.  While such a proposal would not satisfy the overall height control, it would address the wall height issue and perhaps bring the FSR outcome closer to the control.  This change would also allow the rooftop addition to be more effectively designed as a “roof” element, legible and distinct from the main body of the building, both tectonically and materially.

 

The re-design of the proposal has instead made the mass larger, by capping the volume with a larger, downturned roof form, which extends out from the wall alignment on all sides.  The addition of a secondary, redundant roof around the base of the proposed addition also adds unnecessary mass to the building.

 

Two considerations were requested previously by the Panel; that the applicant clearly illustrate the shadow impacts on surrounding properties, especially the windows and backyards to the neighbouring properties directly adjacent to the east and west, and those properties to the south on Cliffbrook Parade.  The shadow diagrams provided indicate significant increase in shadow envelopes – both plans and building elevations should be provided to allow assessment of proposed overshadowing versus that existing.

 

The second critical consideration is potential view loss.  The topographical conditions and the images provided by the applicant suggest that there may be view impacts to a number of properties, on both sides of Melrose Parade.  The applicant has provided a single view, from across Melrose Parade, but none that consider of any other potentially impacted properties.

 

The Panel had previously stated that any contraventions to height and FSR controls would only be countenanced if it could be illustrated that the overshadowing and view impacts to neighbouring properties are non-existent or negligible.  This has not been illustrated by the applicant.

 

Comment: The proposal is inconsistent with this principle as per the DEPs comments.

 

Principle 3: Density

DEP comment: Provided the proposal remains simply a single additional bedroom, the density proposed for the area is acceptable.  Any further increase would introduce additional parking requirements to the site, which would be difficult to realise.  The area suffers from a considerable deficit of on-street parking, where the introduction of additional density without satisfying the parking requirement would only exacerbate this, to the detriment of the entire neighbourhood.

 

Comment: The proposal is inconsistent with this principle as per the DEPs comments.

 

Principle 4: Sustainability

DEP comment: Changes to roofscape and rainwater hardware represent a significant opportunity to install rainwater tanks to improve the environmental performance of the entire building.  The new roof also provides an opportunity for solar panels to be installed, provided they do not obstruct neighbouring views.  The applicant has chosen not to pursue these options.

 

Comment: The proposal is inconsistent with this principle as per the DEPs comments.

 

Principle 5: Landscape

DEP comment: Landscape details are acceptable.

 

Comment: The proposal is consistent with this principle as per the DEPs comments.

 

Principle 6: Amenity

DEP comment: The applicant has not addressed potential privacy impacts to neighbouring properties.

 

Comment: The proposal does not comply with the ADG separation provisions and will overlook adjoining properties which will unreasonably impact the privacy of adjoining properties. Further, the roof top addition will result in additional overshadowing, visual bulk and view loss. Accordingly, the proposal is inconsistent with this principle.

 

Principle 7: Safety

DEP comment: No safety issues.

 

Comment: The proposal is consistent with this principle as per the DEPs comments.

 

Principle 8: Housing Diversity and Social Interaction

DEP comment: As noted, the provision of a two-bedroom unit in this location would contribute to housing stock on offer – provided it does not do so to the detriment of surrounding neighbours.

 

Comment: The proposal is consistent with this principle as it would improve the amenity of Unit 5 and contribute to housing diversity in the area.

 

Principle 9: Aesthetics

DEP comment: The revised proposal remains unexceptional in terms of materials and architectonic expression.  The expression is unresolved and lacks an architectural approach to fenestration, articulation and the relationship with the existing building. Given its prominent position, the Panel feels that much more consideration could still be given to its conception and craft, so that it reads as a genuinely positive addition to the building and to the coastal neighbourhood.

 

Comment: The proposal is inconsistent with this principle as per the DEPs comments.

 


 

Summary and Recommendations

DEP comment: The Panel feels that the applicant needs to genuinely consider both Council’s pre-DA comments, as well as those contained in the previous report, and make significant amendments to the proposal.  Concurrently, the applicant must provide clear and consistent evidence that the proposal will not negatively impact any of the properties surrounding it.  The Panel requests review of this proposal again on re-submission.

 

Apartment Design Guide

 


Provision

Assessment of Proposal

Complies?

Part 3 – Siting the development

3D Communal and Public Open Space

Design Criteria

 

 

1. Communal open space has a minimum area equal to 25% of the site (see figure 3D.3)).

Communal Open Space: No change

Proposal is for a loft to Unit 5 only and will have no impact on existing communal areas.

N/A

2. 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 9am and 3pm on 21 June (mid-winter).

As above.

N/A

3E Deep soil zones

Design Criteria

Deep soil zones are to meet the following minimum requirements.

Site Area

Min dimensions

Deep soil zone (% of site)

Less than 650m2

-

7%

650-1500m2

3m

Greater than 1500m2

6m

Greater than 1500m2 with existing tree cover

6m

Deep Soil Area: No change

Proposal is for a loft to Unit 5 only and will have no impact on existing deep soil areas.

N/A

3F Visual privacy

Design criteria

 

 

1. 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:

Height

Habitable rooms and balconies

Non-habitable rooms

Up to 12m (4 storeys)

6m

3m

Up to 25m (5-8 storeys)

9m

4.5m

Over 25m (9+ storeys)

12m

6m

Loft is at the 5th storey and is over 12m high therefore 9m habitable and 4.5m non-habitable separations are required. Below are the loft separations:

Western side boundary

4.4m bathroom (non-habitable 4.5m required) – Does not comply

3.7m stairs (non-habitable 4.5m required) – Does not comply

Eastern side boundary

3.5m bedroom and study (habitable 9m required) – Does not comply

Southern rear boundary

7.5m terrace (habitable 9m required) – Does not comply

The proposed loft separations do not comply on all sides. Whilst this would not be a reason for refusal in its own right, in the context of the highly non-compliant development the privacy and visual impacts associated with these separations are not supported.

The separations at the existing floor of Unit 5 are existing and no changes are proposed.

No

Note: Separation distances between buildings on the same site should combine required building separations depending on the type of room (see figure 3F.2).

Gallery access circulation should be treated as habitable space when measuring privacy separation distances between neighbouring properties.

Only a single building. Internal separations not applicable.

N/A

3G Pedestrian access and entries

Objective 3G-1

Building entries and pedestrian access connects to and addresses the public domain.

 

Proposal is for a loft to Unit 5 only and will have no impact on existing building entries.

 

N/A

3H Vehicle access

Objective 3H-1

Vehicle access points are designed and located to achieve safety, minimise conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles and create high quality streetscapes.

 

Proposal is for a loft to Unit 5 only and will have no impact on existing vehicle access.

 

N/A

3J Bicycle and car parking

Design Criteria

 

 

1. 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.

The site is not within 800m of a railway station or light rail stop. Car parking provisions from the DCP are applicable.

N/A

Objective 3J-2

Parking and facilities are provided for other modes of transport.

 

Proposal is for a loft to Unit 5 only and will have no impact on parking.

 

N/A

Part 4 – Designing the building

4A Solar and daylight access

Design Criteria

 

 

1. 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.

Proposal is for a loft to Unit 5 only and will have no impact on solar access to the living area and POS within the development.

The proposed altered Unit 5 will receive compliant solar access to the living and POS.

Yes

2. In all other areas, living rooms and private open spaces of at least 70% of apartments in a building receive a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm at mid winter.

The proposed development is within the Sydney Metropolitan Area and as such this is not applicable.

N/A

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

No apartments will receive no direct sunlight in mid-winter.

Yes

4B Natural ventilation

Design criteria

 

 

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

Cross ventilation: No change

Proposal is for a loft to Unit 5 only and will have no impact on solar access to cross ventilation within the apartments.

The proposed altered Unit 5 will cross ventilate.

Yes

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

No cross-over and cross-through apartments.

N/A

4C Ceiling heights

Design criteria

 

 

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

·      Habitable rooms 2.7m

·      Non habitable 2.4m

·      2 storey apartments 2.7m for main living area floor, 2.4m for second floor

·      Attic 1.8m at edge with 30 degree minimum ceiling slope

·      Mixed use area 3.3m ground and first floor

These minimums do not preclude higher ceilings if desired.

Ceiling heights (Unit 5):

·      GF 2.6m

·      Loft 2.4m

Yes

4D Apartment size and layout

Design criteria

 

 

Apartments are required to have the following minimum internal areas:

·      Studio – 35m2

·      1B – 50m2

·      2B – 70m2

·      3B+ - 90m2

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

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

The proposal is for alterations to Unit 5 to create a 2-bedroom apartment of 118.7m2 which complies.

Yes

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 have windows to an external wall with a total glass area not less than 10% of the floor area of the room.

Yes

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

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

Yes

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

Unit 5 has open plan layout. The maximum depth does not exceed 8m from the external windows / glazed balcony doors.

Yes

4D Apartment size and layout

Design Criteria

 

 

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

Minimum bedroom areas have been achieved.

Yes

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

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

Yes

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

Living room has a minimum dimension of at least 4m for the proposed 2 bedroom apartment.

Yes

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

No cross over or cross through apartments proposed.

N/A

4E Private open space and balconies

Design Criteria

 

 

All apartments are required to have primary balconies as follows:

·      Studio – Area 4m2 / Depth none

·      1B – Area 8m2 / Depth 2m

·      2B – Area 10m2 / Depth 2m

·      3B+ - Area 12m3 / Depth 2.4m

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

Proposed balcony is 10m2 with 2m depth.

Yes

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

No change to ground floor apartments.

N/A

4F Common circulation and spaces

Design Criteria

 

 

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

No change.

N/A

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

Not 10 storeys and over.

N/A

4G Storage

Design criteria

 

 

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

·      Studio – 4m3

·      1B – 6m3

·      2B – 8m3

·      3B+ - 10m3

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

Internal storage areas are not shown on the plans. Sufficient excess internal area to provide compliant storage.

Yes

4K Apartment mix

Objective 4K-1

A range of apartment types and sizes is provided to cater for different household types now and into the future.

 

Proposal would contribute to housing diversity.

 

Yes

4L Ground floor apartments

Objective 4L-1

Street frontage activity is maximised where ground floor apartments are located.

 

No change at ground level.

 

N/A

 

2.4       Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The proposal is characterised as alterations and additions to an existing ‘residential flat building’ which is permitted with consent.

 

The proposal is inconsistent with the following objectives of the R3 zone:

 

·      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.

 

Comment: The proposal does not contribute to the desired future character of the area as it significantly exceeds the maximum FSR and height limits which will detract from the appearance of the existing flat building and will create a bulky out of character roof top element.

 

·      To protect the amenity of residents.

 

Comment: The proposal will result in additional built form above the permitted FSR and height provisions that will adversely impact the amenity of adjoining properties by way of overshadowing, overlooking, visual bulk, and view loss.

 

The relevant provisions of the RLEP 2012 are addressed in the table below:

 

Provision

Proposal

Complies?

Floor space ratio

Max 0.9:1

FSR: 0.97:1

·      Loft 42.96m2

·      Second 149.47m2

·      First 143.62m2

·      Ground 140.27m2

·      Additional GFA 47.76m2

·      Total GFA 476.32m2

·      Site Area 489.93m2

Note. Council’s assessment officer has calculated the FSR at 0.97:1. In calculating the GFA, only the Level 3 floor plan was submitted with the application. As clearly visible from the exterior of the building, the floor plate of the ground floor and first floor is the same as the third floor and as such the GFA of those floors has been approximated on that basis. The discrepancy between the applicant’s calculations and the assessing officer calculations is primarily due to the proposed stair case within Unit 5 which should be included in GFA. It appears that these stairs have been excluded by the applicant which accounts for the majority of the discrepancy. These stairs are for the exclusive use of Unit 5 and are therefore not ‘common’ stairs and must be included in GFA.

No –

7.8% variation

Height of buildings

Max 12m

Height (roof skillion): 14.15m

·      Roof ridge RL 49.57m (approx.)

·      EGL RL 35.42m (nearest spot level within the western side setback on driveway)

Note. The survey plan submitted with the application is for the adjoining property to the west, 17 Melrose Parade. Only the western half of the subject site is shown on the survey plan and thus the existing ground levels from the western side setback area have been utilised to determine the maximum building height. Given the cross fall of the land to the eastern side, it is likely that the extrapolated existing ground level under the building would be lower than the spot level utilised above and as such the calculated height could possibly be higher than the above calculation. Regardless, the height as calculated is not supported and as such obtaining a full survey of the site is not necessary.

No –

18% variation

Heritage

Various requirements for protecting heritage

The site does not contain a heritage item, is not within a conservation area, and is not within the visual catchment of nearby heritage items.

N/A

Foreshore scenic protection area

The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of this clause it would result in a visually incompatible building element within the scenic protection area that would be prominent along the coastal foreshore.

No

 

Height of Buildings – Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards

The proposal has been assessed as non-compliant with the height of buildings development standard pursuant to clause 4.3 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The clause stipulates that the maximum height of buildings on the site is 12m. The proposed development has been calculated to have a maximum height of 14.15m which represents a 17.9% variation to the development standard.

 

Development Standard

Assessment of Proposal

Variation

Height of Building

Max 12m

Height (roof skillion): 14.15m

·      Roof ridge RL 49.57m (approx.)

·      EGL below RL 35.42m

17.9%

 

Clause 4.6 provides a mechanism for development consent to be granted where a development contravenes a development standard. The clause stipulates that the consent authority must consider and be satisfied that a written request from the applicant justifies the contravention by demonstrating that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case and that there are sufficient environmental grounds to justify the contravention. Furthermore, the consent authority must be satisfied that the development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the standard and the zone.

 

In accordance with the requirements of clause 4.6, the applicant has submitted a written request to vary the development standard. The request been considered against the requirements of clause 4.6 as detailed below. Clause 4.6 is considered to be satisfied and the variation to the development standard is supported.

Consideration of the Applicant’s written request to vary a development standard

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

 

·      the consent authority is satisfied that:

 

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

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 has been obtained.

 

With regards to the concurrence of the Secretary, pursuant to the notification of assumed concurrence under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 18–003 (dated 21 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 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. 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.

 

Has the applicant’s request adequately demonstrated that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard?

 

The applicant’s written request to vary the development standard is as follows:

 

 

The applicant’s written request has not satisfactorily demonstrated that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary nor has it demonstrated there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the variation, for the following reasons:

 

·      The applicant’s written request has incorrectly identified the maximum building height at 13.5m. The maximum height occurs at the top of the proposed skillion roof which has a level of approximately RL49.57m. Utilising the survey plan provided with the application which only shows the western half of the subject site, the lowest existing ground spot level within the vicinity of the area under the top of the roof is RL35.42m – this spot level is located on the driveway on the western side of the building – refer to Figure 6 below. This results in a maximum height of 14.15m or a 17.9% variation;

 

·      The size and scale of the development is incompatible with the desired future character of the area. The desired future character of the area is dictated by the planning controls which allows for residential flat buildings up to 12m in height with a maximum FSR of 0.9:1. The proposal results in a significant exceedance of the height and FSR provisions. The height non-compliance would result in a five storey building in an area designed for four storey buildings which is already evident as the proposal is a full storey higher at the rear than the newly constructed RFB adjacent – refer to Figure 7 & 8. This extra height would be clearly evident from the street and surrounding properties;

 

·      The proposed additional height at the rear of the site is in conflict with the rear sloping coastal topography of the area. The proposal would result in the building stepping up from three storeys at the street to five storeys at the rear. This is in direct conflict with the lie of the land and would be inharmonious with the newly constructed RFB to the western side which appropriately steps down, being four storeys at the street and four at the rear – refer to Figure 7 & 8;

 

·      The design of the proposed roof top addition is unsympathetic to the existing c1970 brick flat building presenting as a bulky rooftop addition with a large downturned roof form. The proposal is unexceptional in terms of materials and architectonic expression.  Given its prominent position, more consideration would be required to ensure the proposal reads as a genuinely positive addition to the building and to the coastal neighbourhood;

 

·      The roof top addition is located on the southern end of the building which will result in additional overshadowing of the dwelling houses to the rear which are already significantly overshadowed by the existing RFB due to the height and the slope of the land down to these coastal edge properties;

 

·      The roof top addition will be visually bulky for adjoining properties being the only five storey building element in the area and being a full storey higher at the rear than the newly constructed RFB to the western side;

 

·      The roof top addition includes new habitable windows and a rear balcony that have non-compliant separations from the boundaries and will overlook the adjoining RFB to the west and the dwelling houses to the rear and eastern side;

 

·      Insufficient information has been provided to determine the impact of the development on views, however it is likely that the roof top addition would obstruct some significant coastal views from the adjoining RFB to the west and the RFBs on the northern side of Melrose Parade; and,

 

·      The development is inconsistent with the objectives of the development standard.

 

 

Figure 6. Marked site plan showing the proposed ridge level and the nearest existing ground spot level utilised for the height calculation.

Source: Gelder Archtects, 2018; Marked: James Arnold

 

Figure 7. Approved eastern elevation of the newly constructed RFB to the west of the site. The development appropriately steps down the site and presents as four storeys at the rear.

Source: Gelder Architects, 2013

 

 

Figure 8. Rear elevation of the proposal marked up showing the proposal at a full storey higher than the rear portion of the newly constructed RFB to the west.

Source: Gelder Architects, 2018; Marked: James Arnold, 2018

 

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

 

It is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the development standard and the objectives of the zone, and therefore is not in the public interest.

 

Objective

Assessment of Proposal

Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings

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

The size and scale of the development is incompatible with the desired future character of the area. The desired future character of the area is dictated by the planning controls which allows for residential flat buildings up to 12m in height with a maximum FSR of 0.9:1. The proposal results in a significant exceedance of the height and FSR provisions. The height non-compliance would result in a five storey building in an area designed for no more than four storeys which is already evident as the proposal is a full storey higher at the rear than the newly constructed RFB adjacent. This extra height would be clearly evident from the street and surrounding properties

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

The proposed development will have no impact on heritage as it is not within the visual catchment of heritage items or heritage conservation areas.

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

The proposed development will adversely impact the amenity of the surrounding area by way of significant additional overshadowing, overlooking with non-compliant separations, and will be a visually bulky component as it would be the only five storey building in the area.

 

Insufficient information has been provided to determine the impact of the development on views, however it is likely that the roof top addition would obstruct some significant coastal views from the adjoining RFB to the west and those RFBs on the northern side of Melrose Parade.

Zone R3 Medium Density Residential

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

The proposal will maintain the medium density residential nature of the existing building.