BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Randwick Local Planning Panel

Meeting

 

 

 

   Thursday 13 December 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            13 December 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, 13 December 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

D104/18       218 Clovelly Road, Randwick (DA/315/2018)................................................................ 1

D105/18       70 Loch Maree, Maroubra (DA/583/2018).................................................................... 47

D106/18       6 Fenton Avenue, Maroubra (DA/510/2018)................................................................. 93

D107/18       Unit 14/20-22 Glebe Street, Randwick (DA/4/2018)..................................................... 121

D108/18       15 Clovelly Road, Randwick (DA/224/2018)............................................................... 173

D109/18       5 Crana Avenue, South Coogee (DA/258/2018)......................................................... 239

Miscellaneous Report

M5/18          Randwick Local Planning Panel Guidelines............................................................... 293     

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kerry Kyriacou

Director City Planning


Randwick Local Planning Panel                                                                                                                              13 December 2018

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Development Application Report No. D104/18

 

Subject:                      218 Clovelly Road, Randwick (DA/315/2018)

Folder No:                      DA/315/2018

 

Author:                          James Arnold, Environmental Planning Officer

 

Proposal:                       Alterations and additions to the existing shop top housing for a third storey addition containing a new one bedroom apartment.

Ward:                             North Ward

Applicant:                      George Sikalos

Owner:                           George Sikalos

Recommendation:          Approval

Note. Three 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 floor space ratio development standard by more than 10%.

 

The proposal development is for alterations and additions to the existing shop top housing for a third storey addition containing a new one bedroom apartment, at 218 Clovelly Road, Randwick.

 

The proposal is generally consistent with the Randwick LEP 2012 and Randwick DCP 2013.  The development is permissible in the B1 zone and complies with the height limit. The proposed third storey addition will abut to an approved third storey addition on the adjoining property to the east. The proposal retains the front parapet with the upper level setback behind and has a cladded finish to distinguish it from the existing building and maintain the local shopping strip character. The proposed new apartment will have good levels of amenity being oversized for a one bedroom apartment and having a generous north facing living area and front terrace.

 

The proposal contravenes the FSR development standard by 28%. The variation is supported as the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the standard being compatibile with the desired future character of the area and because the proposal will not result in any significant impact on the amenity of surrounding properties.

 

Given the above, the proposal is recommended for approval.

 

Proposal Description

 

The proposed development is for a third storey addition containing a new one bedroom apartment.

 

Details of the proposed development are as follows:

 

·      Alteration of the ground and first floor to extend the stair case to the new floor above; and,

 

·      Construction of a third storey containing an apartment. The apartment comprises one bedroom, one bathroom, an open study, and an open plan living, dining, and kitchen area. A terrace is proposed at the front facing Clovelly Road.

 

Amendments

 

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

 

·      Upper level front setback increased from 1.7m to 3m from Clovelly Road, generally in alignment with the third storey envelope previously approved on the site under DA/543/2010. This resulted in a reduction in GFA by 6.2m2 and FSR from 1.98:1 to 1.92:1. Further, the terrace size increased commensurately;

 

·      Parapet height adjusted to align with the approved third storey addition on the adjoining property to the east, 220-220A Clovelly Road;

 

·      The apartment was reduced from two bedrooms to one bedroom resulting in a more spacious open plan kitchen, living and dining area;

 

·      Obscure glazing up to 1.5m above the floor level provided to the eastern side facing windows of the new apartment;

 

·      1m wide planter box and 1.3m blade wall provided along the eastern side of the terrace to provide privacy from the adjoining approval and to align with the approved terrace blade wall on the adjoining property to the east, 220-220A Clovelly Road; and,

 

·      Plain rendered finish to the third storey replaced with metal cladding to break up the mass of the wall, create visual interest, and provide a clearly defined base and top for the building.

 

Figure 1. North Elevation (as amended)

Source: Michael Khoury, 2018

 

Figure 2. Second Floor Plan (as amended)

Source: Michael Khoury, 2018

 

 

Site and Locality Description

The subject site is addressed as 218 Clovelly Road, Randwick and comprises one allotment legally described as Lot 103 DP 861160. The site is located on the southern side of Clovelly Road within a local shopping strip. The site is rectangular in shape with a footpath access handle to the rear and has a 5.12m frontage to Clovelly Road, length of 20.4m, and an area of 109.8m2.

 

Existing development on the site consists of a traditional rendered two storey shop top housing development with a parapet roof. The building covers the entire site apart from a footpath along the eastern side at the rear. The ground floor shop is currently occupied by a hair salon and the first floor contains a two bedroom dwelling accessed from the stairs at the rear. The site is benefitted by a right of footway from Mount Street across the rear of the adjoining properties to the east at 220 & 220A Clovelly Road. This footway provides access to the rear of the site and the stairs that access the first floor dwelling. There is no vehicular access to the site. The site is flat and completely hard paved with no vegetation present.

 

The site is within a traditional local shopping strip along Clovelly Road characterised by two storey brick shop top housing built to the boundaries. There is a significant new development within the strip to the west of the site at 210-214 Clovelly Road, that is four storeys with ground floor shops and setback upper floor apartments.

 

The adjoining properties are as follows:

 

·      Western side, 216 Clovelly Road – Two storey brick shop top housing with a decorative part hipped roof facing the street. The building is built to the boundaries and contains a take-away food and drink premises at ground floor and a dwelling above;

·      Eastern side, 220 & 220A Clovelly Road – Two storey rendered shop top housing with parapet roof. The building is built to the boundaries and contains a café and bakery on the ground floor and two x two bedroom dwellings above. There is an approved DA (no. 405/2011) on the site for a third storey addition containing two x two bedroom dwellings;

·      Southern Rear – 2 & 2A Mount Street – Three storey interwar flat building facing Mount Street addressed as 2 Mount Street. There is also a detached single storey studio dwelling on the western side of the site that abuts the rear of the subject building and is addressed as 2A Mount Street.

 

Figure 3. Front of subject site (middle).

Source: James Arnold, 2018

 

Figure 4. Subject site from Mount Street.

Source: James Arnold, 2018

 

Figure 5. Rear of the subject site.

Source: James Arnold, 2018

Background

 

·      DA/543/2010 – 218 Clovelly Road – On 23 November 2010, Council issued consent for a third storey addition on the subject site. The additional storey contained a new open plan living, kitchen and dining area for the existing apartment on the first floor and a front terrace. The approved GFA was 203.8m2 (as calculated from the approved plans) or FSR 1.86:1, representing a 23.8% variation. This DA lapsed on 23 November 2015. It is noted that the DA was approved under an old LEP, however the key provisions of FSR and height have not changed in the current RLEP 2012 at 1.5:1 and 12m, respectively.

 

Figure 6. DA/543/2010 approved second floor plan.

Source: Draftsmart, 2010

 

Figure 7. DA/543/2010 North Elevation.

Source: Draftsmart, 2010

 

·      DA/405/2011 – 220-220A Clovelly Road – On 26 February 2013, Council issued consent for a third storey addition to the adjoining shop top housing to the east of the site. The additional storey contains two x two bedroom apartments. The approved FSR was 1.97:1 representing a 31.3% variation. A Construction Certificate (No. CC/47/2018) was issued on 8 February 2018.

 

Figure 8. DA/405/2011 North Elevation CC issue

Source: CSA Architects, 2017

 

Figure 9. DA/405/2011 Second Floor Plan CC issue

Source: CSA Architects, 2017

 

Application History

 

5 June 2018

Lodgement – The subject development application was lodged with Council.

9 July 2018

Request for additional information 1 – Council raised concern with the merits of the proposed FSR and car parking variations.

9 August 2018

Request for additional information 2 – Council requested the following amendments:

·      Front setback at second floor – align front wall with adjoining approval at 220-220A Clovelly Road.

·      Materials and finishes – top floor to be provided with different materials to articulation and break up mass of walls.

·      Privacy – Side windows to include privacy measures and front terrace to have a part blade wall and planter box.

·      Parapet height – to align with adjoining approval.

·      Solar – ‘View from sun’ solar perspectives demonstrate the impact of the additional bulk.

·      South and west elevations to be submitted.

·      Plan updates – plans to indicate apartment sizes, second floor apartment to be labelled as 2 bedroom not 3 bedroom and dimensions to be shown.

15 October 2018

Amended plans– Amended plans submitted which generally resolved the above issues. With the provision of apartment sizes and dimensions on the plans a new issue arose of the size of the proposed 2 bedroom apartment at 59m2 which not supported due to insufficient space available for the living, kitchen and dining area. It was requested that the apartment be reduced to 1 bedroom.

24 October 2018

Amended plans– Amended plans submitted reducing the apartment to 1 bedroom.

 

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, three submissions were received, all of which contained objections to the proposal.

 

Amended plans were submitted in August and October 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 addresses of the submitters are as follows:

 

·      2/2 Mount Street, Randwick

·      7/2 Mount Street, Randwick

·      6/2 Mount Street, Randwick

 

Issue

Assessment

Non-compliance with FSR, how can this be considered?

The proposal does not comply the FSR development standard. Clause 4.6 allows for development consent to be granted despite non-compliance with the FSR standard with specific requirements to be met. Council considers that the matters of clause 4.6 have been satisfied which is detailed under the Key Issues and LEP section of this report.

Non-compliance with car parking requirements, how can this be considered?

The proposal does not provide any car parking which does not comply with the DCP car parking requirement for 1 space for one bedroom apartments. In accordance with the EP&A Act, Council must be flexible in the application of DCP controls provided the objectives of the control are achieved. As discussed in detailed in the Key Issues and DCP section of this report, the car parking non-compliance is considered acceptable as the objectives have been achieved.

Overshadowing of outdoor area of RFB at 2 Mount Street

The proposed additional storey will result in some minor overshadowing of the outdoor area of 2 Mount Street. The impact is limited to approximately 1 hour between 11.30am and 12.30pm at the worst case scenario in mid-winter. The outdoor area will receive approximately 4 hours sunlight in mid-winter which complies with Council’s 3 hour standard.

Loss of property value

The impact of development on property values is generally not a matter for consideration in the assessment of development applications.

Noise due to additional foot traffic at the rear.

The proposed additional dwelling on the subject site would result in a minor additional usage of the right of footway access to the site. The path is properly fenced off from adjoining properties and it is unlikely that its additional usage would cause any unreasonable disturbance to adjoining properties.

Previous approval on the subject site was under an old LEP and therefore is not relevant

DA/543/2010 was approved under the old Randwick LEP, however the relevant controls in question, being FSR and car parking, have not changed for the subject site. Therefore the previous DA on the site, which has now lapsed, remains of some relevance in the assessment.

Extra height does not keep with the village feel and is out of character

The proposed height complies with the LEP height limit and is consistent with the height and three/four storey form of existing development in the shopping strip and the approved development on the adjoining property to the east.

Overdevelopment of the site

The proposed development is not considered an overdevelopment as it is generally consistent with the planning controls and the FSR variation satisfies the requirements of clause 4.6.

Any Special Infrastructure Contribution to be paid by the development for the FSR breach or car parking non-compliance

Council does not have any contribution plans relating to FSR variations.

Non-compliant setbacks

The proposal complies with the setback provisions, refer to DCP assessment table for details.

Non-compliant POS

The proposal has been amended to increase the size of the front terrace which now complies with the DCP provision. Refer to DCP assessment table for details.

 

Key Issues

 

FSR

The maximum floor space ratio on the site is 1.5:1. The proposal has been assessed to have an FSR of 1.92:1 which represents a 28% variation to the development standard. A full assessment of the proposed variation is provided in the detailed assessment section of this report. The variation is supported and a brief summary of the reasons are as follows:

·      The size and scale of the development is compatible with the desired future character of the locality which includes three to four storey development with the upper levels setback from the street;

 

·      There is an approved development (DA/405/2011) for a third storey addition on the adjoining property to the east, 220-220A Clovelly Road. The adjoining property forms part of the same building as the subject site. From an urban design and streetscape perspective, the proposal is necessary to ensure the overall redevelopment of the building is cohesive and would avoid an exposed blank party wall. From a planning perspective, the adjoining approval essentially set a specific precedent encouraging a similar development on the subject site. The adjoining approval has an FSR of 1.97:1 representing a 31.3% variation, slightly larger than the proposed 28% variation;

 

·      There is approved development (DA/543/2010) that has now lapsed on the subject site for essentially the same building envelope as proposed. The only difference between the lapsed DA and the current proposal is the upper level front setback has been reduced from 3.7m to 3m to align with the adjoining approval at 220-220A Clovelly Road. Whilst the DA has now lapsed and was also approved under a superceded LEP, the decision remains of relevance as the key provisions that guide the building envelope such as FSR, height, and setbacks remain unchanged;

 

·      The overshadowing impact of the additional storey is considered minor as there will be little or no impact on adjoining living room windows or private open space;

 

·      The visual bulk of the development from the rear will not be directly viewed from any adjoining residences and regardless is considered acceptable with the amended proposal introducing cladding to the third storey which appropriately breaks up the mass of the walls and creates visual relief;

 

·      There will be no privacy impacts as the only side facing windows are obscure glazed to 1.5m above floor level; and,

 

·      The development is consistent with the objectives of the development standard and the zone.

 

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 1 bedroom apartment

 

The proposed development for an additional one bedroom apartment on the site generates a DCP car parking requirement of one space. No car parking is proposed which does not comply with the requirement. The lack of car parking is considered acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The site is a traditional shop top housing site which does not have rear lane access and therefore cannot reasonably provide on-site car parking;

 

·      The proposal has been amended to reduce the new apartment from two bedrooms to one bedroom which will minimise the potential number of residents and their subsequent parking demands;

 

·      The site is located along a public transport corridor with a bus stop located immediately opposite the site. The bus stop is serviced by the 338, 339, X39 and X40 which provide regular services (more than every 10 minutes in peak hour) to the CBD;

 

·      The site is located within a shopping strip and within walking distance of the North Randwick shopping strip which together contain a range of services and facilities such as a small supermarket, hardware store, gyms, pubs, and a range of cafes and restaurants. Further, within a short walk of the site are a range of public open spaces and recreational facilities including Clovelly Beach, Bardon Park, and Tennis Courts; and,

 

·      A condition has been imposed that requires the applicant to provide a car share membership for the new 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 B1 zone in that the proposed use 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 shop top housing 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. The proposal does not include any earthworks. 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       Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

The site is zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The proposal is characterised as a ‘shop top housing’ as it will contains two dwellings above a ground floor business premises.

 

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the B1 zone as it will provide a new dwelling that is well integrated with, and supports the primary business function of, the zone.

 

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

 

Provision

Assessment of Proposal

Complies?

Floor Space Ratio

Max 1.5:1

FSR: 1.92:1

·      Existing GFA 151.3m2

·      Proposed GFA 211m2

·      Site Area 109.8m2

Note. GFA has been calculated by the Assessment Officer in accordance with the LEP definition. The stairs have been excluded on the basis of being ‘common’ vertical circulation. The area in front of the entrance to the top floor apartment has been included as it does not form part of the area required for vertical circulation. This calculation is less than the 230m2 GFA stated by the applicant in the Clause 4.6 request. It is likely the discrepancy in the calculations would be due to the applicant including the common stairs and because the proposal has been amended to increase the front setback which reduced GFA.

No –

Variation

supported

see below

Height of Building

Max 12m

Height: 11.47m

·      Parapet: RL 78.23m

·      Lowest EGL below: RL 66.76m

Note. The heights have been assessed by the Assessment Officer in accordance with the LEP definition, utilising the existing ground levels on the survey plan. The nearest spot level is located on the eastern side footpath.

Yes

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.

Yes

 

Floor Space Ratio – Clause 4.6. Exceptions to Development Standards

The proposal has been assessed as non-compliant with the Floor Space Ratio development standard pursuant to clause 4.4 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The clause stipulates that the maximum floor space ratio for a building on the site is 1.5:1. The proposed development has been calculated to have an FSR of 1.92:1 which represents a 28% variation.

 


Development Standard

Assessment of Proposal

Variation

Floor Space Ratio

Max 1.5:1

FSR: 1.92:1

28%

 

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. Further, 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 therefore consent may be granted.

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 does assist in identifying the ways in which compliance with a development standard may be considered unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. In Wehbe, 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. Another way, is to establish that the development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council’s own actions in granting consents departing from the standard and hence 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 and the assessing officers assessment has satisfactorily demonstrated that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the variation, for the following reasons:

 

·      The size and scale of the development is compatible with the desired future character of the locality. The desired future character is dictated both by the planning controls and the emerging character of the area.

 

The controls allow for shop top housing up to 12m in height with the upper level setback from the street alignment. The proposal is consistent with these key built form requirements with a height of 11.5m and an upper level setback of 3m.

 

The emerging character of the strip is largely defined by the landmark new development to the west of the site, 210-214 Clovelly Road. That development makes up a large portion of the small shopping strip and is four storeys with the upper two levels setback. To the east of the site are new developments of three and four storeys in height at 221-223 Clovelly Road and 230 Clovelly Road. Further, it is also important to consider recent DA approvals and there is an approved third storey addition for two new dwellings on the adjoining and abutting eastern property at 220-220A Clovelly Road. Based on these developments the emerging character is for three to four storey buildings built to the boundaries with the upper levels setback from the street. The proposal is entirely consistent with this form and character.

 

Refer to Figure 10-12 below for relevant images and diagrams relating to streetscape.

 

·      The subject site is part of a wider development that includes the adjoining property to the east, 220-220A Clovelly Road. The adjoining property has a DA approval (DA/405/2011) for a third storey addition comprising two new dwellings. That development was originally designed to abut to the former (and now lapsed) DA approval on the subject site. The subject proposal now is designed to abut to the approval on the adjoining site. At the request of Council, the proposal was amended to ensure the alignment of the two developments is exact with the rooftops and the front terraces aligning to ensure a cohesive overall development.

 

From an urban design and streetscape perspective, the proposal is necessary to ensure the overall redevelopment of the building is cohesive and would avoid an exposed blank party wall. From a planning perspective, the adjoining approval essentially set a specific precedent to allow a similar development on the subject site. The adjoining approval has an FSR of 1.97:1 representing a 31.3% variation, slightly larger than the proposed 28% variation;

 

·      There is an approved development (DA/543/2010) that has now lapsed on the subject site for essentially the same building envelope as proposed. The only difference in terms of building envelope between the lapsed DA and the current proposal is the upper level front setback has been reduced from 3.7m to 3m to align with the adjoining approval at 220-220A Clovelly Road. Whilst the DA has now lapsed and was also approved under a superseded LEP, the decision remains of relevance as the key provisions that guide the building envelope such as FSR, height, and setbacks have not changed;

 

·      The overshadowing impact of the additional storey is considered minor as there will be little or no impact on adjoining living room windows or private open space. At Council’s request, the applicant submitted ‘view from the sun’ solar diagrams for the existing development and the proposed development. The diagrams indicate that the proposed third storey will result in some minor additional overshadowing of the adjoining RFB to the south, 2 & 2A Mount Street.

 

The northern elevation of the RFB contains only small non-habitable windows that are all frosted glass and as such the approximate 2 hour mid-winter overshadowing would not result in any amenity impacts. The western elevation has habitable windows, however the overshadowing on this elevation is limited to a small portion for only 1 hour, with the majority of windows being unaffected and the few that are maintaining 3 hours afternoon sunlight. The other area that the proposal would overshadow is the narrow strip of outdoor space in the western setback, which is essentially only used as an access path and for two wall mounted clothes drying lines. The overshadowing impact is limited to approximately 1 hour in the middle of the day, with the space receiving sunlight for at least 3 hours in the afternoon;

 

There is also a detached studio dwelling addressed as 2A Mount Street that on the western boundary of the RFB to the south. This dwelling abuts to the rear wall of the subject building. The studio only has openings on the southern side and two roof skylights. The proposal will only overshadow the roof and rear courtyard space of that dwelling for approximately 1 hour in the middle of the day. The courtyard will maintain over 3.5 hours afternoon sunlight and the skylights will receive at least 3 hours which is a minor impact and complies with Council’s controls.

 

Refer to Figure 13-17 for relevant images and diagrams relating to overshadowing;

 

·      In terms of visual bulk impacts for adjoining properties, the proposal would only be clearly visible from the northern elevation of the RFB to the south. This elevation contains non-habitable frosted windows and as such there would be no impact. From the minor outdoor areas of the RFB, the proposal is largely screened by the row of Palm trees located within the subject sites right of footway and cladding is proposed to the third story to assist in breaking up the bulk of the walls;

 

·      There will be no privacy impacts as the only side facing windows are obscure glazed to 1.5m above floor level; and,

 

·      The development is consistent with the objectives of the development standard and the zone as detailed in the table below.

 

Figure 10. 210-214 Clovelly Road – 4 storey built form.

Source: James Arnold, 2018

 

Figure 11. 221-223 Clovelly Road – 3-4 storey built form.

Source: James Arnold, 2018

 

Figure 12. 220-220A Clovelly Road – DA/405/2011 North Elevation CC issue

Source: CSA Architects, 2017

Figure 13. ‘View from sun’ solar diagrams of the proposed development.

Source: Michael Khoury, 2018

 

Figure 14. Northern elevation of 2 Mount Street – non-habitable frosted windows.

Source: James Arnold, 2018

Figure 15. Outdoor area of 2 Mount Street – bin storage, footpath and clothes line.

Source: James Arnold, 2018

 

Figure 16. Western elevation of 2 Mount Street.

Source: James Arnold, 2018

 

Figure 17. Detached studio dwelling 2A Mount Street.

Source: 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?

 

As discussed in the table below, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the development standard and the objectives of the zone and is therefore in the public interest.

 

Objective

Assessment of Proposal

Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio

(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 compatible with the desired future character of the locality. The desired future character is dictated both by the planning controls and the emerging character of the area.

 

The controls allow for shop top housing up to 12m in height with the upper level setback from the street alignment. The proposal is consistent with these key built form requirements with a height of 11.5m and an upper level setback of 3m.

 

The emerging character of the strip is largely defined by the landmark new development to the west of the site, 210-214 Clovelly Road. This development incorporates a large portion of the small shopping strip and is four storeys with the upper two levels setback. To the east of the site are new developments of three and four storeys in height at 221-223 Clovelly Road and 230 Clovelly Road. Further, it is also important to consider recent DA approvals and there is an approved third storey addition for two new dwellings on the adjoining and abutting eastern property at 220-220A Clovelly Road. Based on these developments the emerging character is for three to four storey buildings built to the boundaries and with the upper levels setback from the street. The proposal is entirely consistent with this form and character.

 

Refer to Figure 10 to 12 above for relevant images.

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

At the request of Council, the proposal was amended to provide a cladded finish to the third storey addition which will break up the mass of the walls and make the top floor read as a recessive pop up element.

The proposal responds to environmental and energy needs as a compliant BASIX certificate was submitted.

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

The proposed development will have no impact on heritage as it is not within the visual catchment of heritage items and is not within a heritage conservation areas.

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

The proposal development would not adversely impact the amenity of adjoining land in terms of visual bulk, privacy, overshadowing and views as discussed below:

·      The visual bulk of the development from the rear will not be directly viewed from any adjoining residences and regardless is considered acceptable with the amended proposal introducing cladding to the third storey which appropriately breaks up the mass of the walls and creates visual relief;

·      There will be no privacy impacts as the only side facing windows are obscure glazed to 1.5m above floor level;

·      Overshadowing is minimal and will not impact any important areas of adjoining properties such as living areas and private open spaces; and,

·      There are no views available across the subject site.

Zone B1 Neighbourhood Centre

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

The proposal is not antipathetic to this objective as it will not inhibit the ability of the zone to provide for small scale retail, business, and community uses.

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

The proposal is consistent with this objective as it will provide a new one bedroom apartment that is consistent with the emerging and desired character of the strip and will increase residential density supporting the primary business function of the zone.

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

As discussed throughout this section, the adverse impacts of the proposal on the amenity of adjoining properties are considered to be negligible.

 

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:

 

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

·      the public benefit of maintaining the development standard.

 

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

 

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

 

2.4       Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013

 

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

 

The relevant provisions of the DCP are addressed below.

 

B7 Parking and Access

 

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 1 bedroom apartment

 

The proposal does not provide any car parking which does not comply with the above requirement. This variation is supported as discussed within the key issues section of this report.

 

D6 Neighbourhood Centres

 

Cl.

Control

Assessment of Proposal

Complies?

2.3

Ceiling heights

Min 3.3m ground floor.

Min 2.7m upper floors.

2.7m ceiling height.

Yes

2.4

Setbacks

 

 

2.4.1

Front setback

Above 9.5m, 2m.

3m upper level setback (above 9.5m)

Yes

2.4.2

Rear setback

Where no rear lane access and adjoins residential zone, provide 15% of lot depth or 5m, whichever is the lesser.

N/A – There is no rear lane access, however adjoins the B1 zone at the rear and not a residential zone.

N/A

2.4.3

Side setback

Nil to business zones.

Nil side setbacks on the western side and the eastern side at the front which complies.

1m eastern side setback at the rear which is acceptable as it does not front to the street and provides necessary separation for residential windows.

Yes

3.2

Roof Forms

·      Maintain parapets where prevailing.

·      New roofs sympathetic to existing.

The existing parapet will be retained with the new upper level terrace being setback in behind the parapet. The new third storey will present as a pop up roof top addition with different materials and a complementary flat roof.

Yes

3.4

Colours, Materials

·      Different materials to assist articulation.

·      Avoid large expanses of any single material.

The original proposal incorporated a plain rendered finish for the third storey, with no variation or articulation provided from the floors below. Following issues raised by Council, the proposal has been amended to provide a metal clad finish on for the third storey which will break up the mass of the walls and emphasise the new and the old portions of the building.

Yes

5.1

Solar Access

 

 

 

 

·      Adjacent dwellings 3 hours to a portion of habitable room window between 8am-4pm 21 June.

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

·      Ensure that building layouts facilitate good solar access to both internal and external living spaces (eg. Ideally locate living areas to the north and east).

At the request of Council, the applicant submitted ‘view from the sun’ solar diagrams for the existing development and the proposed development.

The diagrams indicate that the proposed third storey will result in some minor additional overshadowing of the adjoining RFB to the south, 2 & 2A Mount Street. All habitable rooms and private open space in that development will be either unaffected by the proposal or will maintain compliance with the 3 hour requirement. A detailed discussion on overshadowing is contained within the Clause 4.6 FSR section of this report.

Yes

6

Shop Top Housing

 

 

 

·      Residential and commercial entries separate.

The proposal will maintain the existing access arrangements with the residential entrance being from the right of footway from Mount Street at the rear of the site and the commercial entrance being from the frontage to Clovelly Road.

Yes

 

·      POS 10m2, 2m deep.

The proposed new apartment is provided with POS in the form of a front northern facing terrace that is 14m2 and 3m deep.

Yes

 

3.0        Referral Comments

 

Development Engineer

The following comments were provided:

 

Parking Comments

 

The proposed additional 2 bedroom unit would create an additional parking demand of 1 car space which cannot be provided on site, due to site constraints.

 

Development Engineering does not support the proposed development however conditions have been included in this report which restrict the new 2 bedroom unit obtaining any current/future parking permits for residential parking schemes which may be provided in the surrounding area.

 

General Comments

 

It is noted that the previous approved DA (DA/543/2010) quoted in the SEE was for additions to the existing residence above the shop and did not include and additional separate residence as applied for in this DA (DA/315/2018)

 

Landscape Officer

No objections raised and the following comments were provided:

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

B.      That the RLPP grants development consent under Sections 4.16 and 4.17 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 315/2018 for alterations and additions to the existing shop top housing for a third storey addition containing a new one bedroom apartment at 218 Clovelly Rd, Randwick, subject to the development consent conditions attached to this report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

RLPP Conditions - DA.315.2018 - 218 Clovelly Road, Randwick (James Arnold)

 

 

 

 


RLPP Conditions - DA.315.2018 - 218 Clovelly Road, Randwick (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


Randwick Local Planning Panel                                                                                                                              13 December 2018

 

 

Development Application Report No. D105/18

 

Subject:                      70 Loch Maree, Maroubra RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB (DA/583/2018)

Folder No:                      DA/583/2018

 

Author:                          Chahrazad Rahe, Senior Assessment Planner

 

Proposal:                       Demolition of existing structures, construction of single storey building and operation of swim school with hours of 6.30am to 8pm Monday to Friday  and 6.30am to 6.30pm Saturday and Sunday, provision of 5 carpark spaces with access from Storey Street and associated works.

Ward:                             Central Ward

Applicant:                      Dan & Joanne Glass

Owner:                           Dan & Joanne Glass

Summary

Recommendation:          Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=87eae287-9db6-4f1a-92cb-902d4b7776b1&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan


 

Executive summary

 

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

 

The proposal development is for a swim school which is defined as an indoor recreation facility.  The proposal involves demolition of the exisitng dwelling and constrcution of a single storey building within an indoor swimming pool (20 metre by 4.2 metre) for the purposes of providing a swim school.  The application also proposed a business idenification wall sign which is not illuminated. The provision of 5 carpark spaces are provided (for staff & visitors) to the rear of the building, arranged in a tandem format which are accessed from Storey Street.

 

The operating hours of the business are from 6.30am to 8pm Monday to Friday and 6.30am to 6.30pm Saturday and Sunday.   There will be a maximum of 12 students in the swimming pool at any one time and base on the number of students there will be a maximum of 4 staff required to operate the business.

 

The application has been advertised and notified in accordance with the requirements of the Randwick DCP.   A total of 94 submissions were received during the notification period with one of the submissions being a petition signed by 20 individuals all of whom except one (73 Loch Marree Street) also provided individual submissions and two being neutral submissions. A total of 30 (of the 42 objections received) are unique submissions and 52 supporting submissions were received for this development.

 

Specific mitigation measures are implemented within the Plan of Management and acoustic measures to ensure that the amenity impacts to surrounding environment are not adversely affected by the operation of the business. 

 

It should be noted that no classes will be held during the times of 8:45am to 9:30am and 2:15pm to 3:15pm being the peak pick up and drop off times for the adjacent school.

 

The proposal is generally consistent with the relevant planning provisions of the Randwick LEP 2012 and Randwick DCP 2013.  The development is permissible in the R2 zone and complies with the height and floor space ratio development standards. The proposal responds well to the constraints of the small site, the built form is compatable with the established residential character of the locality. 

 

The proposal satisfies the relevant heads of consideration under Section 4.15(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended and is therefore, recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

Proposal

The application is seeking approval to demolish the existing structures on the site and construction of single storey building for operation of a swim school consisting of a pool deck, change rooms, disabled bathrooms, staff room and a plant room are proposed.  The swim school is proposed to comprise a 20m by 4.2m indoor swimming pool fitted with a water filtration system and water heating. The pool will be used exclusively for teaching purposes. 

 

The provision of 5 carpark spaces are provided (for staff & visitors) to the rear of the building, arranged in a tandem format which are accessed from Storey Street.

 

The operating hours of the business are from 6.30am to 8pm Monday to Friday and 6.30am to 6.30pm Saturday and Sunday.   The mechanical ventilation unit located outside to the western end of the building is proposed to be operating for 24 hours, 7 days a week. All other mechanical equipment associated with the swim school is to only operate between the hours of 6:30 am and 8:00 pm, Monday to Sunday.

 

There will be a maximum of 12 students in the swimming pool at any one time and base on the number of students there will be a maximum of 4 staff required to operate the business.

 

Site Description and Locality

The subject site is described as Lot 1 in DP 306760, No. 70 Loch Maree Street, Maroubra.  The site is located at the corner of Loch Maree & Storey Streets and is currently occupied by a single storey dwelling house.  The site forms a regular shape parcel of land with a total site area of approximately 401.6m² and has frontage width of 10.98m to Loch Maree Street and frontage depth of 36.575m to Storey Street.

 

The site is adjoined to the south and west by single storey dwelling houses.  The surrounding area is predominantly single and two storey of different residential types.  There are serval pockets of small neighbourhood shops, including café and hairdressers to the west of the subject site along Storey Street towards Anzac Parade.

 

Maroubra Junction Public School is located north of the subject site on the opposite side of Storey Street and Maroubra Junction is located approximately 500 metres north east of the subject site.  To the north east of the subject site and on the norther-eastern corner of Loch Maree and Storey Streets is the former Maroubra Telephone Exchange, which continues to operate as a telecommunications facility.

 

Relevant history

The applicant attended a pre-lodgement meeting with Council on 17 January 2018 for a similar development which formal advice was provided to the applicant on 19 January 2018.  It was advised that a number of design and amenity issues be addressed and resolved before any formal lodgement is made for the proposed development.

 

In addition to the above, the site was the subject of a previous development application DA/129/2018 for a similar development which was withdrawn on 4 June 2018 as Council highlighted a number of concerns relating to the building design.  The issues related to the building height, FSR, front, side and rear setbacks, noise and overshadowing impacts.  In particular, the design concept for the swim school did not reflect a residential character.

 

Submissions

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. A total of 94 submissions were received during the notification period with one of the submissions being a petition signed by 20 individuals all of whom expect one (73 Loch Marree Street) also provided individual submissions and two being a neutral submissions. A total of 30 (of the 42 objections received) are unique submissions and 52 supporting submissions were received for this development.

 

The following submissions received objecting to the development are as follows:

 

·      Unit 2/35 Loch Maree Street, Maroubra

·      41 Loch Maree Street, Maroubra

·      43 Loch Maree Street, Maroubra

·      57 Loch Maree Street, Maroubra

·      61 Loch Maree Street, Maroubra

·      65 Loch Maree Street, Maroubra

·      72 Loch Maree Street, Maroubra

·      Submission prepared by Solutions Zane on behalf of the owners of properties 141 Storey Street & 72 Loch Maree Street, Maroubra

·      74 Loch Maree Street, Maroubra

·      75 Loch Maree Street, Maroubra

·      76 Loch Maree Street, Maroubra

·      77 Loch Maree Street, Maroubra

·      78 Loch Maree Street, Maroubra

·      79 Loch Maree Street, Maroubra

·      83 Loch Maree Street, Maroubra

·      88 Loch Maree Street, Maroubra

·      123 Storey Street, Maroubra

·      129 Storey Street, Maroubra

·      131 Storey Street, Maroubra

·      135 Storey Street, Maroubra

·      142 Storey Street, Maroubra

·      143 Storey Street, Maroubra

·      144 Storey Street, Maroubra

·      145 Storey Street, Maroubra

·      153 Storey Street, Maroubra

·      199 Storey Street, Maroubra

·      1 Moverly Road, Maroubra

·      Unit 5/5 McKeon Street, Maroubra

·      1 Asturias Avenue, South Coogee

·      Education School Infrastructure

·      Submission containing 20 petition

·      9 Unknown addresses, (5 being unique submissions)

·      The International French School of Sydney – 758 Anzac Parade, Maroubra (neutral submission)

·      Maroubra Junction Public School P & C (neutral submission)

 

Issue

Comment

The proposed development does not meet the objectives of the R2 - Low Density Residential zone and is incompatible with the existing and desired future character of the area.

 

The proposal is not consistent and in line with surrounding dwellings and streetscape.

 

Overdevelopment of the site and unacceptable bulk.  The area is too small for the proposed development.

The proposed indoor recreation facility is permissible with consent in the R2 Low Density Residential zone under the Randwick LEP 2012 and as demonstrated below under the Key Issues section of report is consistent with the zone objectives.

 

Refer to Key Issues section of the report which addresses the bulk, height and scale of the development under Building Envelope.

 

The proposed Swim School is not a small-scale business.

 

There are no similar commercial operations of this scale anywhere in the vicinity.

‘Small business’ is defined differently by regulators in Australia depending on the laws they administer.

 

For example, ASIC regulates many businesses that are 'small proprietary companies', which means a company with two out of these three characteristics:

 

·    an annual revenue of less than $25 million

·    fewer than 50 employees at the end of the financial year, and

·    consolidated gross assets of less than $12.5 million at the end of the financial year.

The Australian Taxation Office defines a small business as one that has annual revenue turnover (excluding GST) of less than $2 million. Fair Work Australia defines a small business as one that has less than 15 employees.

 

Despite these differences, many regulators have informally adopted the definition of ‘small business’ used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), which is a business that employs fewer than 20 people.

 

The proposed swim school employee only 4 staff members and therefore falls within the above criteria as a small business.  

 

In addition to the above the proposal is consistent with other small business uses in the area and with the inclusion of conditions, implementation of the plan of management and recommendations made within the acoustic report it is not expected that the proposed use will result in significant amenity impacts to the neighbouring properties.

 

Overshadowing impacts to north facing windows and backyard.

 

The shadow diagrams do not detail differences between the current and future state and therefore, prevent assessment of impact.

 

Insufficient articulation of building exacerbates overshadowing of adjacent property to the south.

The shadow diagrams submitted demonstrate that the proposed development will not be further reducing solar access to neighbouring properties rear yard and north facing windows, in fact the proposal will improve solar access to the north facing windows of the neighbouring dwelling at no. 72 Loch Maree Street, Maroubra as the building height will be slightly lower than the existing building and maintains a single built form that is similarly positioned to the existing building on the site.

 

The building provides articulation in the form of windows and pitched roof form. Given that the building is only single storey, the shadow diagrams demonstrate that the proposal will not cause additional overshadowing impacts to the neighbouring properties.  Also, the building provides adequate separation between neighbouring buildings for visual and solar access. 

 

Refer to Key Issues section of this report which address Solar access and overshadowing.

 

Bland treatment of Loch Maree and Storey Streets facades. The proposed southern façade is excessive and entirely incompatible with minimal articulation and a rendered finish creating a bland wall.

 

The 900mm setback to the secondary street frontage on Storey Street does not comply with Part D Neighbourhood Centres of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP.

 

The proposal has inadequate landscaping.

 

There is only one tree in the landscape design.

The building provides articulation in the form of window/door openings and pitched roof form and is of a scale that relates to other residential buildings within the streetscape.

 

The proposed building has been designed to reflect design elements of existing buildings within the streetscape and will be compatible with the established character of the area.  The building is consistent with the established front setbacks along both street frontages (Loch Maree Street and Storey Street) and a garden is maintained to the Loch Maree Street frontage which will continue to maintain the residential character of the neighbourhood. 

 

Refer to Key Issues section of the report under Building Envelope which demonstrates that the proposed development is of a bulk, height and scale that is consistent with neighbouring residential dwellings.

 

Parking, traffic and safety concerns.

 

Existing parking in the area is congested with parking spaces around the school fully utilised and Staff members of the Chinese school take up any available parking spaces around the site on Saturdays.

 

Local residents are already inconvenienced by cars parking outside their hoes, double parking and cars blocking their driveways during MJPS pick-up and drop-off times.

 

Calculations on parking spaces in the traffic report do not apply during winter as it will be dark and less customers will walk to the site.

 

Unrealistic to assume customers will arrive by Public transport, walking or bicycle.

 

The tree in the parking area blocks a parking space. 

 

There is only one onsite car space for customers and the proposal does not provide parking for individuals attending the swim school.

Refer to Key Issues section of the report under Part B7 – Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access and referral comments made by Council’s Development Engineers which addresses these concerns.

 

The trees on the premises will not be blocking access to the proposed carspaces. The driveway is sufficient in width to allow access into the 5 car spaces provided.

 

Operating hours are unacceptable.

 

Visual and acoustic privacy.  Excessive Noise & disruption to residential neighbourhood.

 

Noise impacts from plant equipment running 24 hours/day and children walk to and using the swim school centre.

 

Noise contributes were assessed separately not cumulatively and therefore the impacts of sound intensity will much greater than assessed. 

 

Proposal to reduce noise is vague and requires safeguards.

 

Compliance with noise criteria is entirely dependent on the Plan of Management requiring people to act in a likely manner.

 

Owner of 72 Loch Maree Street prefers high set windows on southern façade, due to privacy concerns.

The proposed operating hours are consistent with other small business uses in the area and also is consistent with operating hours for business within residential areas. 

 

Refer to Key Issues section of the report under Privacy and acoustic amenity which demonstrates with the inclusion of conditions, implementation of the plan of management and recommendations made within the acoustic report that the proposed development will not result in significant visual or acoustic privacy impacts to the neighbouring properties or public domain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Noise level will be akin to a garbage or diesel truck or a lawn mower.

 

The acoustic assessment report accompanying the proposal demonstrates that the noise level generated by the swim school will never be more than 42dBA at the closet receiver, in a worst case scenario.  Research conducted by Veolia states that the average garbage produces depending on the truck size will have an average of 68 decibels and some reach 90 decibels.  The proposal is well below this average.

 

People using the door on the southwestern corner of the building to enter and exit the swim school from the car parking area will be an annoyance to the residents in 72 Loch Maree Street.

The door on the southwest corner of the building is an emergency exit for the swim school.  The main entry and exit of the building for staff and customers are via the door to the north eastern side of the building on Storey Street.

Swim school capacity of 12 students cannot accommodate public school class sizes.

 

The 20m pool size is not suitable for learn-to-swim.

 

Fit2Swim has had a number of discussions with local schools who have shown interest to utilise a facility within walking distance from their location.   The close proximity of the swim school to one public school and two private schools is a positive contribution for the community. 

 

There is no specific requirement which requires a swim school to be a certain size to accommodate the nearby schools.  The site accommodates all aspects of a small-scale swim school, including pool deck, plant room, and parent waiting area, staff room, change cubicles, showers and five onsite parking spaces.

The proposal will cause an adverse impact to the environment due to the greater disposal of waste water into the sewerage and drain system.

 

A mechanical or water and drainage malfunction could occur after hours when the site is not manned.  As a result, neighbouring properties could get flooded.

The applicant has indicated that there will be a hydraulic system which has safeguards installed to prevent flooding.  It also allows remote monitoring and will be checked regularly by Fit2Swim’s owners.

The swim school will create environmental hazards such as air pollution, contamination, toxic fumes and odour.

 

Pool chemicals in a residential area creates a safety risk.

See Environmental Health comments below in the referrals section of this report which addresses these concerns.

 

 

A child could enter the property after hours and drown.

It’s not possible for children to entry the premises as there is a security system in place after hours and the pool area is provided with security gate to prevent access by young children.

The proposal does not have the support of school principals as mentioned in the accompanying Needs Analysis document.

Noted and the supporting letters have been included within this report.

A minimum 1m x 1m splay is not provided at the corner of Loch Maree and Storey Street.

There is no specific requirement in the DCP which requires the corner site to be splayed.   However, the building is setback 3m at the corner of Loch Maree and Storey Street which meets the front setback objectives of the DCP for Low Density Residential development.

Support

 

A total of 52 submissions were received by Council in support of the proposed development.  The supporting submissions primarily raised the importance of the proposed swim school for swimming and water safety education, its essential benefits and contribution that it will provide to the local community and the shortage of existing swim schools in the area.  

 

The following supporting submissions have been received:

 

·      147 Storey Street, Maroubra

·      39 Cooper Street, Maroubra

·      428 Malabar Road, Maroubra

·      49 Johnston Parade, Maroubra

·      7 Little Street, Maroubra

·      7 Flower Street, Maroubra

·      78 Haig Street, Maroubra

·      4 Nevorie Crescent, Maroubra

·      25 Carman Avenue, Maroubra

·      23 Alma Road, Maroubra

·      Unit 13/57 Broome Street, Maroubra

·      42 Edgar Street, Maroubra

·      24 Roberts Avenue, Randwick

·      16 Irvine Street, Kingsford

·      209 Botany Street, Kingsford

·      232 Rainbow Street, South Coogee

·      23 Asturias Avenue, South Coogee

·      104 Moverly Road, South Coogee

·      147A Mount Street, Coogee

·      121 Brook Street, Coogee - Miri’s Kindy

·      216 Oberon Street, Coogee

·      10 Jennings Street, Matraville

·      33a Yarra Road, Phillip Bay

·      303/131 Bronte Road, Waverley

·      93 Windsor Street, Paddington

·      8 Farran Street, Lane Cove

·      Unit 5/247 O’Sullivan Road, Bellevue Hill

·      Unknown Street address – Woollahra

·      6 Runic Lane, Maroubra – Mount Sinai School, Kingsford

·      20 Stanley Street, Randwick – Emanuel School, Randwick

·      South Coogee Public School

·      South Coogee Childcare Service

·      Child & Educational Psychologist Bondi, Junction, Chatswood & Westmead

·      Royal Life Saving – NSW Branch

·      Australian Partners of Defense

·      17 Unknown addresses

 


 

KEY ISSUES

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

A number of submissions have been received objecting to the development on the grounds that the proposed development will not meet the objectives of the R2 - Low Density Residential zone and will be incompatible with the existing and desired future character of the area.

 

Zoned R2 - Low Density Residential

The site is zoned R2 - Low Density Residential under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposed swill school which is classified as a recreation facility is permissible with Council’s consent. 

 

The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone for the following reasons:

 

·      The proposed development is located in a wider residential area and the building is designed to be of a low scale which responds appropriately to its context. 

 

·      The proposed activity and built form will provide opportunities for the local community to develop essential water safety skills and improve swimming ability for education experience and ongoing development. 

 

·      The proposed building has been designed to reflect design elements of existing buildings within the streetscape and will integrate with the established character of the area.  The building is consistent with the established front setbacks along both street frontages (Loch Maree Street and Storey Street) and a garden is maintained to the Loch Maree Street frontage which will continue to contribute to the residential character of the neighbourhood. 

 

·      The proposed building is single storey and provides adequate separation between neighbouring buildings for visual and acoustic privacy and solar access.  The shadow diagrams demonstrate that the proposed development will not further reduce solar access to neighbouring properties.  In fact it will improve solar access to the north facing windows of the neighbouring dwelling at no. 72 Loch Maree Street, Maroubra as the building height will be slightly lower than the existing building and maintains a single built form that is similarly positioned to the existing building on the site.

 

The proposed development is limited to maximum of 12 students at any given time and with the inclusion of conditions, it is not considered that there will be any unreasonable acoustic and privacy impacts associated with the proposed use. The filtration plant room is located to the north western corner of the building to reduce potential noise impacts to neighbouring properties and appropriate conditions have been included to ensure that the plant equipment located to the rear western end of the building does not give rise to an ‘offensive noise’ to neighbouring properties as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations to neighbouring properties.

 

An updated plan of management and acoustic report have been submitted to minimize the impacts of development, facilitate a safe public domain and protect the amenity of residents and surrounding environment.  In addition to the above, conditions have been included to further safe guard the amenity of the surrounding environment.

 

It is considered that the that the proposal maintains a residential character in its design and above measures can effectively and efficiently manage the number of students and or noise impacts associated with the proposed application.  It is therefore considered, the proposal will be consistent with the zone objectives.

 

Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013

 

Part B7 – Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access

A number of submissions have been received from neighbouring properties objecting to the development on the grounds that it will cause parking, traffic and safety impacts.

 

The proposed swimming school will have a maximum of 4 staff and 12 students and occupy an area of approximately 193m2 (GFA) on the site with hours 6:30am to 8:00pm Mon-Fri and 6:30am to 6:30pm Sat-Sun.  A total of 5 spaces are proposed on site comprising of 3 staff and two visitor spaces. The visitor spaces are provided behind the staff spaces in a tandem arrangement.

 

Randwick Council’s Development Control Plan 2013 does not specify a parking rate for swimming schools; however, the Swim School falls within the definition of an indoor recreation facility and therefore, the following parking rate under the DCP apply to the development: 

 

·      Indoor Recreational facility = 1 space per 25m2 or Transport Study

 

The above DCP rate will result in a parking demand of 8 spaces for the proposed development and therefore resulting in a parking deficiency of 3 spaces.

 

A traffic and parking assessment has been submitted with the application by Headway Traffic and transport consultants, which was considered by Council’s Development Engineers. 

 

Council’s Development Engineer’s concluded that the proposed 3 staff spaces for the proposed 4 staff is considered reasonable in this context and staff parking is unlikely to impact on availability of on-street parking in the surround area.

 

Moreover, Council’s Development Engineers have also considered the two visitors spaces provided on the site and have considered the worst case scenario of all 12 patrons driving to the centre.  It was concluded that whilst the tandem layout with visitors parking is not ideal, in this case the two car spaces are considered acceptable as no classes will be held during the time of 8:45am to 9:30am and 2:15pm to 3:15pm being the peak pick up and drop off times for the adjacent school and can be workable with a suitable plan of management.

 

In addition to the above, traffic impacts from the development have been considered and it was concluded in this instance that the traffic generated from the development is not expected to create any unacceptable traffic impacts.  However, it was recommended that conditions be included within the consent which explicitly require the operation of the development to be in accordance with the Plan of Management.

 

Refer to detailed assessment made by Council’s Development Engineers in the Referrals section of this report which demonstrates that the proposed development subject to conditions will meet the parking requirements in the DCP.

 

3.1        Part C1 - Low Density Residential 

There are no specific built form controls that apply to this type of Indoor recreation use and therefore, an assessment will be carried out based on the amenity impacts associated with the use with consideration to the built form controls set out for Low Density Residential development. 

 

Building Envelope

A number of submissions have been received objecting to the development on the grounds that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site, is not setback adequately from the streetscape and is not consistent or in line with surrounding dwellings and streetscape. 

 

The proposed development is located on a corner allotment with frontages to both Loch Maree Street and Storey Street.  The proposed building has been designed to reflect design elements of the existing buildings within the streetscape and is of a scale that will integrate with the established character of the area. 

 

Whilst it is noted that the building adopts a 900mm setback to the secondary street frontage (Storey Street) to the north western corner the setback increases to 1.5m and to the main frontage the setback is 3.025m which is consistent with the front setback of the neighbouring building to the south. To the southern side the building is setback 900mm and to the rear the building is setback 8.085m. The proposed setbacks with the exception of the secondary street frontage setback are consistent with the setback controls set out for low density residential development.  Notwithstanding the above, it is not considered that the proposed setbacks will result in any unreasonable amenity impacts on the streetscape character or neighbouring properties in that the building is only single storey, adopts a roof form that is consistent with the established residential character in the area and does not result in significant overshadowing impacts as demonstrated in Figure 1 below under solar access and overshadowing.  Subject to conditions, the proposed development will not result in any unreasonable amenity impacts in terms of acoustic and visual privacy.

 

In addition to the above, the building complies with the height of building and FSR standards in the Randwick LEP 2012. 

 

Solar access and overshadowing

The required level of solar access may not be fully achievable in certain circumstances due to issues such as subdivision pattern, allotment orientation and site topography. In these cases, development proposals must be designed to maximise solar access and simultaneously minimise overshadowing upon the neighbours through responsive and skilful solutions.

 

Due to the orientation of the site there will be unavoidable overshadowing impacts to the neighbouring dwellings.  

 

The shadow diagrams submitted below in figure 1 demonstrate that the current development on the subject site and neighbouring property to the south (72 Loch Maree Street) do not meet the minimum 3 hour solar access requirements to their private open space.  In addition to the above, the neighbouring property’s north facing windows also do not receive the required solar access.

 

The shadow diagrams demonstrate the proposed development will not reduce solar access to the neighbouring property’s private open space and the solar access to the north facing windows of this property will be slightly improved as the proposed building height will be slightly lower than the existing building and maintains a single built form that is similarly positioned to the existing building on the site.  However, the shadow diagrams indicate that the neighbour’s north facing windows will receive 3 hours of solar access to parts of their north facing windows.

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1: Existing and proposed shadow diagrams on 21 June.

 

Privacy and acoustic amenity

The proposed development is located on a corner allotment with two street frontage.  The window and glazed door openings to the northern and eastern elevations face these two street frontage and therefore, will not cause any privacy concerns. There are no window opening proposed to the rear western elevation.  The window openings to the south are fixed opaque glazed windows and are not expected to cause any acoustic or privacy concerns.

 

The operating hours of the business are as follows:

 

·      Monday to Friday from 6.30am to 8pm; and

·      Saturday and Sunday from 6.30am to 6.30pm.  

 

The swim school will be closed during NSW public holidays.  

 

The proposed operating hours of the business are not expected to cause any significant privacy concerns.  The swim school is limited to a maximum of 12 students in the pool at any time and this is enforced within the Plan of Management and consent conditions.  In addition, an amended Plan of Management is submitted with the application which details the operation and management of the business on the site for its use as a swim school.  This will assist in mitigate potential amenity impacts to the neighbouring properties and public domain. 

Further, an acoustic report prepared by GHD, dated September 2018 has been submitted with the application which assesses the proposed equipment and activities to be undertaken at the subject premises.

 

One of the main noise concerns relates to the mechanical ventilation located outside the court yard of the recreation facility which is proposed to be operating 24/7.  The acoustic report recommends that an absorptive fencing (1.8m high) be provided for the plant room courtyard along the western side boundary of the site and for the internals of the plant room be covered partially (minimum 50%) with absorptive material.

 

The acoustic assessment concludes that normal operation of the swim centre will comply with the noise limits at all sensitive receivers, with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. This is due to the small scale of the development and the existing noise environment.  In addition to the above, the pool filter and associated equipment is proposed to be housed in a plant room to the north western corner within the main building away from neighbouring properties.  Therefore, are not expect to cause significant acoustic impacts.

 

The following recommendations were made by the acoustic consultant:

 

To ensure compliance with the relevant noise emission criteria, the following recommendation should be incorporated into the design of the development:

 

·      A minimum 50% of the internal surface area of the plant room (approximately 28 m2) should be covered with minimum 50 mm thick absorptive material. The absorptive material should be evenly distributed throughout the plant room and have a minimum NRC of 0.8.

·      It is recommended that a 1.8 metres high wall is constructed along the western boundary of the site. The wall should is to be constructed of a material with a minimum surface density of 15kg/m3 and is not to contain any gaps along its surface and is to be close fitting to the ground. A lapped and capped timber fence will achieve this.

·      An attenuator with the specifications and performance outlined in Table 5-2 and Table 5-3 is to be fitted to the exhaust path of the dehumidifier. Details of the location of the exhaust path can be found on dehumidifier technical datasheet found in Appendix C.

·      It is assumed that all intake and supply paths to the dehumidifier unit will be enclosed with ductwork to the internal areas of the learn-to swim centre.

·      The fresh air intake ductwork path to the dehumidifier unit is contain a minimum of 1.5 metre long ductwork with 50 mm thick internal absorptive lining.

 

Council’s Environmental Officers have also recommended within the consent that an acoustic report be obtained from a suitably qualified and experienced consultant (and a copy be forwarded to the Council within 3 months after the commencement of use), which demonstrates and certifies that noise and vibration from the development (including all plant and equipment) satisfies the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW Office of Environment & Heritage/Environment Protection Authority Noise Control Manual & Industrial Noise Policy and conditions of Council’s development consent. 

 

In conclusion, with the inclusion of conditions recommended by Council’s Environmental Health officer it is not expected that the proposed development will result in any unreasonable privacy and acoustic impact to the neighbouring properties.

 

Refer to detailed comments made by Council’s Environmental Health officer.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:           Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

 

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

That the application to construct a single storey building and operation of swim school be approved (subject to conditions) for the following reasons:

 

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

 

·      The proposal will not result in any unreasonable amenity impacts to the surround locality and public domain.

 

·      The proposed building has been designed to reflect design elements of the existing buildings within the streetscape and is of a scale that will integrate with the established character of the area. 

 

·      The proposed activity and built form will provide opportunities for the local community to develop essential water safety skills and improve swimming ability for education experience and ongoing development, which will be in the public interest. 

 

·      An amended plan of management and acoustic report have been submitted to minimize the impacts of development, facilitate a safe public domain and protect the amenity of residents and surrounding environment. 

 

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

 


 

Detailed Assessment

 

1.         Section 4.15 matters for consideration

 

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

 

Section 4.15 ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

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

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

The site is zoned R2 - Low Density Residential under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposed swill school which is classified as a recreation facility is permissible with Council’s consent. 

 

The provisions of Randwick LEP 2012 have been considered in the assessment of the application, as relevant, and are generally satisfied by the proposed development.  Refer to Key Issues above for detailed assessment.

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

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013.

The proposal generally satisfies the relevant controls in the Randwick DCP 2013.

 

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 site has sufficient area to accommodate the proposed land use and associated works. 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 relevant objectives of the zone and subject to conditions will not result in any significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality. The proposed activity and built form will provide opportunities for the local community to develop essential water safety skills and improve swimming ability for education experience and ongoing development. 

 

Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be in the public interest.

 

 

2.         Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

2.1        State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPS)

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 64—Advertising and Signage

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 – Advertising and Signage (SEPP 64) aims to ensure that signs are compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of an area, provide effective communication in suitable locations; and are of high quality design and finish. 

 

A single business identification sign is proposed on the northern frontage facing Storey Street. The proposed signage is compatible with the proposed use of the site as a Fit2Swim swim school which includes a logo identifying the business and is consistent with the aims and objectives of the policy.  Also, Schedule 1 of the SEPP will be satisfied as the signage will be compatible with the existing and future character of the area; does not compromise existing views or vistas; is of a scale and form appropriate for the streetscape; and does not compromise safety.  Further, the signage does not detract from the visual quality or amenity of the surrounding area and does not include illumination or any devices that will pose any risk to road, cyclists or pedestrians.

 

The proposed signage is considered to be appropriate and consistent with the provisions of SEPP 64.

 

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 proposal is permissible with Council’s consent.  Refer to Key Issues above which demonstrates that the proposed development will meet the objectives of this standard.

 

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

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

0.5:1

Approx. 0.48:1

Yes

Height of Building (Maximum)

9.5m

4.7m

Yes

 

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.

 

Part B7 – Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access

Refer to Key Issues above which demonstrates that the parking and traffic requirements have been meet for the proposed development.

 

Part B9 - Plan of Management (PoM)

Objective

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

 

An amended Plan of Management (POM) has been prepared by Fit2Swim Pty Ltd (dated November 2018) which identifies mitigation measures, operational procedures and arrangement, management and safety practices for conducting the business to minimise potential environmental and amenity impacts upon nearby residents and local area.

The PoM demonstrates that with good onsite management the overall operations of the swim school will be operated in a safe and effective manner in order to minimise the amenity impacts on the neighbouring properties and will satisfy the objectives of this control. 

 

In addition to the above, no issues have been raised by Council’s Environmental Health officer in relation to the amended PoM.

 

Part C1 - Low Density Residential 

There are no specific built form controls that apply to this type of Indoor recreation use and therefore, an assessment will be carried based on the amenity impacts associated with the use with consideration to the built form controls set out for Low Density Residential development.  Refer to Key issues above which addresses the environmental impacts associated with the proposed development.

 

4.         Referral Comments

 

4.1       Environmental Health

 

Proposed Development:

The proposal is for the demolition of a one storey house and the construction of an indoor recreational swimming pool to operate as a swimming school Monday to Friday 6:30am to 8:00pm Monday to Friday and Sunday and Saturday 6:30am to 6:30pm.

 

Environmental Comments:

 

Acoustic Amenity

An acoustic report prepared by GHD dated September 2018 has been submitted with the application which assesses the proposed equipment and activities to be undertaken at the subject premises.

 

One of the main noise concerns relates to the mechanical ventilation located outside the recreation facility which is proposed to be operating 24/7. The applicant has confirmed that mechanical ventilation was assessed as part of the acoustic assessment and attenuation measures have been included to minimise disturbance from its use. The pool filter and associated equipment is proposed to be housed in a plant room.

 

The applicant has confirmed there are no openable windows and no openable skylights to the pool concourse. The pool is proposed to be fully enclosed in a sealed indoor environment that is properly ventilated as described in the Mechanical Report. 

 

Based on the acoustic report received GHD concludes that the development can achieve the relevant noise emission criteria with the implementation of all the recommendations.

 

An amended plan of management prepared by Fit2Swim Pty Ltd dated November 2018 was provided to Council detailing the operational and management of the site for its use as a swim school.

 

There is a limit of maximum 12 students in the pool at any time.

 

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

 

Odour impact

The applicant has advised that the only openable windows in the proposed new building are located at the eastern side along Storey Street. However, the pool concourse area itself will remain sealed behind an internal glass wall. The dehumidifier unit, ducting and equipment has been designed to ventilate the indoor air in accordance with Australian Standards and no odours will be emitted. 

 

DSA Consulting prepared Scope of Works of the work to be done and the materials used for the mechanical services to be installed in the Fit2Swim Maroubra (project no.: 218035) dated September 2018.

The Scope of Work of the Mechanical Ventilation Report states that the dehumidifier unit "will control odour formation from the pool chlorine as the pool air will be replaced with 100% outside air 6 times every one hour (i.e. every 10 minutes)." 

 

The potential for odour has been considered and appropriate conditions have been included to minimise odour impacts.

 

4.2       Development Engineers

An application has been received for the demolition of existing structures, construction of single storey building and operation of swim school with hours of 6.30am to 8pm Monday to Friday and 6.30am to 6.30pm Saturday and Sunday, provision of 5 carpark spaces with access from Storey Street and associated works at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Amended architectural plans by Peter Hunt Architect, dwg’s DA100-302, dated 10/09/18;

·      Statement of Environmental Effects by City Plan, ref 18-139, rev 03 Final v2, dated 11/09/18;

·      Detail & Level Survey Sheet DA07 by Peter hunt architect dated 10th September 2018;

·      Traffic and Parking Study by headway Traffic and transport;

·      Flood Report by Council’s Drainage engineer issued 30 April 2018.

 

PARKING COMMENTS

The application has attracted a large number of public submissions both in favour and objecting to the proposed development. Most of the submission objecting to the development have highlighted traffic & parking as a significant concern for surrounding residents. The applicant was required to submit a detailed traffic and parking report as part of their DA submission and Development Engineering has undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the traffic and parking impacts as follows.

 

Current Situation

The single storey dwelling currently occupying the site is served by two carspaces, with one space provided within the rear garage and a 2nd space provided on the hardstand area in front of the garage. This would comply with Council’s current DCP requirements.

 

Proposed Development

The proposed swimming school will have a maximum of 4 staff and 12 students and occupy an area of approximately 193m2 (GFA) on the site with hours 6:30am to 8:00pm Mon-Fri and 6:30am to 6:30pm Sat-Sun. A total of 5 spaces are proposed on site comprising of 3 staff and two visitor spaces. The visitor spaces are provided behind the staff spaces in a tandem arrangement.

 

Randwick Council’s Development Control Plan 2013 does not specify a parking rate for swimming schools; however, the Swim School falls within the definition of an indoor recreation facility and therefore, the following parking rate under the DCP apply to the development: 

 

·      Indoor Recreational facility = 1 space per 25m2 or Transport Study

 

The above DCP rate will result in an estimated parking demand of around 7.7 (say 8) spaces for the proposed development as noted on page 14 of the parking and traffic assessment. The proposed 5 spaces would therefore suggest a shortfall of 3 spaces when adopting the DCP rate.

 

A more considered approach has also been utilised in this assessment and a traffic and parking assessment by Headway Traffic and transport consultants has been submitted with this application. The following comments are made in relation to this study and expected traffic and parking demand.

 


 

Staff Parking

The traffic and parking assessment indicates 3 of the proposed 5 car spaces will be provided for the proposed 4 staff noting that one staff member will be arriving by bicycle. Hence the parking study claims 100% of staff parking requirement will be catered for.

 

Although it is quite an assumption that the subject staff member will be continually employed by the centre into the future, it is reasonable to assume that a proportion of staff will arrive at the centre by alternative means of transport to a motor vehicle. For example the DCP staff parking rate for childcare centres acknowledges this & specifies a parking rate of 1 space per two staff, which would be comparable to this development. 

 

The proposed 3 staff spaces for the proposed 4 staff is therefore considered reasonable in this context and staff parking would unlikely impact on the surrounding availability of on-street parking. It should also be noted that a bike rack is proposed to be provided the site and has also been conditioned in this report.

 

Patron Parking

Assuming a worst case scenario of all 12 patrons driving to centre (requiring 12 spaces) as a starting point the proposed provision of just two off-street spaces would suggest a significant parking shortfall. This is addressed in the parking and traffic assessment study as follows;

 

·      The study claims that information from other centres indicates at least 5% of patrons will arrive by public transport. Development Engineering notes that this is a reasonable claim & would reduce parking demand for patrons by about 1 space (when rounded).

 

·      The study claims that information from other centres indicates at least 20% of patrons will walk to the centre. Development Engineering notes that this is a reasonable claim and would reduce parking demand for patrons further by another 2 spaces (when rounded).

 

·      The study claims that information from other centres indicates at least 10% of patrons will have sibling enrolments in classes. Development Engineering notes that this is a reasonable claim and would reduce parking demand for patrons further by another 1 space (when rounded)

 

·      The resulting parking requirement after taking into account the above points would suggest a requirement of 8 spaces for 12 patrons. With two off-street spaces provided this results in a shortfall of 6 spaces.

 

·      The parking and traffic assessment indicates a total of 30 on-street spaces are available during weekdays and 37 during weekends within 100m of the site. Additional parking is available beyond 100m walk.

 

Some on-street parking is only available outside of peak pickup and drop-off times for the school including 12 spaces within the 10 minute drop off zone opposite the site on Storey Street (8:30-9:30 and 2:30-4:00pm) and a No parking zone in Loch Maree St adjacent to school (8:30 – 9am and 2:30-4:00pm) containing 25 spaces. These spaces would be unrestricted & freely available outside of the stated times including all weekend. It is noted that no classes are to be held during the times of 8:45am to 9:30am and 2:30pm to 3:15pm being the peak pickup and drop-off times for the adjacent school.

 

·      Unrestricted on-street parking within 100m of the site is on the southern side of Storey street east and west of the subject site and in Loch Maree Street south of the subject site. The parking study indicates on-street parking is available within these areas with peak demand observed to be around 70% of capacity corresponding to about 10 spaces being available.

 

·      The Plan of management aims to minimise parking demand during the peak pickup and drop-off times.

 

Development Engineering considers some of aspects of the plan of management would be difficult to enforce such as restricting Monday to Friday classes to students of local schools or stopping parents/carers from pickup drop-off during peak times.  Notwithstanding, even allowing for some breakdown of the proposed parking arrangements, it is considered the proposed development is not expected to create any unacceptable parking impacts in this instance.

 

PARKING LAYOUT COMMENTS

Any new carspaces are to be provided in accordance with the minimum requirements of Australian Standard 2890.1. The submitted plans appear to demonstrate compliance with this requirements with carspaces of dimensions 2.8m x 5.4m proposed.

 

The tandem layout with visitors parking behind the staff is not ideal however can be workable with a suitable plan of management.

 

TRAFFIC COMMENTS

The proposed swimming school will bring less than 8 vehicle movements at any one time and more importantly these peaks will occur outside of the peak times for the neighbouring schools

 

The Plan of Management plans to restrict traffic generation around the time of the peak pickup and drop off times of the adjacent school by;

 

·      Restricting the Mon-Friday classes to students who attend the local primary schools that are within walking distance MJPS, International French school and Mt Sinaai College.

 

·      During peak pickup and drop-off times Fit2swim staff will accompany students to and from their school

 

·      Fit2swim staff will include guidance on appropriatet parking and drop-offs as part of the induction of swimming school patrons.

 

Smooth operation of the traffic and parking arrangements especially around peak pickup and drop-off times for the adjacent school is dependent on staff and patrons commitment and enforcement of the Plan of Management so as to minimse the parking and traffic impacts. Development Engineering considers some of these aspects would be difficult to enforce such as restricting Monday to Friday classes to students of local schools or stopping parents/carers from pickup drop-off during peak times.  Notwithstanding, even allowing for some breakdown of the proposed parking arrangements, it is considered the proposed development is not expected to create any unacceptable traffic impacts in this instance.

 

It is recommended that conditions explicitly requiring the operation of the development to be in accordance with the Plan of Management be included in the conditions of consent.

 

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

 

FLOODING COMMENTS

The planning officer is advised that the subject development site is located adjacent to a localised low point and flow path in Loch Maree & Storey Streets and may be susceptible to flooding during major storm events.

 

The site lies within the study catchment areas covered by the Council commissioned ‘Birds Gully Flood Study’ and the applicant was instructed to obtain a flood report to determine flood levels for the subject site. This has now been issued by Council’s Drainage Engineer and indicates only minor flooding on the site. The following flood levels and information are specified in the flood report:

 

·      The max flood depth on the site for the 1 in 100 (1% AEP) flood is 90mm

·      The max flood depth on the site for the 1 in 20 (5% AEP) flood is 80mm

·      The site is not located within a flood storage area or floodway

 

 Part B8 of Council’s DCP currently requires:

 

·      All new habitable floor area is to be provided at or above the level of the 1% AEP (1 in 100yr) flood + 0.5m freeboard  or twice the depth of flow in overland flow path.

·      All new Open hardstand carspaces are to be provided at or above the level of the 5% AEP (1 in 20yr) flood.

·      Developments shall not decrease available flood storage that may result in an increase of flood levels on adjoining properties.

 

The submitted plans indicate the proposed floor level of the development will be RL 27.10 AHD. This is well over twice the depth of flow at the pedestrian entrance on Storey St where the floor level is generally 300mm higher than footpath level. This is satisfactory.

 

At the western end of the development the floor level appears to be only 100mm above surrounding ground level however the flood model indicates the flood depths may be up to 70mm ( for 1 in 100yr flood) hence the proposed floor level of RL 27.10 may not achieve sufficient freeboard in this vicinity. As any amendments are likely to be minor this has been addressed by condition. A similar situation exists with the proposed Filtration Plant room where flood depths are even smaller. Suitable conditions have been included in this consent.

 

The location of the carspaces  will experience very little flooding during the 1 in 20 yr event with max flood depth in this vicinity only 10-20mm. This is very minor and carspaces will be able to be satisfactorily provided at this location.

 

DRAINAGE COMMENTS

On site stormwater detention is required for this development.

 

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

 

The stormwater must be discharged (by gravity) either:

 

i.     Directly to the kerb and gutter in front of the subject site in Loch Maree or Storey street; or

ii.     Directly into Council’s underground drainage system located in Storey Street via the existing kerb inlet pit at the corner of Loch Maree St; or

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

 

WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMENTS

The applicant is required to submit to Council and have approved by Council’s Director Planning, a Waste Management Plan (WMP) detailing waste and recycling storage and disposal for the development site.

 

The plan shall detail the type and quantity of waste to be generated by the development; demolition waste; construction waste; materials to be re-used or recycled; facilities/procedures for the storage, collection recycling & disposal of waste and show how the on-going management of waste for the units will operate.

 

Tree Management Comments

There is a row of four, semi-established, closely planted trees on the Storey Street verge, between the pedestrian crossing and existing vehicle crossing, which perform a partial screening and privacy function between the dwelling and busy roadway/school, which would be a desirable feature as part of such a proposal.

 

All are only in fair condition due to repeated heavy lopping away from the roadway, footpath, but mostly the overhead wires, which has restricted their true size to about 4-5m in height, and comprise from east to west, a Melaleuca quinquinervia (Broad Leafed Paperbark), a smaller Acmena smithii (Lilly Pilly), a Tristaniopsis laurina (Watergum) then a Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box).

 

The Ground Floor Plan, dwg. DA101, shows that vehicle access will be maintained along the western site boundary, and while the layback will be slightly widened on both sides, with a formal, concrete crossing to replace the existing grass cover, a suitable setback will still be provided to the closest tree, the Brush Box, which will avoid any major impact, especially given the shallow depth of excavations that are involved, with protection measures and a bond imposed in order to avoid secondary impacts such as damage by trucks, machinery, deliveries and similar during the course of works.

 

There are also two semi-mature, closely planted Agonis flexuosa (Willow Mytles), spaced evenly across the width of the Loch Maree Street verge, with the southern tree being 3-4m tall, and the northern tree about 5m.

 

Both are also in fair health and poor condition due to clearance lopping, and while they will remain unaffected given an absence of any external works on this frontage, the same precautionary conditions described above also need to be provided for these two.

 

The various shrubs/small trees within the rear setback of the subject site are all insignificant, including those on the southern boundary, between the existing dwelling and free-standing garage, so while the Landscape Plan shows that the retention of some will be attempted, conditions will not formally require this, as they will likely sustain major impacts during civil works associated with the internal car park area that will occupy this entire rear setback, in close proximity to these trees, with their removal and replacement more likely to result in a better long-term outcome for the site.

 

The small (2m tall) hedge in the front setback, across the width of the site, facing Loch Maree Street, is shown as being retained as part of the new landscape scheme, and while this may assist with privacy and similar, it is too small to be covered by the provisions of Council’s DCP, so conditions cannot, and have not been imposed.

 

4.3       Building comments

Classification – Class 9b – Assembly building

Rise in storeys – 1

Type C construction.

 

The main Building Code of Australia (BCA) issues relate to the following;

 

a.   Fire protection of the south facing windows, adjoining the waiting area the girls and boys change rooms, in accordance with the provisions of Clauses C3.2 and C3.4.

b.   The south facing external wall and the timber frame walls on the north facing elevation must have an FRL of 90/90/90 in accordance with the provisions of Table 5 of Specification C1.1.

c.  It is unclear as to whether the skylights can provide adequate ventilation to the new building which complies with Part F4 of the BCA and may require mechanical ventilation that complies with AS 1668.

 

Recommendation

 

That the RLPP grants development consent under Sections 4.16 and 4.17 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/583/2018 for demolition of existing structures, construction of single storey building and operation of swim school with hours of 6.30am to 8pm Monday to Friday and 6.30am to 6.30pm Saturday and Sunday, provision of 5 carpark spaces with access from Storey Street and associated works, at No. 70 Loch Maree Street, Maroubra, subject to the development consent conditions attached to this report.

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

RLPP - Consent conditions for DA/583/2018 - 70 Loch Maree Street, MAROUBRA

 

 

 

 


RLPP - Consent conditions for DA/583/2018 - 70 Loch Maree Street, MAROUBRA

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


Randwick Local Planning Panel                                                                                                                              13 December 2018

 

 

Development Application Report No. D106/18

 

 

Subject:                         6 Fenton Avenue, Maroubra (DA/510/2018)

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGBFolder No:                      DA/510/2018

Author:                          William Jones, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

 

Proposal:                       Demolition of existing structures and construction of a new 4 storey boarding house comprising 20 boarding rooms, 1 manager's room, 4 car parking spaces and associated site works.

Ward:                             Central Ward

Applicant:                      Pinnacle Plus

Owner:                           Mr P A Hill

Summary

Recommendation:          Refusal

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=600aed45-4f9c-4319-ad52-605666296368&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

Note: submissions were also received from the following properties located outside of the mapped area shown above:

 

·      132 Marine Parade, Maroubra

·      136 Marine Parade, Maroubra

·      152 Marine Parade, Maroubra

·      4 Hereward Street, Maroubra

·      2 Kyogle Street, Maroubra

·      44 Broome Street, Maroubra

·      432 Malabar Road, Maroubra (x 2 submissions)

·      57 Alma Road, Maroubra

·      7 Sackville Street, Maroubra

·      14 Wilson Street, Maroubra

·      5/125 Duncan Street, Maroubra

·      146 Duncan Street, Maroubra

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan


 

Executive summary

 

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

 

The proposal seeks development consent for demolition of existing structures and construction of a new 4 storey boarding house comprising 20 boarding rooms, 1 manager's room, 4 car parking spaces and associated site works at 6 Fenton Avenue, Maroubra.

 

The proposal was advertised and notified in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (“RDCP”). Thirty seven (37) submissions and a petition comprising ninety three (93) signatures objecting to the proposed development were received. The key concerns raised in the submissions include lack of car parking, the inappropriateness of the boarding house use, anti-social behaviour, excessive building height, lack of residential amenity, and privacy and acoustic impacts.

 

The proposal contravenes the height of buildings development standard (12m maximum and 12.92m proposed) under Clause 4.3 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (“RLEP”) by 7.6% as measured from the eastern portion of the uppermost roof to existing ground level. The applicant did not submit a written request to vary the development standard in accordance with Clause 4.6 (3) of the RLEP 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. Therefore, development consent cannot be granted pursuant to Clause 4.6 (4) of the RLEP. Notwithstanding, the proposed building height is not supported given it will result in adverse visual amenity impacts when viewed from adjoining properties, has the potential to adversely overshadow the adjoining property to the south, and the building height will result in a development that does not contribute to the desired future character of the area.

 

The key issues relate to the non-compliance with the maximum permitted building height and the inappropriate built form that is not in accordance with the character of the area. Council’s Development Engineer also does not support the proposal due to the significant variation proposed to car parking (11 spaces required and 4 spaces proposed) and flooding issues, noting that the car park and the ground floor are not located at the flood planning level resulting in significant safety concerns for occupants.

 

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

 

Proposal

 

Demolition of existing structures and construction of a new 4 storey boarding house comprising 20 boarding rooms, 1 manager's room, 4 car parking spaces and associated site works.

Specifically:

 

·      20 double rooms;

·      1 manager’s room;

·      Communal open space at the rear of the site;

·      4 car parking spaces and 10 bicycle spaces at the rear of the site with access via a right of way;

·      Garbage room at the rear of the site; and

·      Landscaping and associated site works.

Site Description and Locality

 

The subject site is identified as 6 Fenton Avenue, Maroubra and is legally described Lot 5 and Lot 6 in DP 312363. The site is 366.8m2, is rectangular in shape and has a 10.36m frontage to Fenton Avenue to the south east. The site is relatively flat and has a north western to south eastern orientation. The site currently comprises a 2 storey dwelling house with a garage at the rear of the site accessed via the right of way. The site does not contain any trees, is not subject to a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area.

 

The adjoining property to the north-east is a part 3 and part 4 storey residential flat building. The adjoining property to the south-west is a part 2 and part 3 storey dwelling house that has a nil setback to the common side boundary. The adjoining property to the north-west is a single storey dwelling house. To the south of the subject site on the southern side of Fenton Avenue is a dwelling house and 2 storey residential flat buildings that are part of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone pursuant to the RLEP, and to the north-east are various commercial premises’ along McKeon Street. The surrounding precinct is considered to be undergoing transition from lower density development to medium density development, as evidenced by the subject DA.

 

Relevant history

 

The original DA proposed demolition of existing structures and construction of a new 4 storey  boarding house comprising 19 boarding rooms, 1 manager's room, 3 car parking spaces and associated site works.

 

Figure 1. Original proposed ground floor layout.

 

Following a preliminary planning assessment and receipt of internal referral responses from Council’s Development Engineer and Design Excellence Panel, Council raised the following concerns with the applicant as part of a request for additional information:

 

·      The site is subject to flooding (0.6m depth for the 1% AEP and 0.3m depth for the 5% AEP). A flood report application form was requested so that the flood planning level can be obtained. The applicant was requested to raise the ground floor level and car park to be above the 1% AEP + 0.5m freeboard.

·      11 car parking spaces are required pursuant to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (“ARH SEPP”) and only 3 spaces were provided. The submitted Traffic and Parking Assessment was not supported by Development Engineering, who advise that the surrounding area is subject to high demand for on street parking.

·      Concerns with the width of the right of way (4.57m) that would restrict vehicles attempting to park in the proposed parking spaces.

·      9 waste bin are required pursuant to the RDCP and the proposed bin room was not considered to be large enough to accommodate the required number of bins. Individual bins were requested to be shown on amended drawings.

·      Based on Council’s calculation of the floor space ratio (“FSR”), the DA did not comply with the maximum permitted FSR (1.404:1 proposed and 1.4:1 maximum permitted). The applicant was requested to amend the development to comply noting that the boarding rooms are significantly oversized based on the minimum room size requirements of the ARH SEPP.

·      Improved building articulation was required.

·      Concerns with privacy impacts from elevated horizontal circulation.

·      An increased rear setback was required.

·      An acoustic assessment report was required from Council’s Environmental Health Officer.

·      Concerns raised with overshadowing of the POS of the adjoining property to the south-west.

·      The communal open space was required to be relocated from the frontage.

·      Requested the applicant address the concerns raised in the submissions.

·      In response to Council’s DEP comments, the applicant was also required to reconsider the design of horizontal circulation, improve the design of communal open space and the common room, provision of ceiling fans and clothes drying area, and provision of a landscape plan.

 

The applicant provided an initial response to the above on 5 October 2018 advising that a Hydraulic Engineer and Traffic consultant have been engaged to address Council’s concerns and that their responses would be provided (which has not been provided). Amended drawings were then submitted by the applicant on 26 October 2018 proposing the following changes:

 

·      Increased building height from 12m to 12.92m.

·      Provision of an additional double boarding room (20 now proposed and originally 19).

·      Provision of 4 car parking spaces with access from the right of way.

·      Relocated communal open space to the rear.

·      Raised ground floor level.

·      Reconfigured building providing a centralised courtyard and reconfigured facades.

·      Reduction in size of the boarding rooms.

·      Deletion of the common room.

·      Increased rear boundary setback.

·      Reduced GFA with GFA calculation plans demonstrating compliance.

 

Figure 2. Amended ground floor layout.

 

It was unclear whether the amended drawings were based upon advice the applicant was obtaining from their Hydraulic Engineer and Traffic consultant given this information was not submitted with the amended drawings. Although the amended drawings have addressed some of Council’s concerns with regards to compliant FSR, increased rear setback and additional articulation, concerns are still raised with the proposed development as follows:

 

·      The proposed development now contravenes the height of buildings standard pursuant to Clause 4.3 of the RLEP (12m maximum permitted and 12.92m proposed = 7.6% variation) and no request to vary the development standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the RLEP has been submitted.

·      Concerns with overshadowing of the adjoining property to the south.

·      The proposed development does not contribute to the desired future character of the area and is not in accordance with the existing character.

·      An acoustic report has not been submitted.

·      Information from a Hydraulic Engineer and Traffic consultant has not been provided.

·      Deletion of the common room will result in poor residential amenity.

·      Council’s Development Engineer advises that the proposed development cannot be supported due to the parking shortfall, concerns with manoeuvrability of vehicles into the parking spaces, safety concerns due to inadequate parking and ground floor levels that will be inundated during a flood, and inadequate bin storage (refer to “Referrals” section).

 

The amended drawings were not publically re-exhibited as the amended proposal cannot be supported by Council officers due to the concerns outlined throughout this report. The concerns raised by objectors with regards to the original proposal remain relevant to the amended proposal.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

·      3 Chapman Avenue, Maroubra

·      5 Chapman Avenue, Maroubra

·      11 Chapman Avenue, Maroubra

·      16 Chapman Avenue, Maroubra

·      17 Chapman Avenue, Maroubra (x 2 submissions)

·      18 Chapman Avenue, Maroubra

·      19 Chapman Avenue, Maroubra

·      38 Chapman Avenue, Maroubra (x 3 submissions)

·      132 Marine Parade, Maroubra

·      136 Marine Parade, Maroubra

·      152 Marine Parade, Maroubra

·      36 McKeon Street, Maroubra

·      4 Hereward Street, Maroubra

·      2 Kyogle Street, Maroubra

·      44 Broome Street, Maroubra

·      432 Malabar Road, Maroubra (x 2 submissions)

·      57 Alma Road, Maroubra

·      7 Sackville Street, Maroubra

·      14 Wilson Street, Maroubra

·      5/125 Duncan Street, Maroubra

·      146 Duncan Street, Maroubra

·      2-4 Fenton Avenue, Maroubra (x 2 submissions)

·      2/2-4 Fenton Avenue, Maroubra

·      6/2-4 Fenton Avenue, Maroubra

·      7/2-4 Fenton Avenue, Maroubra

·      1 Maxwell Avenue, Maroubra

·      Unspecified residential address (x 6 submissions)

 

Issue

Comment

Lack of car / motorcycle / bicycle parking should not be supported given limited availability of on-street parking.

Noted.

Vehicles will not be able to manoeuvre into the parking spots from the right of way access.

Noted.

There are too many boarding house developments in Maroubra.

A boarding house as defined in the RLEP is permitted with consent in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

The boarding house does not contribute to affordable rental housing.

Affordable rental housing is not proposed.

The proposed boarding house will result in increased antisocial behaviour.

Noted, however it is considered that the on site manager and Plan of Management will ensure anti-social behaviour does not occur.

The boarding rooms will be rented long-term and not used for their intended purpose.

The boarding rooms would need to be utilised in accordance with the conditions imposed. Notwithstanding, the DA is recommended for refusal.

Poor residential amenity due to lack of ventilation, inadequate ceiling heights, lack of natural light and inadequate open space.

Noted.

The communal living room will receive less than 3 hours solar access and is smaller than required.

Noted. The amended drawings deleted the communal living room, which is not supported.

Acoustic impacts to surrounding properties. Potential for noise transfer through the common wall to the adjoining property to the south.

Noted.

Privacy impacts (in particular, due to the rooftop open space).

Noted.

Visual amenity impacts.

Noted.

The access off Chapman Avenue is asphalt and should be concrete. The asphalt driveway is not approved.

No works are proposed to the right of way. Any existing non-compliances should be discussed with Council’s Building Regulation and Compliance team.

The development encroaches the common land at the rear of the site.

The proposal is contained within the subject site.

The proposed development will overshadow surrounding properties.

Noted.

Loss in property values.

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

The site is subject to flooding.

Noted.

Lack of bin storage and area for bin collection.

Noted.

Room sizes are too small.

Room sizes comply with the ARH SEPP.

Minimal green space / landscaping is provided that will result in poor residential amenity.

Noted.

Lack of open space will result in occupants utilising public spaces.

Communal open space complies with minimum dimensions, however lacks a mixture of soft and hard landscaping and is disconnected from the building, which is not supported.

Loss of views.

The proposal is not expected to impact water views given properties to the north-west are 1 ad 2 storeys. Notwithstanding, the proposed building height is not supported and the DA is recommended for refusal.

The proposal is not in accordance with the character of the area – unsympathetic design.

Noted.

Non-compliant front, side and rear setbacks.

No setback controls apply. Notwithstanding, using the controls provided in Part C2 of the RDCP as a guide, the northern side setback is not supported.

The proposed development does not comply with the Maroubra Beach DCP.

The Maroubra Beach Centre section of the RDCP does not apply to the proposed development given the site is located outside of the applicable area.

Increased hard surfaces and lack of permeable landscaping will increase water runoff.

Noted, however this can be dealt with via a condition for on-site stormwater detention.

No provision of energy saving devices.

Noted.

Security concerns with future occupants able to gain access to the adjoining property to the south due to the shared nil side boundary setback.

Noted.

Concerns with damage to adjoining properties during construction.

This can be dealt with via Council’s standard conditions (which includes preparation of a dilapidation report). Notwithstanding, the DA is recommended for refusal.

 

Key Issues

 

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 not been submitted to Council. Pursuant to Clause 4.3 of the RLEP, the height of buildings must not be more than 12m on the site. A building height of 12.92m is proposed, measured from the eastern portion of the uppermost roof above existing ground level.

 

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

Development Standard

12m

Proposed building height

12.92m

Exceedance of the Development Standard

7.6%

 

The proposed variation is not supported for the following reasons:

 

·      No written request to vary the development standard in accordance with Clause 4.6 (3) has been received from the applicant 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.

·      The proposed building height will result in visual amenity impacts when viewed from adjoining properties and the streetscape.

·      The proposed building height has the potential to adversely overshadow the adjoining property to the south.

·      The proposed building height results in a development that does not contribute to the desired future of the locality.

 

Car Parking and Motorcycle Parking

The State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (ARH SEPP) requires 11 car parking spaces and 4 parking spaces are proposed. The RDCP requires 4 motorcycle parking spaces and none are proposed. Council’s Development Engineer recommends refusal of the DA given the parking shortfall cannot be supported due to the lack of on street parking in the locality (refer to “Referrals” section).

 


 

Flooding

The site is located within a large entrapped low point and the Council commissioned & adopted Maroubra bay Flood Study indicates the site will be significantly flood affected. Flood depths of over 0.6m are predicted over most of the site for the 1% AEP (1 in 100 year) flood and over 0.3m for the 5% AEP (1 in 20 year) event.

 

Council’s Development Engineer recommends refusal of the DA given both the ground floor level and the car park is not located at the flood planning level, resulting in significant occupant safety concerns. Further, additional fill is proposed to build up the ground floor level that is located within the flood storage area, which cannot be supported.

 

Amenity Impacts (occupants and neighbours)

 

Visual Amenity

The proposed development will result in visual amenity impacts when viewed from the adjoining property to the north due to the non-compliant building height resulting in excessive bulk and scale, and the lack of articulation on the northern façade. Applying the setback controls in Part C2 of the RDCP as a guide, a merits-based assessment applies to lots with a site frontage width of less than 12m. A 1.2m northern side boundary setback is proposed to the ground, first and second floors. This is not sufficient considering the four storeys proposed and the lack of articulation provided. The minimal setback will emphasise the bulk and scale of the development, affecting the visual amenity of residents to the north.

 

Overshadowing

Concerns are raised with the accuracy of the submitted shadow diagrams. The original existing shadow diagrams indicated partial solar access to the POS of the adjoining dwelling to the south from 10:00am until 3:00pm. However the amended drawings included existing shadow diagrams showing no solar access to this POS, thereby attempting to justify the argument that the proposal will result in improved solar access to this property.

 

Figure 3. Insert from original existing shadow (adjoining POS in green)

 

Figure 4. Insert from amended existing shadow (adjoining POS in green)

 

Therefore it cannot be concluded that the development will not result in additional overshadowing of the adjoining property and whether the level of solar access maintained is reasonable.

 

Privacy / Acoustic Impacts

The terrace on the roof of the second floor is not clearly identified as POS or communal open space and is excessively sized. No privacy screening is proposed (which would not likely be supported regardless given the building height variation, with privacy screening adding to visual bulk), and therefore direct overlooking of adjoining properties will occur.

 

The subject site is located within an established residential area comprising low and medium density residential development. Concerns are raised with the excessively sized terrace that has the potential to result in acoustic impacts, noting that no acoustic assessment was submitted.

 

Communal Living Room and Communal Open Space

No communal living room is provided, which is required by the ARH SEPP given more than 5 boarding rooms are proposed. The lack of a communal living room will result in poor residential amenity.

 

The communal open space is also disconnected from the building, and is not provided with a mixture of soft and hard landscaping that will result in poor residential amenity.

 

Private Open Space

The Manager’s room is not provided with POS as required by the ARH SEPP, and the balconies off each boarding room are insufficiently sized and will be unusable.

 

Character of the Area

Clause 30A of the ARH SEPP states: A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.

 

The proposed development is not in accordance with the character of the area due to the excessive bulk and scale, the non-compliant building height, and the modular built form that is out of context with the character of the streetscape (refer to “Detailed Assessment”).

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:           Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

That the application for demolition of existing structures and construction of a new 4 storey boarding house comprising 20 boarding rooms, 1 manager's room, 4 car parking spaces and associated site works be refused for the following reasons:

 

1.        The proposed development does not comply with Clause 4.3 Height of buildings pursuant to the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and no request to vary a development standard has been submitted pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 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.

 

2.        The proposed development is not in accordance with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone in that it does not contribute to the desired future character of the area and does not protect the amenity of residents.

 

3.        The proposed development does not comply with key controls provided as part of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013, resulting in poor residential amenity and adverse amenity impacts to adjoining properties.

 

 


 

Detailed Assessment

1.         Section 4.15 matters for consideration

 

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

 

Section 4.15 ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

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

The proposed development is not in accordance with the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, or key development standards and objectives of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (see below).

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

Nil.

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

The proposal does not satisfy key objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (see table below).

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

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

 

The proposed development will result in adverse impacts on the built environment that will result in poor amenity for occupants and surrounding properties. The proposed development is not in accordance with the character of the locality.

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

The site is located in close proximity to local services and public transport. However the site is not considered suitable for the proposed development for the reasons outlined throughout this report.

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

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

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

The proposal does not promote the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone and accordingly, the proposal is not considered to be in the public interest.

 

2.         Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

2.1        State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPS)

 

2.1.1     State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

The State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (ARH SEPP) is applicable to the proposed development. Clause 29 provides – Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent and Clause 30 provides - Standards for boarding houses.

 

An assessment against these clauses is provided below:


 

 

Assessment of Clause 29 – Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent

Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(1) Floor Space ratio

The density and scale of the buildings when expressed as a floor space ratio are not more than:

 

(a)  the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of residential accommodation permitted on the land, or

 

(b)if the development is on land within a zone in which no residential accommodation is permitted—the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of development permitted on the land, or

(c)  if the development is on land within a zone in which residential flat buildings are permitted and the land does not contain a heritage item that is identified in an environmental planning instrument or an interim heritage order or on the State Heritage Register—the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of residential accommodation permitted on the land, plus:

 

(i)               0.5:1, if the existing maximum floor space ratio is 2.5:1 or less.

 

In response to (c), the site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential where a residential flat building is permitted with consent. The site is not subject to a heritage item and the existing FSR is 0.9:1. Therefore the bonus 0.5:1 FSR applies resulting in a maximum FSR of 1.4:1 (512.4m2).

 

The proposed FSR is 1.19:1 (437.5m2).

 

Complies.

(2) (a) Building height

 

if the building height of all proposed buildings is not more than the maximum building height permitted under another environmental planning instrument for any building on the land,

The maximum permitted building height is 12m.

 

The proposed development has a building height of 12.92m measured from the eastern portion of the uppermost roof above existing ground level.

Does not comply – refer to “Key Issues” section.

(b) Landscaped area

 

if the landscape treatment of the front setback area is compatible with the streetscape in which the building is located,

The front setback area is capable of being appropriately landscaped. Notwithstanding, no landscape plan was submitted therefore the extent of landscaping is not known.

 

Does not comply.

(c) Solar access

 

where the development provides for one or more communal living rooms, if at least one of those rooms receives a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter,

 

No communal living room is proposed.

N/A

(d) Private open space

 

if at least the following private open space areas are provided (other than the front setback area):

 

(i)  one area of at least 20 square metres with a minimum dimension of 3 metres is provided for the use of the lodgers,

 

(ii)  if accommodation is provided on site for a boarding house manager—one area of at least 8 square metres with a minimum dimension of 2.5 metres is provided adjacent to that accommodation,

 

The communal area is 46m2 with a minimum dimension exceeding 3m located at the rear of the building, which complies.

 

The manager’s room is not provided with open space, which does not comply.

Does not comply.

(e) Parking

 

if:

 

(i)  in the case of development carried out by or on behalf of a social housing provider in an accessible area—at least 0.2 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room, and

(ii)  in the case of development carried out by or on behalf of a social housing provider not in an accessible area—at least 0.4 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room, and

(iia)  in the case of development not carried out by or on behalf of a social housing provider—at least 0.5 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room, and

(iii)  in the case of any development—not more than 1 parking space is provided for each person employed in connection with the development and who is resident on site,

 

0.5 parking spaces per boarding room and 1 manager’s parking space is required = 11 spaces. 4 spaces are proposed, which is not supported by Council’s Development Engineer (refer to “Referrals” section).

Does not comply – refer to “Key Issues” section.

(f) Accommodation Size

 

if each boarding room has a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of at least:

 

(i)  12 square metres in the case of a boarding room intended to be used by a single lodger, or

 

(ii)  16 square metres in any other case.

The manger’s room is 12m2 and all other double rooms >16m2.

 

Complies.

(3) A boarding house may have private kitchen or bathroom facilities in each boarding room but is not required to have those facilities in any boarding room.

The proposal includes a private kitchen and bathroom in each room.

Complies.

 

Assessment of Clause 30 - Standards for Boarding Houses

Standard

Assessment

Compliance

1 (a) if a boarding house has 5 or more boarding rooms, at least one (1) communal living room will be provided.

More than 5 boarding rooms are proposed and a communal living room has not been provided. 

 

 

Does not comply.

(b) no boarding room will have a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of more than 25 square metres.

 

No boarding room exceeds 25m2.

 

 

Complies.

(c) no boarding room will be occupied by more than 2 adult lodgers.

Double rooms are proposed.

Complies.

(d) adequate bathroom and kitchen facilities will be available within the boarding house for the use of each lodger.

There facilities are provided in each room. 

Complies.

(e) if the boarding house has capacity to accommodate 20 or more lodgers, a boarding room or on site dwelling will be provided for a boarding house manager.

 

A boarding house manager is proposed to occupy the site and a separate single room is provided.

Complies.

(g) if the boarding house is on land zoned primarily for commercial purposes, no part of the ground floor of the boarding house that fronts a street will be used for residential purposes unless another environmental planning instrument permits such a use.

The land is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential.

N/A

(h) at least one parking space will be provided for a bicycle, and one will be provided for a motorcycle, for every 5 boarding rooms.

4 bicycle and 4 motorcycle parking spaces are required. 10 bicycle spaces are provided however no motorcycle parking spaces are provided.

Does not comply.

 

Assessment of Clause 30A - Character of the local area

Clause 30A of the ARH SEPP states: A consent authority must not consent to development to which this Division applies unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.

 

Planning comment: A planning principal has been established via Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council [2005] NSW LEC 191 to test whether a proposal is compatible with the character of the area on the basis that:

 

Where compatibility between a building and its surroundings is desirable, its two major aspects are physical impact and visual impact. In order to test whether a proposal is compatible with its context, two questions should be asked.

 

1.    Are the proposal’s physical impacts on surrounding development acceptable? The physical impacts include constraints on the development potential of surrounding sites.

 

2.    Is the proposal’s appearance in harmony with the buildings around it and the character of the street?

 

In response to point no. 1 of the planning principal, the physical impacts on surrounding development is not acceptable given:

·       The built form will result in visual amenity impacts when viewed from adjoining properties due to the bulk and scale afforded by the non-compliant building height.

·       The built form will potentially result in adverse overshadowing of the southern adjoining property, which currently receives compliant solar access.

·       The large rooftop terrace is not described on the drawings and therefore could be occupied as communal open space, which has the potential to result in acoustic and privacy impacts to adjoining properties.

·       No security measures are provided to the southern side of the rooftop terrace to prevent people accessing the adjoining property.

In response to point no. 2 of the planning principal, the appearance of the building is not in harmony with the buildings around it and the character of the street given:

·       The height of the proposed 4 storey building visually contrasts with the height of surrounding buildings, and is noticeably higher than the 4 storey RFB to the north and 3 storey dwelling house to the south (which reads as 2 storeys from the street). The height of the building is also in contrast to the single and 2 storey dwellings to the south-east on the southern side of Fenton Avenue. The planning principal acknowledges that there are situations where extreme differences in scale and appearance produces good urban design involving landmark buildings. In this context however, there are no landmark buildings and the excessive building height results in a building that will become dominant in its context, which is therefore not in harmony with other buildings.

·       The front setback steps back in three sections from south to north (responding to the nil front setback provided by the adjoining property to the south and increased setback of the adjoining property to the north). The setback results in the front façade being broken into three sections, which in conjunction with the square boarding rooms above reads as a plain, modular design that lacks visual interest and articulation.

·       The streetscape is characterised by low and medium density residential development mainly comprising 2 storeys with a 4 storey RFB to the north. The existing buildings generally provide articulation to the street through pronounced entries and pitched roofs. The proposed modular design in conjunction with the non-compliant building height will result in a visually jarring building within the immediate context of the streetscape that is not in harmony with the character of the street.

·       The planning principal acknowledges that there are situations where the planning controls envisage a change of character rather than recognising existing building elements. The desired future character of the area is assessed given the area is within a precinct undergoing transition in accordance with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone pursuant the RLEP. The desired future character of the area is considered to be buildings that comply with current planning controls. Therefore, the proposal is not reflective of the desired future character and is not in harmony with the street.

Therefore, based on an assessment against the planning principle, the proposed development is not considered to be in accordance with the character of the area.

 

2.1.2       Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

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

 

The objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone are as follows:

 

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

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

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

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

·      To protect the amenity of residents.

·      To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

The proposal is inconsistent with the specific objectives of the zone, in that the proposed activity and built form will not contribute to the desired future character of the area and will not protect the amenity of residents.

 

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

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

1.4:1 (with the additional FSR afforded by the ARH SEPP)

1.19:1

Complies.

Height of Building (Maximum)

12m

12.92m measured from the eastern portion of the uppermost roof above existing ground level.

Does not comply.

 

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 not been submitted to Council. Pursuant to Clause 4.3 of the RLEP, the height of buildings must not be more than 12m on the site. A building height of 12.92m is proposed, measured from the eastern portion of the uppermost roof above existing ground level.

 

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

Development Standard

12m

Proposed building height

12.92m

Exceedance of the Development Standard

7.6%

 

Clause 4.6 RLEP Request to Vary Development Standard

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

As no written request has been received from the applicant, development consent can therefore not be granted pursuant to Clause 4.6(3) of the RLEP.

 

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.

 

C4 Table: Boarding Houses

 

DCP Clause

Controls

Proposal

Compliance

2

Building Design

2.1

Boarding rooms

Orientate to receive the maximum amount of sunlight;

         

Provide a balcony, terrace or window opening to outdoor areas for natural light and ventilation; and

         

Where provided, private open space in the form of a balcony or terrace must have a minimum useable area of 4 square metres.

The boarding rooms and balconies are not orientated to receive maximum sunlight. Due to the staggered design, northern sunlight will be reduced to rooms located towards the south. No highlight windows are provided in the northern façade.

 

Separate balconies are provided for all boarding rooms (however it is unclear whether some of the ground floor rooms have balconies as landscaping is shown within the balcony area). The balconies are 1.4m2 with a depth of 0.5m, which is considered unusable.

 

Does not comply.

2.2

Outdoor Communal Open Space

Provide for all boarding houses, with a minimum total area of 20 square metres and a minimum dimension of 3 metres;

 

Provide at ground or podium level in the form of a courtyard or terrace area, accessible to all residents; Locate and orientate to maximise solar access;

 

Incorporate both hard and soft landscaped areas;

 

Provide shared facilities such as fixed outdoor seating benches, barbecues and the like to allow social interaction; and

 

Provide partial cover for weather protection, such as pergola, canopy or the like, where it does not cause unreasonable overshadowing on adjoining properties.

 

Outdoor communal open space is provided at the rear of the building that exceeds minimum dimension requirements, however no hard and soft landscaping is proposed and no partial cover is provided. Therefore residential amenity will be compromised, particularly considering the adjacent car parking area and bin storage.

 

 

Does not comply.

2.3

Indoor Communal Facilities

Provide with a minimum dimension of 3 metres and a minimum total area of 20 square metres or 1.2 square metres/resident, whichever is greater (m2); and

 

Orientate to maximise solar access and have a northerly aspect where possible.

 

No indoor communal room is provided.

 

Does not comply.

2.4

Communal Kitchen Bathroom and Laundry Facilities

For all boarding houses, provide communal kitchen, bathroom and laundry facilities where they are easily accessible for all residents, unless these facilities are provided within each boarding room;

For development of over 12 boarding rooms without ensuite bathrooms, provide separate bathroom facilities for male and female residents;

Locate and design any communal laundry room to minimise noise impact on boarding rooms and neighbouring properties; and

 

Where possible, locate clothes lines to maximise solar access while not compromising the street amenity or usability of communal open space.

All boarding rooms are provided with individual kitchen and bathroom facilities.

Complies.

2.5

Safety and Crime Prevention

Locate building entry points and internal entries to living areas where they are clearly visible from common spaces;

 

Locate a habitable living area (such as lounge room, kitchen, dining or bedroom) to allow general observation of the street and communal open space;

 

Separate ground level private open space from public and common areas by measures such as open fencing or low level plants; and

 

Select trees and low-lying shrubs that do not interfere with sight lines nor provide opportunities for concealment or entrapment.

The building entry is to the side of the property off Fenton Avenue and is not secured nor visible from common spaces.

Does not comply.

2.6

Visual and Acoustic Amenity and Privacy

Indicative locations of facilities and appliances for bathrooms, kitchens and laundries must be clearly shown on the DA plans/drawings;

 

Locate kitchen, dining room, lounge room and outdoor open space adjacent to or directly accessible from each other;

         

Locate similar uses (such as bedrooms or bathrooms) back to back, to minimise internal noise transmission;

 

Provide screen fencing, plantings and acoustic barriers where practicable to screen noise and reduce visual impacts;

         

Where possible locate the main entry point at the front of the site, away from the side boundary and adjoining properties;

         

Locate communal open space, balconies and windows to bedrooms or communal areas, to minimise overlooking, privacy and acoustic impacts on adjoining properties;

 

An acoustic report prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant must be submitted for new development or conversions/intensifications with an increase in resident numbers. The report must:

·    Establish the existing background noise levels;

·    Identify all potential noise sources from the operation of the premises, including any mechanical plant and equipment;

·    Estimate the level of potential noise emission;

·    Establish desirable acoustics performance criteria; and recommend any mitigation measures (such as sound proofing construction and/or management practices) required to achieve relevant noise criteria.

Facilities and appliance locations are clearly detailed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The communal outdoor area is disconnected from the building, with no common room provided.

 

 

 

Similar uses are located back to back.

 

 

 

 

The terrace on the roof of the second floor is not provided with privacy screening.

 

 

 

The main pedestrian entry is located next to the northern side boundary.

 

 

 

Communal open space and balconies will not result in privacy impacts, however the terrace on the roof of the second floor will overlook the adjoining properties to the north and south.

 

 

An acoustic report was not provided, as requested by Council’s Environmental Health Officer.

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does not comply.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

Does not comply.

 

 

 

 

 

Does not comply.

 

 

 

 

 

Does not comply.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does not comply.

3

Management Plan

Submit a Management Plan with all DAs for new and existing boarding houses, that addresses the general requirements outlined in the Management Plan section in Part B, and the following specific requirements:

 

Criteria and process for choosing residents. Preference should be given to people on low and moderate incomes;

 

A schedule detailing minimum furnishings for boarding rooms, provision of facilities and appliances for kitchens, bathrooms and laundry rooms and maximum occupancy of each room;

    

House rules, covering issues such as lodger behaviour, visitor and party policies, activities and noise control, use and operation hours of common areas (e.g. communal open space and living rooms) and policies for regulating smoking and consumption of alcohol and illicit drugs;

Professional cleaning and vermin control arrangements for at minimum, the shared facilities, such as kitchens and bathrooms;

 

Public notice and signs, including:

A sign showing the name and contact number of the manager/caretaker, placed near the front entry and in a visible position to the public;

Clear display of fixed room identification number for each boarding room; and

    

Internal signage prominently displayed in each boarding room and/or communal living areas informing maximum number of lodgers per room, house rules, emergency contact numbers for essential services, annual fire safety statement and current fire safety schedule and emergency egress routes and evacuation plan.

          

The manager/caretaker must maintain an up-to-date accommodation register with information on residents’ details, length of stay, etc. and provide to Council officers upon request.

 

A suitable Plan of Management (POM) was submitted with the DA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

4.         Referral Comments

 

4.1       Development Engineering

The following comments on the original DA submission were provided by Development Engineering:

 

An application has been received for a new 4 storey boarding house at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Architectural Plans by Pinnacle Plu dated 23rd July 2018s;

·      Statement of Environmental Effects by ABC Planning dated August 2018

·      Traffic and Parking Statement by traffic Solutions dated 13th August 2018.

 

General Comments

The Planning Officer is advised that the application is not supported by Development Engineering due to significant issues with flooding and parking. As the expected amendments are quite substantial the application is recommended to be refused or withdrawn. The issue are outlined in more detail below.

 

Flooding Issues

The Planning Officer is advised that the subject development site is located within a large entrapped low point and the Council commissioned & adopted Maroubra bay Flood Study indicates the site will be significantly flood affected. Flood depths of over 0.6m are predicted over most of the site for the 1% AEP (1 in 100yr) flood and over 0.3m for the 5% AEP (1 in 20 yr) event. The subject site has also been tagged under Section 10.7 of the EP&A Act 1979 as being subject to flood related development controls.

 

The subject proposal has no regard for flood planning and will  not comply with the minimum flood planning levels specified in Part B8 of Council’s DCP 2018. The proposed ground floor would be inundated by floodwaters based on current proposed levels.

 

As the required amendments are expected to be quite substantial the applicant is advised to withdraw the application and resubmit after the consideration of the minimum flood planning levels for the subject site. To obtain the minimum flood planning level the applicant shall submit the following;

 

·      A Flood Report application form shall be submitted to Council together with a fee of $167 for the provision of flood planning levels relevant to the subject proposal by Council’s Drainage Engineer. Any other flooding issues that need to be addressed will also be specified.

 

An application form for a flood report can be obtained online from Council’s website or from Council’s Development Engineer;

 

It should be noted that Part B8 of Council’s DCP currently requires;

 

·      Open hardstand carspaces are to be provided at or above the level of the 5% AEP (1 in 20yr) flood.

·      Garage floor levels are to be provided at or above the level of the 1% AEP (1 in 100yr) flood.

·      All habitable floor area is to be provided at or above the level of the 1% AEP (1 in 100yr) flood + 0.5m freeboard.

 

The application is not supported on flooding grounds and is recommended for refusal in its current form.

 

Carparking Issues

Under Clause 29 (2) (e) under standards that cannot be used to refuse consent in the SEPP Affordable Housing, a consent authority must not refuse consent on parking grounds if;

 

(i)         in the case of development carried out by or on behalf of a social housing provider in an accessible area—at least 0.2 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room, and

(ii)         in the case of development carried out by or on behalf of a social housing provider not in an accessible area—at least 0.4 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room, and

(iia)         in the case of development not carried out by or on behalf of a social housing provider—at least 0.5 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room, and

(iii)         in the case of any development—not more than 1 parking space is provided for each person employed in connection with the development and who is resident on site,

 

For the subject proposal comprising of 20 boarding rooms (including manager’s room) and not being made by a social housing provider then adopting the above rate would require a minimum of 10 spaces or 11 space if an additional space for the manager is required.

 

As only 3 spaces including a disabled space are proposed the parking provision suggests a significant parking shortfall of up to 7-8 spaces or 70-80%% of the total parking required.

 

The applicant has submitted a detailed traffic and parking assessment in support of the large shortfall including a parking survey in an attempt to justify that there is sufficient capacity within the surrounding street network to accommodate any additional demand for on-street parking.

 

Development Engineering has considered the traffic and parking assessment and undertaken a site inspection of the surrounding street network on 31st August 2018 at 12:50pm and has determined the parking shortfall is excessive in this instance and is not supported for the following reasons;

 

·      The locality is currently experiencing a high demand for on-street parking due to its location in close proximity to Maroubra Seals Club and Maroubra beach. It is noted that a number of objections have been received by surrounding residents on parking grounds.

·      At the time of site inspection Fenton Avenue was parked to capacity, Chapman Avenue only had 1 space available, and McKeon Street was parked to capacity apart from 2-3 spaces on the southern side, at the far western end of Mckeon Street (See photos)

·      The parking study although generally accurate has over-estimated the capacity of some zones in the parking study. For example Zone K (south side of Chapman Avenue) is indicated as having a capacity of 16 spaces. Upon site inspection it was determined this was not accurate with Development Engineering estimating a capacity of 14 spaces maximum. Similarly Zones N & 0 on Mckeon St indicate a capacity of 8 & 6 spaces respectively however only 7 & 5 spaces were observed by Development Engineering. These inaccuracies will result in an overestimation of the vacancy rate.

·      The parking study and site observations by Development Engineering both confirm parking in Fenton Avenue Chapman Avenue and Mckeon street is close or at capacity. The only reasonable amount of street parking available is in Mons Avenue however this is more than 120m from the subject site. Extending parking impacts to more than 120m from the site is not supported.

·      The parking survey was conducted on Tuesday 24th July 2018 being mid-winter and the availability of street parking on Mons Avenue and other streets would be expected to be even more restricted during the summer months.

 

Site Inspection pictures demonstrating street parking at or close to capacity taken 12:50pm Friday 31 August 2018.

 

   

Picture 1 - Fenton Avenue view south

 

Picture 2 - Fenton Avenue view north

 

Picture 3 - Chapman Avenue view west

Picture 4- Mckeon Street view east

It is considered the application has not satisfactorily justified the parking shortfall in this instance and the proposal will is likely to lead to an increase in demand for on-street parking to a significant distance away from the site and within and area that is already experiencing high parking pressures. The impacts are deemed to be unacceptable in this instance.

 

The application is not supported on parking grounds and is recommended for refusal in its current form.

 

Traffic Issues

The Right of Way at the rear of the site is only 4.57m (15ft) wide and would be restrictive for vehicles attempting to enter and exit the indicated carspaces at their proposed widths, especially for the southernmost space adjacent to the side boundary, which is at the minimum width permitted under AS 2890.1

 

No car sweeping paths have been submitted in the traffic and parking assessment demonstrating satisfactory vehicle manoeuvrinbg into these spaces.

 

It would be expected the carspaces will need to be widened and/or setback further from the Right of Way to achieve adequate vehicle manoeuvring into and out of the carpaces.

 

The application has not satisfactorily demonstrated that vehicles will be able to enter and exit the site onto Chapman Avenue in a forward direction

 

The application is not supported on traffic grounds and is recommended for refusal in its current form.

 

Waste Management Issues

Appendix 3 in Part B6 of Council’s DCP specifies a waste generation rate for boarding houses of 1 bin per 6 rooms for normal garbage and 1 bin per 6 rooms for recycling.

 

Waste bins required = 20/6 = 3.3 = 4 bins each for garbage and recycling.

 

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  1 x 240L bins also be provided for green waste.

 

Total Number of BINS required            = 4(normal) + 4(recycling) + 1(green waste)

                                                         = 9 x 240L BINS

 

The proposed bin room at the rear of the proposed boarding house does not appear large enough to accommodate the required number of bins and is not supported. The room is to be enlarged to accommodate the required number of bins plus some allowance for the storage of bulky items. Individual bins shall be shown on any amended plans

 

The application is not supported on waste management grounds in its current form.

 

Assessing Officer’s Comment: Development’s Engineering’s concerns were forwarded to the applicant who provided amended drawings. Following review of the amended drawings, Development Engineering provided the following comments:

 

·      The parking shortfall of 6 spaces (60%) is excessive and will significantly impact on the availability of on-street parking in an area that is already experiencing high parking pressures.

·      The manoeuvrability of vehicles into the parking spaces from the Right of Way has not been addressed. It is unlikely vehicle will be able to achieve the turning radius required given the narrow width of the Right of Way. No swept path analysis has been provided.

·      The flood report issued 6th November by Council’s Drainage Engineer issued a flood planning level of RL 6.72 AHD being the level of the 1% AEP flood + 0.5m freeboard. The amended plans indicate a ground floor level of RL 6.52 and so do not comply with the minimum flood planning level.

·      The flood report issued 6th November by Council’s Drainage Engineer indicated the level of the 5% AEP (1 in 20yr) flood as RL 5.89 AHD. The proposed carspaces have not been provided above this level as required by Part B8 of Council’s DCP.

·      The flood report issued 6th November by Council’s Drainage Engineer indicates the site lies within a high hazard & flood storage area. It appears the amended plans indicate the site is to be filled resulting in the loss of flood-plain storage. This may lead to the raising of flood levels on surrounding properties. The flooding impacts of filling the site have not been addressed.

·      The garbage enclosure containing only 2 garbage, 2 recycling & 2 green waste is too small to accommodate the expected waste generation from the proposed 20 room boarding house. At minimum 4 garbage, 4 recycling & 2 green waste bins are required.

 

Assessing Officer’s Comment: Development’s Engineering’s concerns are noted and the DA is recommended for refusal.

 

4.2       Design Excellence Panel

The original DA was referred to Council’s Design Excellence Panel (“DEP”) for comment on the architectural merits of the proposal. The DEP provided the following comments on the original proposal:

 


 

INTRODUCTION

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

This document is available from the Department of Planning Environment

 

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

 

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

 

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

PANEL COMMENTS

This DA submission proposes a four-story residential boarding house on a site currently occupied by a single story, single family residence.  The proposal is for the demolition of the existing house, and the construction of a new 4 storey building, containing 19 boarding rooms, manager’s room, internal and external communal space and surface parking for 3 cars.

 

Panel members are familiar with the site and the surrounding areaThe architect for this project is Pinnacle Plus.

 

2.             NEIGHBOURHOOD CONTEXT

This site is in a dense residential neighbourhood, with a mix of large single-family houses and 3 to 4 story mid-century apartment buildings, along with several new (and planned) apartment developments on adjacent and surrounding streets.  Typical building heights in the area range from one to four storeys, with a relatively consistent built fabric of brick, expressed verandahs and sunrooms, front gardens and pitched roofs across both houses and apartment blocks.  The site is located one block from Maroubra Beach and the conurbation of shops and amenities along Marine Parade.  The area is well serviced with open space and public transport, in the form of several bus routes to the city and eastern suburbs.

 

3.             SCALE AND BUILT FORM

The proposal is for a four-storey building; its immediate neighbours on either side are a 3 storey building built to the boundary on the south side, and a 4 storey apartment block on the north side with a small set back from the boundary.  The proposal is over the allowable FSR, as the applicant has included a public right-of-way easement in their site area calculations.  Compliance calculations should be based on the actual lot size.

 

The scheme presents extensive site coverage, with very little usable open space or complementary landscape.  The scheme proposes entry and circulation to the units on the north side of the site and building – this will result in the circulation spaces running across the fronts of the units, which are their living areas and primary source of natural light, and adjacent to balconies of the adjoining building causing privacy issues. The Panel feels that the entry and circulation should be swapped to the south side of the site, against the solid wall of the neighbouring building, giving the units uncompromised privacy and natural light and reducing potential privacy issues.

 

The rear of the scheme presents unacceptable negative impacts on the rear lane and the neighbouring property at 38 Chapman Avenue.  Despite the applicant’s assertions that the neighbouring open space received no sunlight, the shadow diagrams provided clearly indicate both existing sun penetration as well its complete removal under the current proposal.  A revised scheme should investigate ways to reduce this impact, and preserve what solar access the neighbouring open space currently has.

 

The proposal does not comply with parking requirements.  Given concerns about flooding, it may be likely that the ground floor beneath the building will be dedicated to parking and access, rather than habitable internal space.

 

4.             DENSITY

Given the narrow block and relationship to neighbouring properties, the building needs to respond more sensitively to surrounding properties and open space.  Building on and over the right of way, nearly to the rear boundary, is not supported.

 

5.             SUSTAINABILITY

It is the understanding of the Panel that the site is subject to regular flood impacts – this has not been considered in the design of the ground floor spaces.  It is likely that the ground floor spaces may not be viable once consideration is given to the constraints imposed by the flooding impacts.

 

Given the amount of construction proposed on the site, water should not only be detained, but rainwater should be harvested, treated and re-used, for toilets, laundries and gardens. The extensive flat roof should be utilised for solar panels for electricity generation as well as solar hot water.

 

Further considerations:

Ceiling fans for bedrooms and living areas should be indicated on the plans.

An outdoor clothes-drying area should be included.

 

5.            LANDSCAPE

The scheme needs a landscape plan, prepared by a qualified landscape architect.  This should consider usable open space in both the front and rear setbacks, and the quality of planting that can be achieved along the north facing balconies.  The Panel questions the viability over time of the green screens shown in the proposal.  More detailed landscaping design should be dedicated to the planting proposed on the roof, including realistic planter sizes, and drainage and irrigation details.

 

6.             AMENITY

The communal open spaces, internal and external, should be more specifically designed, to provide privacy, amenity and environmental qualities.

 

7.             SAFETY

No safety issues.

 

8.             HOUSING DIVERSITY AND SOCIAL INTERACTION

The boarding house units are a welcome addition to the housing stock in the area; corresponding consideration needs to be applied to the project’s amenity and open spaces, to offset the restricted spaces of the units themselves.

 

9.             AESTHETICS

Much more considered refinement needs to be applied to the overall building design, and its constituent elements.  The building will not be inconspicuous – as such, it needs to be designed with regard to streetscape, aspects from neighbouring properties, and mediation of climate and environment through both active and passive systems.  The robust materiality of the immediate area should be considered in developing the design further.

 

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The proposal gives only cursory consideration to the conditions and challenges of the site.  While the Panel supports boarding house development on this site, the scheme needs considerable revision and development in its architectural responses.  We would appreciate the opportunity to review the subsequent revised scheme, considering the above comments.

 

Assessing Officer’s Comment: The DEP’s concerns are noted and the DA is recommended for refusal. The amended drawings were not re-referred to the DEP.

 

Recommendation

 

That the RLPP refuse development consent under Section 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 510/2018 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a new 4 storey boarding house comprising 20 boarding rooms, 1 manager's room, 4 car parking spaces and associated site works, at No. 6 Fenton Avenue, Maroubra, for the following reasons:

 

1.        The proposed development does not comply with Clause 4.3 Height of buildings pursuant to the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and no request to vary a development standard has been submitted pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 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.

 

2.        The proposed development is not in accordance with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone in that it does not contribute to the desired future character of the area and does not protect the amenity of residents.

 

3.        The proposed development does not comply with key controls provided as part of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013, resulting in poor residential amenity and adverse amenity impacts to adjoining properties.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Randwick Local Planning Panel                                                                                                                              13 December 2018

 

 

Development Application Report No. D107/18

 

 

Subject:                         Unit 14/20-22 Glebe Street, Randwick (DA/4/2018)

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGBFolder No:                      DA/4/2018

Author:                          Chahrazad Rahe, Senior Assessment Planner     

 

 

Proposal:                       Review of Council's refusal of consent for alterations and additions to Unit 14 including alteration to new window in southern elevation, provision of internal void, relocation of study to lower level, and provision of landscaping to communal and private areas.

Ward:                             North Ward

Applicant:                      P-3 Living Pty Ltd C/- SJB Planning

Owner:                           Apartment 14 Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:          Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.png?guid=c975eb58-f325-4842-b758-fcaf57c897c5&contentType=image%2Fpng

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan


 

Executive summary

 

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

 

The original Development Application for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling (unit 14) including conversion of the associated storage area underneath unit 14 into a living area was refused by the RLPP on 12 July 2018 on the following grounds:

 

1.         The proposal deals only with alterations and additions to a dwelling, rather than alterations to a residential flat building. The later requires consideration of other matters not addressed in the development application including but not limited to the Apartment Design Guide requirements, and functional communal open space.

 

2.         As noted in the public meeting the use of the communal open space for the adjoining proposed basement conversion is not part of this development application and therefore cannot be considered.

 

The subject application is made pursuant to Division 8.2 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to review Council’s decision to refuse the development application under DA/4/2018.

 

This application is seeking support for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling (unit 14) including conversion of the associated storage area underneath unit 14 into a living area with some minor changes.  The changes are as follows:

 

·      Reconfiguration of the new kitchen window on the southern elevation to align better with the exisitng window on the upper level;

·      Provision of a void around the staircase to create double height space and increase sunlight to the basement ground floor;

·      The study area is relocated to the basement ground floor to allow for the void area;

·      Landscaping to communal open space at the rear of the site and private coutyard of No.14; and

·      The exisitng fence around the perimetre of the courtyard is lowered to 1.2m and screeed with landscaping to better connect with the communal area.

 

Initially this DA was assessed concurrently with DA/3/2018 (Unit 13), which proposes similar works adjacent to subject unit 14 and was also referred to the RLPP for determination and was refused for the same reasons.  

 

The proposal was notified in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP). One submission was received raising a number of questions relating to fire compliance, waste management, FSR, conversion of garage space to a living area and the additional load to accommodate the building services.

 

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

 

The amended plans and documentation provided have successfully addressed and demonstrated that the amended proposal will meet the intentions of the requirements of the Apartment Design Guide in relation to improve liveability through enhanced internal amenity, including better layout, apartment depth and ceiling heights with regards to solar access, natural ventilation and visual privacy and subject to conditions the communal open space should be function for its use.

 

A design verification statement has been received by a registered Architect (David Jaggers) verifying that the design quality principles in SEPP 65 are achieved.

 

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone and is sympathetic to the residential amenity and its surrounds. The proposal is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

Proposal

 

 

 

 

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

Figure 2. Proposed basement alterations (shown in brown)

Site Description and Locality

 

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

 

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

 

Relevant history

 

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

 

Figure 3. Original approved basement plan

 

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

 

 

Figure 4. Insert from approved CDC

 

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

 

Figure 5. Approved basement strata plan for DA/886/2016

 

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS UNDER Division 8.2:

 

Section 8.3 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, enables an applicant to request a Review of a Determination of a Development Application or condition/s of Development Consent.  Council may accept amendments to the original development proposal if the proposed amendments result in substantially the same development as that originally described in the development application. Council may review the Determination, and as a consequence of the review, may confirm or change the Determination.

 

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:

 

·      Address Unknown

 

Issue

Comment

Fire safety compliance - Believe the proposed development will trigger the entire building to be upgraded to current fire safety codes.

A fire safety certificate already exists for the building and given the building is constructed of concrete it is safe to say there will be not significant fire safety upgrades required for the building. The only upgrade required is fire extinguishers for the unit.

 

Waste management - additional council levies for the lot.

There are no changes to the number of bins required or expected waste generation for this unit.

 

Confirmation of FSR - Questions if the current FSR allows for the works to occur. 

Refer to Clause 4.6 Variation to Development Standard which demonstrates the FSR will be reduced on the site and the variation to the FSR is well founded. 

 

Is question whether the building has submit a planning proposal to allow for the basement garage space to be converted from a car space to a livable area. 

The units were converted to strata title via DA/886/2016, approved 20 February 2017 by delegated authority. Conditions were provided requiring removal of the redundant vehicular crossover. The approved strata plans showed the basement level as a “storeroom”.

 

Upgrade of building services – Questions if the building services (electrical and water) will be upgraded to accommodate the additional load.

Standard conditions have been included which addresses this concern. 

 

Reasons for review

 

Plans have been amended to address refusal concerns outlined under the original application and the design changes made to the proposal are now entirely complaint with the LEP and DCP control.  The applicant has provided the following reasons for requesting the review:-

 

We are seeking a review of the refusal determination of DA (DA/4/2018) at 14/20-22 Glebe Street, Randwick and the grounds for refusal, based on the amendments outlined in our statement of support, submitted plans and documents, and email correspondence (attached).The proposal as amended seeks approval for alterations and additions to the existing one (1) bedroom apartment, to create a two (2) storey, two (2) bedroom apartment with a total area of 86m2. The proposed works include:

ž  The conversion of the existing 42m2 storage area currently located below Unit 14 into an open plan lounge and kitchen, study, bathroom, and laundry. This surplus storage forms part of Unit 14;

ž  Installation of an internal stair connecting the basement and ground floor level;

ž  Internal reconfiguration of the existing unit layout to accommodate two (2) bedrooms, bathroom, and a new void to the stair well;

ž  Installation of glass doors within the existing west-facing opening and two (2) windows on the southern elevation of the to the new living and kitchen area;

ž  Use of part of the former communal open space for a private terrace. This is consistent with, and formalises, the strata plan which provides exclusive use to this area for Unit 14; and

ž  Landscaping to the remaining communal open space.

 

The key amendments to the previously determined proposal include:

ž  The reconfiguration of the new window on the southern elevation so that it better aligns with the existing windows on the upper level;

ž  Provision of a void around the stair case to create double height space and increase light to the lower level;

ž  The study area has been relocated to the lower level to accommodate the void;

ž  Landscaping to the communal open space at the rear of the site; and

ž  Landscaping to the private courtyard adjoining No. 14. The existing fence surrounding the courtyard is proposed to be lowered to 1.2m at the rear, adjoining the communal space, and screened with landscaping.

 

As per our discussions and email correspondence of 22 November 2018, we have agreed to the following additional amendments to be addressed via condition:

 

1.   Increasing the width of the lower ground floor bifold doors within the western elevation; and

2.   Reducing the depth of the private courtyards by 1m from the current fence line; and

3.   A revised landscape plan that responds to the changes mentioned under point 2 and further details of seating and a BBQ space etc. to be indicated on the plan.

 

Based on the above, it is considered that the proposed amendments and the additional supporting information, resolve the reasons for refusal in that it addresses:

 

·      the requirements of the ADG and provides a high level of compliance with the design criteria and its intent from the existing apartment and the previous DA scheme. This is detailed further in Section 3.0 and 4.0 of the statement of support submitted with the Section 8.2 Review application and the supporting statement from DBJ Architects.

 

·      communal open space and includes the provision of landscape plan that provides for the embellishment of a largely disused and underutilised common space with new landscaping.

 

Substantially the same development.

The proposal as amended to address concerns raised in the determination of the original Development Application remains substantially the same development as that originally determined.

 

KEY ISSUES

The comments below outline the reasons for refusal by the RLPP and provides a response to meeting the objectives and standard in the LEP 2012 and objectives and controls in the DCP 2013.

 

Reason for refusal:

·      The proposal deals only with alterations and additions to a dwelling, rather than alterations to a residential flat building. The later requires consideration of other matters not addressed in the development application including but not limited to the Apartment Design Guide requirements, and functional communal open space.

 

Response:

In the original application there was concerns that the design of small unit requires a more skillful approach to ensure that the living environment (internal and external) that is produced is of a high and agreeable standard.

 

The plans and documentation provided have addressed and demonstrated that the amended proposal will meet the intentions of the Apartment Design Guide requirements in relation to improve liveability through enhanced internal amenity, including better layout, apartment depth and ceiling heights with regards to solar access, natural ventilation and visual privacy. 

 

A design verification statement has been prepared by David Jaggers who is a registered Architect with Durbach Block Jaggers.  The architect’s design verification statement accompanying the application verifies that the design quality principles in SEPP 65 are achieved and that the proposal will be using an existing under utilised space to substantially improve the amenity of the apartment.  The Apartment Design Guide design criteria and design guidance are addressed below.

 

SEPP 65: Apartment Design Guide

 

Part 4 - Building Configuration:

 

Amenity

4D        Apartment size & Layout

One of the main issues presented in the original submission was the size and layout of the unit.  The following issues were presented:

 

·      The bedrooms did not comply with the minimum dimension of 3m (excluding wardrobe space);

·      The combined living/dining rooms did not comply with the minimum width requirement of 4m for 2 bedroom apartment; and

·      The depth of the combined living, dining and kitchen exceed the maximum of 8m from the window open and did not allow for good natural ventilation and solar access.

 

Habitable room depths are limited to a maximum of 2.5 x the ceiling height.  In open plan layouts (where the living, dining and kitchen are combined) the maximum habitable room depth is 8m from a window.  In the previous design the depth of the open plan living room from the western glazed door was 9m and which did not provide good ventilation and daylight access to this area.

 

The amended plans have reduced the depth of the open plan room from the western glazed door to 6.43m which will comply with the apartment size and layout requirement.  However, the new glazed door opening is limited in width which restricts sunlight into this area. To ensure that adequate solar access is received into the living area a condition is included which requires the glazed door opening to the lounge room on the basement ground floor to span the full width of the room. With the addition of the kitchen window and above condition, the proposal will provided good solar access and natural ventilation into the living areas which will improve the amenity of this unit.

 

In relation to the minimum dimension required for the bedrooms and minimum width for living area this remains the same as the original design presented.

 

The bedrooms will have dimensions of:

 

Bedroom 1 = 2.8m x 3.9m

Bedroom 2 = 3.6m x 2.9m

 

Both bedrooms do not comply.  However, Bedroom 1 is an existing bedroom.

 

The living room has a width of 3.8m, which also does not comply with the ADG requirements.  Given the non-compliances are minor and restricted to an existing apartment, the dimensions in this case are considered acceptable for the intended use given the overall benefit the development will provide to this unit. 

 

4C        Ceiling Heights

As prescribed within the Apartment design guide, the requirement for ceiling heights specify that a 2.7 metre minimum for all habitable rooms on all floors is required and 2.4 metres is the preferred minimum for all non-habitable rooms.

 

The proposal provides habitable ceiling heights of 2.4m for the basement ground level and 2.65m for the lower ground level which does not comply with the ADG minimum requirement.

 

Whilst this was raised as an issue in the original assessment, it would be unreasonable to refuse the application on this basis only given the unit will comply with the minimum ceiling height requirement under the Building Code of Australia for habitable area and is a fitout of an existing area within the building.  Moreover, the dwelling has dual aspects and subject to condition will provide good natural ventilation and solar access which will improve the existing amenity of this dwelling.

 

4G        Storage

The proposal will reduce the storage areas as a result of the proposed living area and there are no additional storage areas noted on the plan.  However, there are areas within the apartment that could be used for storage such as under stairs and oversized bathroom/laundry.  A condition will be included which requires these areas to be used for storage.

 

Clause 4.6 – Exception to Development Standard

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

 

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

Development Standard

0.9:1 (645.7m2)

Existing FSR

1.159:1 (832m2 including the basement storage)

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

1.151:1 (826m2)

Exceedance of the Development Standard

Existing = 28.8%

Proposed = 27.9% (reduction by 0.9%)

 

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

 

·      The proposed development as a result of the variation remains consistent with the objectives of the FSR standard and objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

·      No changes to the size and scale of the building is proposed, therefore there will be no increased visual bulk, overshadowing or view loss to neighbouring dwellings and the streetscape amenity will be maintained.

·      New window and glazed door are proposed to the southern and western elevations which will be sympathetic to the design of the existing building and subject to conditions will provide additional natural ventilation and solar access which responds to environmental needs for the users of the apartment.

Privacy impacts will not occur given new windows will not overlook adjoining properties and existing windows on the upper floor will serve bedrooms and a bathroom, which are not frequented used rooms.

·      The proposed development will provide increased amenity to the dwelling which will improve the function and facilities available for the occupants of this dwelling. Subject to conditions the proposal will not reduce the existing amenity for this apartment or building.

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

 

Reason for refusal:

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

 

Response:

The applicant has submitted an amended clause 4.6 exception request which demonstrates that the proposed development subject to conditions will meet the requirements of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) with regards to the environmental performance and residential amenity of the unit.   The conditions require the following to be implemented:

 

·      The rear glazed doors and awning structure above at the basement floor level to the western elevation shall be increased to span the full width of the lounge room to improve natural ventilation, solar and daylight access into the living area; and

·      Internal privacy measures be provided to the new kitchen window to improve the internal amenity of the apartment.

·      Storage area shall be allocated under the staircase and bathroom/laundry.

·      The private open space to Unit 14 shall be reduced to a maximum depth of 5m to allow for a more functional communal area for the remaining units.

·      A landscape plan prepared by a qualified professional to demonstrate the communal space is functional for its use.

·      The fence around the perimetres of the POS shall be reduced to a maximum height of 1.2m and landscape having a minimum depth of 500mm shall be incorporated for screening to better connect with the communal area.

 

There will be no significant change to the existing built form or its relationship to its neighbours and streetscape.  The proposal does not trigger any adverse outcomes for the natural or built environment that would otherwise not occur were the scheme strictly compliant with the FSR control.

 

In summary, the exception to the FSR standard has been considered with respect to the provisions of Clause 4.6 and it was demonstrated that there is sufficient ground for allowing the variation, subject to conditions.  Refer to detailed assessment section of this report.

 

Private Open Space / Communal Open Space

Part of the former communal open space at the rear of the building is currently used as private open space exclusively for Units 13 & 14, which has reduced the recreational amenity for the remaining Units on the site and in the original application the RLPP questioned whether the remaining area was functional for its use.

 

The communal area being used as POS was not allocated to units 13 & 14 in accordance with the approved strata plan (DA/886/2016) by Council.  However, the strata committee has consented to the exclusive use of the common property for unit 13 & 14 and the erection of fences as evidenced by the strata bylaws submitted with the DA (see plan below in figure 6).

 

The ADG requires that the communal open space provided on the site has a minimum area equal to 25% of the site (179.37m2).  The existing area provided for the communal and public open space on the site is greater than this requirement.  Despite compliance with this requirement, there is concerns that the reduction in the communal private open space of approx.161.75m² to 128m² is not sufficient in depth to allow for a functional outdoor recreational area and therefore, will reduce the amenity on the site for the remaining users within the existing building. This is largely due to the existing trees and the dip in the land to the towards the rear boundary which limits the area available for the communal open space.

 

In order to improve the functionality of the communal open space, it is required that the depth of the POS for Unit 14 be reduced by 2.5m to have a maximum depth of 5m .  This will result in an area of 22.5m² of private open space being provided for Unit 14 which will continue to be well over the ADG requirement.  It is acknowledged that Unit 13 has the identical configuration and the same condition would apply and will be dealt with under separate application.

 

In order for the units to connect better with the private open space it is also recommended that the fencing around the perimeters of the POS be reduced to a maximum of 1.2m and landscaping be incorporated having a depth of 500mm for screening to better connect with the communal open space.  The applicant has agreed to the above recommendation.

 

The landscape plan submitted does not adequate demonstrate the functionality of the communal open space and for this reason, it is recommended that a condition be included which requires a revised landscape plan to submitted to Council for review by a registered architect/landscape professional.  The plans are to implement the above recommendation by reducing the depth of the privatized open spaces and demonstrate that the area provided for communal open space is functional for it use with details of the seating and BBQ space etc. to be indicated on the plan.

 

                                                   

Figure 6. Approved strata committee plan              Figure 7. Existing rear communal open space

 

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 Unit 14 including alteration to new window in southern elevation, provision of internal void, relocation of study to lower level, and provision of landscaping to communal and private areas be approved (subject to conditions) for the following reasons:

 

·       The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone contained within the RLEP 2012 and the relevant requirements of the RDCP 2013.

 

·       The proposal is in general accordance with the design quality principles of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development as the amenity of residents will be protected.

 

·       The application is accompanied by a BASIX Certificate, which has considered the objectives of the SEPP and it concludes that the standards set out by the SEPP are met.

 

·       Pursuant to the provisions of Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, the written submission in relation to the variation to Clause 4.4 FSR satisfies the relevant provisions of Clause 4.6 and is therefore supported.

 

·       The proposed development will provide adequate residential amenity for apartment in relation to natural ventilation and solar access.

 

·       The proposal does not increase the building footprint of the building and the amended proposal does not generate any unreasonable additional overlooking, or general loss of amenity to the site.  The provision of a better landscaped area and communal open space to the rear of the building which is to be supported by a qualified professional in the Landscape technician will enhance the existing communal open space to the rear of the building.  It also allows for privatised courtyard areas which will benefit the ground floor units and make better use of the of the rear communal area. 

 

Detailed Assessment

1.         Section 4.15 matters for consideration

 

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

 

Section 4.15 ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

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

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

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013.

The proposal generally satisfies the relevant controls in the Randwick DCP 2013.

 

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 proposed development continues the residential use with a Residential Flat building proposed which is permissible in the R3 zone and there are no salient site or contextual features which would make the site unsuitable for the development.

 

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 submission have been 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.         Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

2.1        State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPS)

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

(a)  the design quality principles, and

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

 

Planning comment: The design quality principles and the design criteria specified in the ADG have been assessed below. The amended proposal has demonstrated that the relevant objectives and design criteria in the ADG have been meet.

 

(3)   To remove doubt:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Schedule 1 Design quality principles

 

Principle 1: Context and Neighbourhood Context

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

In the original proposal it was question whether the proposal was in accordance the objectives of the R3 Medium Density zone relating to protection of residential amenity. 

 

The amended proposal has addressed these concerns by slightly altering the internal layout of this unit with the inclusion of a void area to the new stairs, relocating the study to the ground floor basement, providing new window opening to the kitchen and providing a ventilation pipe through the existing wall of the bathroom/laundry.  In addition, to the above, to further improve solar access to the living area it is recommended that the new glazed doors and awning above span the full width of the lounge room.

 

With the inclusion of the recommended condition the amended proposal will be in accordance with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density zone relating to protection of residential amenity by providing adequate solar access, whether protection and ventilation to this unit.

 

The proposal does not seek to modify the existing building envelope and therefore, will continue to be in accordance with the desired future character of the zone.

 

Principle 2: Built form and scale

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

 

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

 

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

 

Planning comment: The initial concerns related to the development not meeting the relevant internal amenity requirements have now been addressed and are considered to satisfy the ADG requirements.

Given that there are no changes made to the built form and scale of the existing building, the amended proposal will not be impacting on the existing or future character of the street and surround buildings.

 

Principle 3: Density

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

 

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

 

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

 

Planning comment: There are no changes made to the existing built form.  The amended proposal does not generate any unreasonable additional overlooking, or general loss of amenity to the site and subject to conditions the provision of on-site amenities to the rear will be maintained.

 

Principle 4: Sustainability

Good design combines positive environmental, social and economic outcomes.

 

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

 

Planning comment: The amended proposal provides a well-considered solution for the unused subfloor area and will provide additional amenity for the apartment with better access to natural ventilation and sunlight to the living area.

 

Principle 5: Landscape

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

 

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

 

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

 

Planning comment:

The landscape plan submitted does not adequate demonstrate the functionality of the communal open space and for this reason, it is recommended that a condition be included which requires a revised landscape plan to submitted to Council for review by a registered architect/landscape professional.  The plans are to implement the above recommendation by reducing the depth of the privatised open spaces and demonstrate that the area provided for communal open space is functional for it use with details of the seating and BBQ space etc. to be indicated on the plan. The provision of a better landscaped area and communal open space to the rear of the building will enhance the existing communal open space to the rear of the building and will provide better amenity for the residents of the site.  It also allows for privatised courtyard areas which will benefit the ground floor units and make better use of the of the rear communal area. 

 

Principle 6: Amenity

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

 

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

 

Planning comment: As discussed in the Key Issues section of the report, subject to conditions the amended proposal will provide better amenity for the existing apartment and will be improving natural ventilation and solar access to the living rooms.

 

Principle 7: Safety

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

 

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

 

Planning comment: Safety and security will be maintained.

 

Principle 8: Housing diversity and social interaction

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

 

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

 

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

 

Planning comment: The proposed development seeks to add an additional bedroom, which will provide for housing needs.

 

Principle 9: Aesthetics

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

 

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

 

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

 

Apartment Design Guide

 

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

 


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

ADG - Design Criteria

Proposal

Complies

Communal and Public Open Space

Communal open space has a minimum area equal to 25% of the site (179.37m2).

 

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

More than179.37m² of Communal and Public open space will remain on the site.  However, the proposal is reducing the communal private open space to the rear from approx.161.75m² to 128m² in order to formalise the use of private open space exclusively for Units 13 & 14 which Council has not consented too.

Refer to Key issues above.

Deep Soil Zones

Deep soil zones are to meet the following minimum requirements:

Site Area

Minimum Dimension

Deep Soil Zone (% of site area)

650m2 – 1,500m2

3m

7% (55.76m2)

 

No changes to deep soil landscaping is proposed.

 

 

 

N/A

 

Visual Privacy

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

 

Building Height

Habitable Rooms and Balconies

Non-habitable rooms

Up to 12m (4 storeys)

6m

3m

 

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

 

N/A

Solar Access and Daylight

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

 

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

 

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

 

Unit 14 complies

Natural Ventilation

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

 

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

 

Cross-over apartment

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

 

Cross-through apartment

cross ventilating apartment on one level with two opposite aspects

 

The depth of the combined living area to the west facing window is reduced to 6.43m which complies with the ADG layout requirement.

 

Dual accept windows are provided to the western and southern elevations for adequate cross ventilation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Ceiling Height

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

·      Habitable Rooms – 2.7m

·      Non-habitable rooms – 2.4m

 

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

 

 

No. Refer to Key issues above.

Apartment Layout

Apartments are required to have the following minimum internal areas:

·      Studio - 35m2

·      1 Bedroom - 50m2

·      2 Bedroom - 70m2

·      3 Bedroom - 90m2

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

·           4m for 2 and 3 bedroom apartments

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

Bedroom 1 = 11m2.

Bedroom 2 = 10.6m2.

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

 

 

Bedroom 1 = 2.8m x 3.9m

Bedroom 2 = 3.6m x 2.9m.

Both bedrooms do not comply.

 

The living room = 3.8m x 6.43m, which does not comply.

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

No. Refer to Key Issues above.

 

No. Refer to Key Issues above.

 

 

 

 

Environmental Performance

Habitable room depths are limited to a maximum of 3 x the ceiling height.

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

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

 

The depth of the open plan room from the western glazed door is 6.43m (2.68m x the 2.4m ceiling height), which complies with this requirement.

Yes

Open Space

All apartments are required to have primary balconies as follows:

·      Studio - 4m2

 

 

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

 

 

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

The existing units on the site do not have private open spaces.

 

However, Units 13 and 14 are provided with privatised common areas (with 1.8m high fencing around the perimeters) that are being used as POS which Council has not consented too.  

 

It is recommended that the depth of the POS to Unit 14 be reduced to a maximum of 5m which will result in an area of 22.5m and will comply with the ADG requirements.  It is also recommended that the fence around the perimeters of the POS be reduced to 1.2m and landscaping have a depth of 500mm be incorporated for screening to better connect with the communal area.

Yes, will be improving the amenity of this unit.  Refer to Key Issues above.

Common Circulation Space

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

 

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

 

No changes to common circulation is proposed. 

 

N/A

Storage

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

·      Studio - 4m³

·      1 Bedroom - 6m³

·      2 Bedroom - 8m³

·      3 Bedroom - 10m³

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

No storage is provided.

No.  Refer to Key issues above.

 


 

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

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

 

A satisfactory BASIX certificate was submitted with the application.

 

2.2          Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

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

 

The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the amended proposal will protect the amenity of residents.

 

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

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

0.9:1 (645.75m2)

1.151:1 (826m2)

No

 

Height of Building (Maximum)

12m

No change to the existing building height is proposed.

N/A

 

Clause 4.6 – Floor Space Ratio

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

 

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

 

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

Development Standard

0.9:1 (645.7m2)

Existing FSR

1.159:1 (832m2 including the basement storage)

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

1.151:1 (826m2)

Exceedance of the Development Standard

Existing = 28.8%

Proposed = 27.9% (reduction by 0.9%)

 

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

 

Clause 4.6 RLEP Request to Vary Development Standard

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assessing Officer’s Clause 4.6 Assessment:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Initially the variation was not supported due to the development on meeting the residential amenity requirements under the Apartment Design Guidelines (ADG) as it was design with poor residential amenity due to the sub-standard living area with a non-compliant ceiling height, habitable room width and habitable room depth that will not receive adequate natural light and ventilation, and non-compliant bedroom width and lack of storage.

 

The applicant has successfully demonstrated that the amended development will not result in any additional bulk or impacts to adjoining properties and subject to conditions will meet the residential amenity requirements under the ADG.

 

The amended development will be in accordance with the objectives of the FSR development standard and the objectives of the R3 Medium Residential zone.

 

Accordingly, Council can be satisfied that the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by clause 4.6 (3) and subject to conditions that the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with:

 

·      the objectives of the particular standard;

·      the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out;

·      the orderly and economic development of an unused area for the purposes of additional residential amenity which will contribute to accommodation choice in the Randwick LGA.

 

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

 

The applicant’s written request has successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard given the proposed development as a result of the variation remains consistent with the objectives of the FSR 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?

 

Subject to conditions, the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the FSR development standard and the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone, and therefore is considered to be in the public interest.

 

Consistency with the objectives of the Floor Space Ratio standard:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Planning comment:  New window and glazed door are proposed to the southern and western elevations which will be sympathetic to the design of the existing building and subject to conditions will provide additional natural ventilation and solar access which responds to environmental needs for the users of the apartment.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

·      To protect the amenity of residents.

·      To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

Planning comment:

The proposed development will provide increased amenity to the dwelling which will improve the function and facilities available for the occupants of this dwelling. Subject to conditions the proposal will not be reducing the existing amenity for this apartment or occupants of the remaining apartment on the site.

 

The proposal will not contribute to any adverse amenity impacts to surrounding residents or the streetscape. The development is therefore consistent with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

Variation from the adherence to the maximum floor space ratio standard on this occasion is supported as compliance with the standard will not result in public benefit to the orderly use of the site. The proposed development and variation from the control does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning.

 

3    Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013

 

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

 

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

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

 

(a)  visual privacy,

(b)  solar and daylight access,

(c)  common circulation and spaces,

(d)  apartment size and layout,

(e)  ceiling heights,

(f)  private open space and balconies,

(g)  natural ventilation,

(h)  storage.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The relevant provisions of the DCP are addressed below.

 

DCP Clause

Control

Proposal

Compliance (Yes/No/NA/ Conditioned)

B7

Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access

3.

Parking & Service Delivery Requirements

 

Car parking requirements:

1space per 2 studios

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

1.2 spaces per 2-bedroom unit

1.5 spaces per 3- or more bedroom unit

1 visitor space per 4 dwellings

 

Motor cycle requirements:

5% of car parking requirement

 

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

Refer to Referrals section below.

C2

Medium Density Residential

2

Site Planning

2.3

Private and communal open space

2.3.1

Private open space

 

Private open space is to be:

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

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

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

The proposal is formalising the use of the rear POS of Unit 14 which have been constructed with high perimeter fencing to the rear which reduces the communal open space.  The dimensions of POS are 4.5m x 7.5m and equal to an area of 33.75m² which is well above the ADG requirement.   In order to improve the functionality of the communal open space it is required that the depth of the POS to Unit 14 be reduced by 2.5m.  The area will still comply with the ADG requirement.

 

It is acknowledged that the same court yard area which encroaches onto the communal open space will be applied to Unit 13.  This does not form part of this application and will be dealt with under a separate application.

A condition will be included which will require a revised landscape plan to submitted to Council for review  by a registered architect/landscape professional demonstrating that the proposed communal area is  functional for it use with details of seating and a BBQ space etc. to be indicated on the plan.

3

Building Envelope

3.1

Floor space ratio

 

0.9:1

1.151:1 (826m2)

No.  Refer to Clause 4.6 – Variation to Development Standards.

3.2

Building height

 

12m

 

No changes are proposed to the existing building height.

N/A

4

Building Design

4.1

Building façade

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes

4.7

Apartment layout

 

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

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

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

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

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

The proposed development complies with the apartment layout design criteria provided by the ADG.

Yes.  Refer to Key Issues above.

 

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

Acceptable.

Yes

 

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

 

The building has no balconies or private open spaces allocated for the existing units. The proposal will be providing POS to Units 13 & 14 to which Unit 14 would like to formalise its use as part of this application.   This will be improving the amenity for Unit 14.

Yes

 

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

The kitchen is located to the southern end of the building away from the main circulation space which is to the north of the building.

Yes

4.8

Balconies

 

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

 

There are no balconies proposed.

N/A

5

Amenity

5.1

Solar access and overshadowing

 

Solar access for proposed development

 

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

The existing apartment has no solar access to the living room. 

 

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

Yes and a condition has been included which requires the rear living basement windows

 

This will further improve solar access into the open living space.

5.2

Natural ventilation and energy efficiency

 

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

The proposed development complies with solar access and daylight design criteria provided by the ADG.

Complies

 

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

An awning is provided over the west-facing door for sun shading. 

 

Given, that it is required that the west-facing glazed door extend the full width of the lounge area, a condition will be included which requires the awning to extent the same width to ensure adequate sun shading is provided to this glazed door.

 

Conditioned to comply.

 

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

To ensure adequate solar access is provided to the combined open living, dining and kitchen area a condition is included which requires the lounge room glazed doors to extend the full width of the lounge room.

Yes

5.3

Visual privacy

 

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

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

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

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

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

-     Translucent glazing

-     Fixed timber or metal slats

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

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

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

 

However, the location of the proposed window to the southern façade will allow for occupants walking down the existing path along the southern boundary to look into the kitchen given the slope of the path.  For this reason it is recommended that internal privacy measures be implemented to ensure the residential amenity to this unit is protected.

Yes.  A condition is included which requires the internal privacy measure be implemented to the southern window of the kitchen.

5.4

Acoustic privacy

 

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

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

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

-    Double glazing

-    Operable screened balconies

-    Walls to courtyards

-    Sealing of entry doors

Living areas and bedrooms are sufficiently separated.

Yes

5.6

Safety and security

 

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

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

Yes

7.6

Storage

 

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

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

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

(a)       Studio apartments – 6m3

(b)      1-bedroom apartments – 6m3

(c)       2-bedroom apartments – 8m3

(d)      3 plus bedroom apartments – 10m3

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

No. Refer to Key Issues above.

7.7

Laundry facilities

 

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

There is adequate area within the rear POS of this apartment for laundry facilities.

Yes

 

(ii)       Provide internal laundry for each dwelling unit.

A laundry is provided as part of the basement level.

Yes

 

4          Referral Comments

 

The application was send back to Councils development Engineers for review, and no additional comments to the original DA were reported.   The original comments are as follows:

 

Development Engineer

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

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

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

·      Strata Plans (SP) 95170;

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

 

General Comments

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

 

Parking Comments

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Strata Comments

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

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

B.      That the RLPP grants development consent under Sections 4.16 and 4.17 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/4/2018 for alterations and additions to Unit 14 including alteration to new window in southern elevation, provision of internal void, relocation of study to lower level, and provision of landscaping to communal and private areas at No. Unit 14/20-22 Glebe Street, Randwick, subject to the development consent conditions attached to this report.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

RDAP Dev Consent Conditions (med density res) -14/20 Glebe Street, RANDWICK

 

 

 

 


RDAP Dev Consent Conditions (med density res) -14/20 Glebe Street, RANDWICK

Attachment 1

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Randwick Local Planning Panel                                                                                                                              13 December 2018

 

 

Development Application Report No. D108/18

 

 

Subject:                         15 Clovelly Road, Randwick (DA/224/2018)

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGBFolder No:                      DA/224/2018

Author:                          Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

 

Proposal:                       Alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building including new third floor containing 4 additional studio dwellings, three parking spaces at the rear access off Clove Lane and associated communal open space works at the rear.

Ward:                             North Ward

Applicant:                      Accent Properties Pty Ltd

Owner:                           Accent Properties Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:          Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan


 

Executive summary

 

The application is referred to the Randwick Local Planning Panel (RLPP) as the development is subject to SEPP 65. The proposal as amended seeks development consent for alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building including new third floor containing 4 additional studio dwellings, three parking spaces at the rear access off Clove Lane and associated communal open space works at the rear.

 

The proposal was referred to the Heritage Planner and Design Excellence Panel both of whom raised concerns with the shallow front and rear setbacks of the third floor, and choice of materials and finishes. Other key matters raised with the applicant regarding the original application included substantial non-compliance with the floor space ratio standard, substandard sized one bedrooms below 50sqm pursuant to the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), and overshadowing of communal open space. In response, amended plans received delete the rear garage with unit above and two parking space instead seeking three hard stand carspaces, conversion of one bedroom units into studio units, a 300mm side setback for the third storey, deletion of one carspace for a total of three spaces, and amended landscaping.

 

The original proposal was advertised and notified in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP). Five submissions were received as part of the notification period raising concerns with bulk and scale, lack of separation, excessive and inaccurate floor space ratio (FSR), side and scale, reduced natural light, overshadowing, visual and acoustic privacy impacts, excessive wall height, and non-compliance with the ADG. Re-notification of amended plans wasn’t required given the general reduction in the scope of the amended development.

 

The amended application reduces the original floor space ratio (FSR) to 1.029:1 by way of deleting the rear garage with dwelling above, which continues to contravene the maximum 1:1 FSR standard in the Randwick LEP. The applicant’s request to vary the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the RLEP has been considered in the assessment of the application. The extent of the 2.9% variation is not supported as the amended plans have not suitably addressed the matters raised by Council in seeking to satisfy the relevant objectives of the standard and the Neighbourhood Centre zone. Despite this, it is considered that conditions requiring greater front and side setbacks can be included which will reduce the variance to 0.8% of the standard and assist with ensuring the FSR and Zone objectives are satisfied. The key issues contains discussion of the key non-compliances associated with the development and the recommended conditions.

 

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

 

Proposal

Alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building including new third floor containing 4 additional studio dwellings, three carspaces to the rear off Clove Lane, and associated site works.

Figure 1: Photomontage of proposed development and neighbouring properties.

 

 

 

 

Application history

 

The subject DA was lodged on 26 April 2018. An initial request for additional information raised matters from Council, Design Excellence Panel (a referral body under SEPP 65) and Heritage Planner. The key issues sought to reduce the size and scale of the third floor addition, clarify the colour scheme and to comply with the minimum provisions for apartment sizes in the Apartment Design Guide.

The applicant submitted amended plans on 1 November 2018 detailing the following amendments:

·      Deletion of the outbuilding with dwelling above seeking instead three hardstand carspaces and reconfigured communal open space as

·      Conversion of the four one bedroom dwellings into 4 studio dwellings;

·      Submitted a more recessive colour and material scheme

·      300mm side setbacks;

·      No change was made to the 1500mm deep balconies at the front and rear;

 

Site Description and Locality

 

The subject site is identified as 15 Clovelly Road, Randwick and is legally described as Lot 31 Sec 19 DP 4698. The site has an area of 556.4sqm, is rectangular in shape with a skewed rear boundary abutting Clove Lane. The site has a frontage of 13.715m to Clovelly Road and side boundary depths of 37.77m to the east and 44.145m to the west due to the long skewed 15.13m rear boundary to Clove Lane. The site has a gentle fall of around 200-300mm from west to east. The site contains two trees at the rear. The site comprises a 2 storey interwar residential flat building approved in 1941 that contains 8 x 1 bedroom units, with no car parking spaces.

 

The site is located in a neighbourhood centre and within the Randwick North Conservation Area as identified by the RDCP. The subject site is not a heritage item. Heritage items nearby include properties on the other side of the laneway fronting Darley Road. The site is located to the south of Centennial Parklands. Adjoining development comprises Inter War retail buildings with residential apartment’s above. As noted by the Heritage Planner, the subject residential flat building remains the secondary element in the group by virtue of lower overall height, simplicity of detail, set down of ground floor, slight setback and openings to both sides separating the building from the attached groups of retail buildings. Photo 1 below shows the subject site in amongst the retail premises on either side.

 

Photo 1: Subject site containing red brick hipped roof setback from adjoining inter ward retail premises with zero lot alignments.

 

Relevant history

 

Council provided advice relating to two pre-lodgement applications (PL35/2014; PL/9/2015) seeking to add another level to the existing two storey residential flat building. The salient difference between these pre-lodgement applications and the subject application are that a a new upper floor addition had a greater front setback than that proposed as part of this application and was supported by Councils Heritage Planner. Another scheme proposed a zero lot side setback that was supported by the then Design Review Panel (DEP) and not supported by Councils Heritage Planner.