BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Randwick Local Planning Panel

Meeting

 

 

 

  Thursday 14 February 2019       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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            14 February 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


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 St, Randwick

on Thursday, 14 February 2019 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

D1/19          216-216A Malabar Road, South Coogee (DA/226/2018)................................................. 1

D2/19          1 Adams Avenue, Malabar (DA/814/2018)................................................................... 57

D3/19          15 Seaside Parade, South Coogee (DA/6/2018/A)..................................................... 141

D4/19          12 Campbell Street, Clovelly (DA/653/2018).............................................................. 159

Miscellaneous Reports

M1/19          Planning proposal to create a new Heritage Conservation Area incorporating          37-41 Dudley Street and 142A-152 Brook Street within the Randwick LEP 2012......................................... 179     

 

 

 

Kerry Kyriacou

Director City Planning


Randwick Local Planning Panel            14 February 2019

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D1/19

 

Subject:                      216-216A Malabar Road, South Coogee (DA/226/2018)

Folder No:                      DA/226/2018

Author:                          Plandev Pty Ltd, Thomas Mithen     

 

Proposal:                       Demolition of existing structures, construction of a 2 storey boarding house in 2 building forms comprised of 16 boarding rooms, 8 car park spaces, motorcycle and bicycle spaces, landscaping and associated works.

Ward:                             East

Applicant:                      Urbanesque Planning Pty Ltd

Owner:                           South Coogee Holdings Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:          Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=4a94453c-6190-412c-8f36-f09b7c5f07be&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. In addition, one of the objectors is a Council employee.

 

The proposal is for demolition of the existing structures, construction of a 2 storey boarding house in 2 building forms comprised of 16 boarding rooms, 8 car park spaces, motorcycle and bicycle spaces, landscaping and associated works.

 

During the assessment of the application, the proposal was amended to make a series of changes to the design of the development. This included a reduction in the number of boarding rooms (from 20 to 16 rooms) and an increase to the amount of off-street car parking to ensure compliance with the applicable car parking rates in Clause 29 of the ARHSEPP 2009.

The amended proposal has been assessed against the relevant planning requirements contained within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012, State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (ARHSEPP 2009) and the Randwick Development Control Plan (RDCP) 2013. The proposal is considered to be an acceptable form of development within the R2 – Low Density Residential zone and would not cause any unreasonable amenity impacts for the streetscape and/or adjoining properties, subject to on-going compliance with the submitted Plan of Management which is recommended to be imposed a condition of consent.

The amended proposal is considered to be generally consistent with the applicable planning controls and as such, is recommended for approval subject to suitable conditions.

Proposal

 

This development application (DA) seeks Council’s consent for demolition of the existing structures, construction of a 2 storey boarding house in 2 building forms comprised of 16 boarding rooms, 8 car park spaces, motorcycle and bicycle spaces, landscaping and associated works.

 

The proposed development (in its amended form) is further described as follows:

 

Ground Floor

·      Demolition of the existing improvements;

·      5 x single lodger boarding rooms;

·      Indoor communal room;

·      Communal open space in the rear setback area;

·      Waste storage area adjacent to the northern boundary at the rear;

·      8 car parking spaces, 4 motorcycle spaces and 4 bicycle spaces; and

·      Landscaping works.

 

First Floor

·      8 x single lodger rooms; and

·      3 x double lodger boarding rooms.

 

The proposal also involves the removal of various trees throughout the site.

 

The development provides a total of 13 single lodger rooms and 3 double lodger rooms. The capacity of the boarding house is therefore 19 lodgers. No manager’s room is proposed. The submitted photomontage of the development is re-produced below:

 

 

Figure 1 – Photomontage of the proposed development

 

Site Description and Locality

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Malabar Road South Coogee between Cuzco Street to the north and Edgecliffe Avenue to the south and comprises a total area of 882.8m2. The site is slightly irregular but predominantly rectangular in shape. The street frontage of the site to Malabar Road is 11.58m, the rear boundary is 10.06m while the northern boundary is 82.235m and the southern boundary is 81.19m. The site is commonly known as 216A Malabar Road, South Coogee and is legally described as Lot A in DP 19333. The site currently accommodates an existing two storey attached dual occupancy. The rear third of the site rises towards Gregory Street to the west and ends in a steep upslope embankment. This part of the site is heavily vegetated.

The rear of the site and approximately half of the southern side boundary adjoins Popplewell Park which is public open space and is zoned RE1 – Public Recreation in accordance with RLEP 2012. To the left of the site as viewed from Malabar Road, is an allotment which accommodated an electrical substation and is known as 216S Malabar Road. This allotment creates physical separation between the subject site and the existing residential flat building further to the south at 218 Malabar Road. Adjoining the site to the north at 214 Malabar Road is an existing two storey residential flat building.

The surrounding locality is characterised by a mixture of older residential flat buildings (typically 2 to 4 storeys in height) with interspersed 1 and 2 storey single dwellings. On the opposite (eastern) side of Malabar Road to the north is a small B1- Neighbourhood Centre which supports an existing café and mixed-use development. There are a number of bus stops in close proximity to the site which service Malabar Road.

Figure 2 – The subject site

Relevant history

 

·      The subject development application was submitted to Council on 26/04/2018.

·      On 09/05/2018 the application was notified to neighbours in accordance with RDCP 2013 for a period of 14 days. A total of nine (9) submissions were received.

·      Following a preliminary assessment of the application, the applicant was advised that the design of the development is required to be amended so as to ensure compliance with the off-street car parking requirements in the ARHSEPP 2009.

·      The applicant submitted amended plans on 11/10/2018.

·      The amended plans were re-notified on 17/10/2018 in accordance with RDCP 2013 for a period of 14 days. A total of two (2) further submissions were received.

·      On 12/12/2018 the applicant submitted an updated Operational Plan of Management, an updated Traffic Report, an Acoustic Report and updated architectural drawings to correct some minor detailing.

 

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 original notification attracted 9 submissions, whilst notification of the amended proposal attracted 2 submissions. A summary of the concerns raised in the submissions is provided below: 

 

 

Address: 218 Malabar Road, South Coogee

Issue

Comment

The proposal is subject to the requirements of BASIX.

The applicant has submitted a compliant BASIX Certificate.

Non-compliant amount of car parking.

The proposal has been amended to ensure compliance with the off-street parking requirements within the ARHSEPP 2009.

Increase in vehicle and motorcycle noise.

This matter is not considered to warrant further plan amendment and/or outright refusal of the application.

Removal of mature trees.

The application was reviewed by Council’s Landscape Development Officer who did not raise any objection to the proposal tree removal, subject to the provision of suitable replacement plantings.

Inconsistency with the R2 – Low Density zone objectives as the proposal does not protect the amenity of residents.

The proposal does not offend any of the R2 – Low Density Residential zone objectives within RLEP 2012 and does not cause any unreasonable amenity impacts for neighbouring properties for reasons identified throughout this report.

 

Bulk and Scale - The built form extends into the site for a significant length and beyond that of adjoining residential dwelling houses. The design of the development is uncharacteristic of the area.

The subject site is a relatively long, narrow allotment. The building form proposed can therefore be reasonably expected, given the site configuration. It is also noted that in accordance with clause 29 of the ARHSEPP 2009, the consent authority cannot refuse the application on grounds of density or scale if the FSR compliant, which it is this instance.

 The design of the proposal is an acceptable response in the streetscape context. Refer to ‘Character Test’ assessment within the report. 

Insufficient solar access to the communal room and common open space at the rear.

The indoor communal room has been re-located towards the rear of the ground floor plan. The amended shadowing analysis demonstrates that this room receives the required amount of sunlight in accordance with the ARHSEPP 2009 requirements. 

Insufficient side setbacks and associated amenity impacts for neighbouring properties.

The proposal does not cause any unreasonable amenity impacts for neighbouring properties and the setbacks proposed are acceptable for reasons identified throughout this report.

 

The proposed development fails to provide a sufficient amount of landscaped area, in accordance with the provisions the RDCP 2013.

 

In accordance with clause 29 of the ARHSEPP 2009, the consent authority cannot refuse the application on grounds of landscaped area if the landscape treatment of the front setback area is compatible with the streetscape. The proposal incorporates soft landscaping in the front setback area which is consistent with the streetscape. In addition, the existing natural vegetated rock area at the rear of the site will be fully retained and the permeable paving will be used        for driveway, bicycle parking and waste areas to further improve the stormwater infiltration on site.

Privacy and acoustic impacts

The proposal is not considered to cause any unreasonable privacy and/or amenity impacts for reasons identified throughout this report. 

Communal room is not located centrally within the site.

The common room is proposed to be positioned at the rear of the ground floor which is considered to acceptable given that lends itself to the room achieving access to sunlight. Additionally, it would be well linked to the outdoor communal open space area within the rear setback area.

The permeable paving proposed does not permit universal accessibility.

This matter is assessed at construction certificate stage.

There are no security features fronting Malabar Road. The bike racks proposed within the front setback are capable of causing security impacts.

The design of the development includes new window openings on the eastern (Malabar Road) elevation which provides casual surveillance opportunities. The plans include an annotation stating “4 bicycle spaces and secure racks”. However, a condition of consent has been included which requires the bicycle storage rack to be re-located to the rear of the site adjacent to the waste area. 

 

Address: 2/214 Malabar Road, South Coogee

Issue

Comment

Non-compliant amount of car parking.

The proposal has been amended to ensure compliance with the off-street parking requirements within the ARHSEPP 2009.

Overlooking, noise, security, privacy and overshadowing impacts.

These matters are addressed in the main body of the report.

Ineffective landscaping outcomes proposed.

In accordance with clause 29 of the ARHSEPP 2009, the consent authority cannot refuse the application on grounds of landscaped area if the landscape treatment of the front setback area is compatible with the streetscape. The proposal incorporates soft landscaping in the front setback area which is consistent with the streetscape. In addition, the existing natural vegetated rock area at the rear of the site will be fully retained and the permeable paving will be used        for driveway, bicycle parking and waste areas to further improve the stormwater infiltration on site.

Potential drainage/stormwater water run off impacts.

The application was reviewed by Council’s Engineering who has indicates that the proposal is acceptable in respect of drainage.

Misleading Statement of Environmental Effects which does not reference the recent changes to the Act.

The submitted Statement of Environmental Effects is adequate for assessment.

Amenity impacts associated with proposed air conditioning units.

Standard conditions of consent have been included addressing this matter.

Inconsistency with the R2 – Low Density Residential zone objectives.

The proposal does not offend any of the R2 – Low Density Residential zone objectives within RLEP 2012.

 

Address: 4/214 Malabar Road, South Coogee

Issue

Comment

Excessive density and number of lodgers per room.

These matters are addressed in the main body of the report.

Overlooking, noise and overshadowing impacts.

These matters are addressed in the main body of the report.

Tree removal and potential drainage impacts.

Council’s Development Engineer and Landscape Officer have reviewed the proposed development and raise no objections, subject to various conditions of consent.

Clothes drying area is not shown on the submitted plans.

The information provided with the application states that each room will contain a washing machine and dryer. A clothes drying area is therefore not necessarily required.

The statements made about the extent of sunlight received by the communal rooms are misleading.

This matter is addressed in the main  body of the report.

Residents did not receive written notification of the public consultation period.

Council’s records indicate that the DA was notified in accordance with the DCP requirements.

The DCP requires the submission of an acoustic report.

The applicant has provided an Acoustic assessment report as required by the DCP.

 

Address: 6/214 Malabar Road, South Coogee

Issue

Comment

Noise and parking impacts. 

These matters are addressed in the main body of the report.

 

Address: 1/214 Malabar Road, South Coogee

Issue

Comment

Noise and parking impacts. 

These matters are addressed in the main body of the report.

Commercialisation of a residential area.

The proposed boarding house is a permissible use within the R2 – Low Density Residential zone.

 

Address: 3/214 Malabar Road, South Coogee

Issue

Comment

Density/overcrowding/parking and noise impacts.

These matters are addressed in the main body of the report.

Dangerous dogs continually off the leash.

This matter is not a planning consideration.

Potential drainage/stormwater water run off impacts.

Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the proposed development and raise no objections, subject to various conditions of consent.

 

Address: 1/206 Malabar Road, South Coogee

Issue

Comment

There is already a large proportion of affordable housing in the locality.

Council does not have any anti-clustering planning controls in this respect.

 

Address: 6/206 Malabar Road, South Coogee

Issue

Comment

There is already a large proportion of affordable housing in the locality.

Council does not have any anti-clustering planning controls in this respect.

The development will devalue property.

There has been no evidence submitted to demonstrate that the proposal will result in devaluing of nearby properties.

 

Address: 206 Malabar Road, South Coogee

Issue

Comment

There is ample affordable housing complexes in South Coogee. 

Council does not have any anti-clustering planning controls in this respect.

The development will devalue property.

There has been no evidence submitted to demonstrate that the proposal will result in devaluing of nearby properties.

More residents will make public recreational spaces un-useable.

This concern is not considered to warrant any further plan amendment or outright refusal of the application.

 

Key Issues

 

Car Parking

The amended plans have reduced the number of boarding rooms from 20 rooms (plus Manager’s room) to 16 rooms (no Manager’s room). Consequently, the development is required to provide 8 car parking spaces in accordance with clause 29(e)(iia) of the ARHSEPP 2009. Those spaces have been provided on the ground floor plan and the proposal is compliant in this respect. No further concerns are raised in this regard.

 

Noise impacts

There have been a number of submissions received raising concerns with noise impacts towards the adjoining residential properties.

 

The proposed boarding house is a residential land use which is not anticipated to generate unreasonable acoustic impacts for neighbouring properties. The application was accompanied by a Plan of Management which details measures of how the operation of the development will minimise adverse amenity impacts upon the locality.

 

The applicant was requested to provide an acoustic assessment report. The submitted report indicates that the proposed development is capable of operating within acceptable noise limits subject to various recommendations, including: 

 

·      The ground floor common room not being used for organised social events where amplified music or people speaking with loud voices may be expected;

·      No music should be played in the ground floor common room after 10:00pm each night;

·      Guests should be encouraged to enter and exit the car park quietly; and

·      Signs should be posted around the car park, in clearly visible locations, reminding guests to be mindful of the neighbouring residential properties and the importance of respecting their amenity.

 

The proposal is acceptable with respect to noise subject to on-going compliance with the Plan of Management and the noise controls recommendations made in the submitted acoustic assessment report.  

 

Building setbacks

There have been a number of submissions received raising concerns with the proposed building setbacks as well as the first floor cantilevering element at the front of the site (i.e. – Room 6). Whilst the low density residential controls within Part C1 of RDCP 2013 are not strictly relevant to boarding house developments, they have been applied as a guide to assist in determining the suitability of the proposed side setbacks. In this regard, the applicable setbacks required by Part C1 of RDCP 2013 would be 900mm for the ground and first floor for a dwelling house or attached dual occupancy.

 

The proposed development incorporates a 900mm setback to the southern side boundary for the ground and first floor. The interface between the proposed development and the adjoining residential building to the south at No.218 Malabar Road is further enhanced due to the allotment at No.216S (accommodating an electrical substation) which provides additional separation between the subject site and part of the lot at No.218 Malabar Road. Additionally, there is existing landscaping which would provide some immediate screening of the built form proposed to be constructed. Refer to images below:

 

 

Figure 3- Existing landscaping on adjacent southern property

 

 

Figure 4 – Landscaping and existing interface with adjacent southern property

 

The setbacks on the ground floor to the northern side boundary range between 2.78m up to approximately 3.0m. On the first floor they range between approximately 1.24m and 2.77m. It is noted that the first-floor cantilevered element is setback 1.24m and does not contribute to any unreasonable amenity and/or streetscape impacts that would warrant a re-design.

 

The setbacks proposed do not cause any unreasonable amenity impacts to the adjacent residential developments and are acceptable in the street context. As such, this aspect of the development is supported.

 


 

Overlooking/privacy impacts

There have been a number of submissions received raising concerns with likely privacy impacts caused by overlooking from the proposed development to the adjoining residential properties. The privacy outcomes proposed are generally considered to be well resolved for reasons identified below:

 

·      No concerns are raised with the window openings on the side elevations of the ground floor on the basis that they would not have any direct view into the adjoining properties;

·      The windows on the first floor along the southern elevation service kitchens and bathrooms. These windows are proposed to be translucent glass louvre windows as shown on Window Schedule Drawing No 3.2. Further, the privacy screens on the adjacent external walkway would further restrict overlooking impacts. A condition of consent has been included to increase the width of those privacy screens; 

·      The windows on the first floor along the northern elevation service the main internal area of the boarding rooms themselves. These windows include a combination of louvre windows and a fixed panel. There are some existing south facing window openings on the ground and first floor of the existing adjacent residential building at No.214 Malabar Road. It is accepted that there may be some degree of reciprical overlooking. To minimise this, a condition of consent has been included requiring windows W46 to W54 to have additional privacy treatment. There is a fixed external screen over W55 at the front of the site on the northern elevation which is in close proximity to the common boundary. The privacy device proposed is therefore considered to be warranted; and

·      Some of the submissions have suggested that the external walkway on the southern side of the building should be internalised within the development. Whilst this comment is noted, the proposal includes a privacy screen adjacent to the walkway which will restrict overlooking in a southerly direction towards the existing residential building at No.218 Malabar Road. Further, the width of the walkway is approximately 1200mm so it is unlikely to lend itself to people congregating. The proposed width is suggestive that is primarily for functional access purposes only. A condition of consent has been included to ensure that it is used in this manner.  

 

Overshadowing impacts

There have been a number of submission received raising concerns with the overshadowing impacts of the development upon neighbouring residential development. The overshadowing impacts of the development have been assessed and examined below:

 

June 21st – 8.00am

Additional overshadowing within the public open space area at the rear of the site. There would be some minor additional overshadowing caused inbetween the existing residential buildings on the neighbouring southern site at No.218 Malabar Road.

 

June 21st – 12 noon

Additional overshadowing within the public open space area at the rear of the site and within parts of the neighbouring southern site at No.218 Malabar Road, particuarly within the north-western corner.

 

June 21st – 4.00pm

Additional overshadowing within the public open space area at the rear of the site and within parts of the neighbouring southern site at No.218 Malabar Road, particuarly within the north-western corner. There would also be some additional overshadowing along Malabar Road at the front of the site.

 

Concluding remarks

It is considered that virtually any re-development of the subject allotment would cause some additional overshadowing impacts to the residential building at No.218 Malabar Road given that it is to the direct south. The proposed development is compliant with the height, floor space ratio and building setback requirements. The additional overshadowing impacts are therefore generated by a compliant building envelope. The development is acceptable in relation to the solar access and overshadowing provisions within Part 5.1 – C1 of RDCP 2013.

 

Zone objectives

Concerns have been raised within the submissions stating that the proposed development is inconsistent with R2 – Low Density Residential zone objectives within Randwick LEP 2012. The proposal is considered to satisfy these objectives for the following key reasons:

 

·      The proposal provides a housing option for the needs of the community. The development complies with the building height, FSR and setback requirements and is thus an acceptable response within a low density residential environment;

·      The amenity impacts to neighbouring residential properties are acceptable for reasons identified throughout this report;

·      The built form proposed is consistent with other development in its surroundings having regard to the proposed scale, number of storeys, roof form, setbacks and external colours and materials; and

·      The proposed boarding house would encourage housing affordability as anticipated by the zone objectives.

 

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 the existing structures, construction of a 2 storey boarding house in 2 building forms comprised of 16 boarding rooms, 8 car park spaces, motorcycle and bicycle spaces, landscaping and associated works be approved (subject to conditions) for the following reasons:

 

·      The proposal is consistent with the objectives contained within the ARHSEPP 2009, RLEP 2012 and the relevant requirements of the RDCP 2013; and

·      The proposal is acceptable in the street context and does not cause any adverse impacts for the streetscape and/or neighbouring 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

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

The site is zoned Residential R2 - Low Density under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent. See table below for compliance with development standards.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

The proposal has been considered against the above SEPP later in this report.

 

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

The Department of Planning & Environment (DPE) has issued an Explanation of Intended Effect to explain the intended effect of a proposed amendment to SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 that will limit boarding rooms in the R2 zone to a maximum of 12 rooms. The subject application is on land in the R2 zone and consists of 16 boarding rooms, therefore not complying.

 

The public consultation process for the proposed amendment has closed and feedback is being considered by the DPE. The proposed changes are not considered to be imminent or certain and there are insufficient planning reasons to restrict the proposed development to 12 boarding rooms.

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

The relevant considerations of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013 have been considered.

 

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

The development is not subject to a planning agreement or draft planning agreement.

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, which are otherwise not addressed in this report, as discussed in the paragraphs below.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

2.         Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

2.1      State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPS)

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) applies to all land and aims to provide for a State-wide planning approach to the remediation of contaminated land.

 

Clause 7 of SEPP 55 requires the consent authority to consider whether land is contaminated prior to granting consent to the carrying out of any development on that land. There is no evident risk to human health and the environment in this case to warrant a more detailed investigation given the immediate surrounds have been used for residential purposes for a considerable number of years, and there have been no known potentially contaminating activities undertaken on the site. The subject site is not identified under RLEP 2012 as constituting contaminated land or land that must be subject to a site audit statement. Accordingly, nothing restricts Council, under SEPP 55, from consenting to the carrying out of the development.

 

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

In accordance with the decision in SHMH Properties Australia Pty Ltd vs City of Sydney Council [2018] NSWLEC 66, a BASIX Certificate is required for the proposed development given that the design of each of the boarding rooms are capable of being self-contained domiciles.

 

The subject Development Application (DA) is accompanied by an appropriate BASIX Certificate. The certificate demonstrates that the proposal will achieve compliance with the BASIX water, energy and thermal efficiency targets. 

 

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

In order for Division 3 Boarding Houses of the ARHSEPP 2009 to be applicable to the subject application, the following criteria must be met.

Clause 26 - Land to which Division applies

This Division applies to land within any of the following land use zones or within a land use zone that is equivalent to any of those zones:

a)   Zone R1 General Residential,

b)   Zone R2 Low Density Residential,

c)  Zone R3 Medium Density Residential,

d)  Zone R4 High Density Residential,

e)  Zone B1 Neighbourhood Centre,

f)  Zone B2 Local Centre,

g)  Zone B4 Mixed Use.

Comment: The land is zoned R2 - Low Density Residential under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and thus complies.

Clause 27 - Development to which Division applies

(1)  This Division applies to development, on land to which this Division applies, for the purposes of boarding houses.

(2)  Despite subclause (1), this Division does not apply to development on land within Zone R2 Low Density Residential or within a land use zone that is equivalent to that zone in the Sydney region unless the land is within an accessible area.

(3)  Despite subclause (1), this Division does not apply to development on land within Zone R2 Low Density Residential or within a land use zone that is equivalent to that zone that is not in the Sydney region unless all or part of the development is within 400 metres walking distance of land within Zone B2 Local Centre or Zone B4 Mixed Use or within a land use zone that is equivalent to any of those zones.

Comment: The site is located within the R2 – Low Density Residential zone. The requirements of Clause 27(2) and (3) are thus applicable. In this regard, the applicant has demonstrated that the subject site is within an accessible area in accordance with the definition in the ARHSEPP 2009. The applicant’s commentary on this matter is summarised below: 

The subject site is 83m walking distance to a bus stop outside 202 Malabar Road to the north of the site. Regular buses are available as follows:

·      Routes 353 - Northbound to Bondi Junction via Coogee, Southbound to Eastgardens via Maroubra Junction.

·      Routes 376 & 377 - Northbound to City via Randwick Junction, Southbound to Maroubra Beach.

On Route 353, at the nominated bus stop (No. 203420) with a destination of Bondi Junction (No. 202266), buses run at least every hour commencing at 6.24am and ending at 11:40pm Mondays to Fridays and between 12.10am and 11.37pm Saturdays and between 12.07am and 9.37pm Sundays. As Route 353 complies with the frequency requirements of the ARHSEPP 2009, the other bus timetables are not required to be further analysed.

Clause 28 - Development may be carried out with consent

Clause 28 of the ARHSEPP 2009 establishes that development carried out under the SEPP must have development consent.

Comment: The subject development application has been lodged with Council.

Clause 29 Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent

Clause 29 of the ARHSEPP 2009 prescribes that a consent authority must not refuse consent to a development application for a boarding house development if the development satisfies the following numerical controls:


 

Density – Floor Space Ratio (Clause 29 (1))

A consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this Division applies on the grounds of density or scale if 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, or

(ii)    20% of the existing maximum floor space ratio, if the existing maximum floor space ratio is greater than 2.5:1.

Comment: The subject site has a maximum allowable floor space ratio of 0.6:1 for dwelling houses under clause 4.4(2A) of the RLEP 2012. However, the maximum floor space ratio for a boarding house under the LEP is 0.5:1. The development proposes an FSR of 0.49:1, which complies.

Building Height (Clause 29(2)(a))

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.

 

Comment: A maximum building height of 9.5 metres applies to the site under RLEP 2012. The development has a maximum building height of approximately 8.8 metres which complies with the maximum building height permitted under the ARHSEPP 2009.

 

Landscaped Area (Clause 29(2)(b))

If the landscape treatment of the front setback area is compatible with the streetscape in which the building is located.

 

Comment: The proposed development incorporates soft landscaping into the front setback area to Malabar Road which is compatible with the streetscape and is therefore acceptable.

 

Solar Access (Clause 29(2)(c))

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 9.00am and 3.00pm in mid-winter.

 

Comment: The proposed development includes a communal living room on the ground floor which contains north-facing windows. It is noted that some concerns have been raised throughout the submissions as to whether or not the communal living room achieves the requisite amount of solar access. The amended overshadowing analysis demonstrates that the windows servicing the communal living room would achieve in excess of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9.00am and 3.00pm in mid-winter and thus complies.

 


 

Private Open Space (Clause 29(2)(d))

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.

 

Comment: The amended plans identify a 45m2 communal private open space area at the rear of the site which complies with the applicable requirements outlined above. 

 

It is noted that the amended plans have removed the Manager’s room on the basis of the capacity of the boarding house not accommodating 20 or more lodgers. This is consistent with the requirements of Clause 30(3) of the ARHSEPP 2009.

 

Parking (Clause 29(2)(e))

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.

 

Comment: The development is not proposed to be carried out by or on behalf of a social housing provider and as such, the applicable car parking rate is 0.5 spaces for each boarding room. On the basis of 16 rooms, 8 car parking spaces are required. The amended development provides 8 car parking spaces on the ground floor and is thus acceptable.

 

Accommodation Size (Clause 29(2)(f))

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.

Comment: The information submitted with the application indicates the size of each of the boarding rooms range between 15.2m2 – 18m2. These figures exclude the areas proposed to be used from the purposes of private kitchen and bathrooms. All rooms within the boarding house comply with the minimum accommodation size requirements of the ARHSEPP 2009.

Standards for Boarding Houses (Clause 30)

 

Clause 30 of the ARHSEPP 2009 prescribes that a consent authority must not consent to a development to which this Division applies unless it is satisfied of each of the following:

 

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

 

Comment: A communal living room has been provided on the ground floor.

 

(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.

 

Comment: The sizes of the proposed boarding rooms range between 15.8m2 – 18m2 and are therefore compliant in this respect.

 

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

 

Comment: No boarding rooms are proposed to be occupied by more than 2 adult lodgers.

 

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

 

Comment: Each boarding room is provided with individual bathroom and kitchen facilities which are considered to be adequate.

 

(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.

 

Comment: The boarding house has a capacity of 19 lodgers and is therefore not obligated to provide a boarding house manager.

 

(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.

 

Comment: The property is zoned R2 - Low Density Residential under RLEP 2012, and as such the land is not zoned primarily for commercial purposes and consequently, the provisions contained in the above sub clause are not applicable to the proposal.

 

(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.

 

Comment: The boarding house is proposed to contain 16 boarding rooms. The amended plans identify the provision of 4 motorcycle spaces and 4 bicycle spaces which is compliant.

 

Character of Local Area (Clause 30A)

 

Under the provisions of Clause 30A of the ARHSEPP 2009, applications for new boarding houses must satisfy a local character test which seeks to ensure developments proposed under the ARHSEPP are consistent with the design of the area.

 

Comment: The applicant’s Statement of Environmental Effects has provided the following assessment of the proposal against the Character Test.

Case law has held that the test in Clause 30A is “one of compatibility not sameness” (Gow v Warringah Council [2013] NSWLEC 1093 (15 March 2013)). Compatibility is widely accepted to mean “capable of existing together in harmony” (Project Venture Developments Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 191. It has also been held that in assessing ‘compatibility’ both the existing and future character of the local area needs to be taken into account (Sales Search Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2013] NSWLEC 1052 (2 April 2013) and Redevelop Projects Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council [2013] NSWLEC 1029).

In Redevelop Projects Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council [2013] NSW LEC 1029, Commissioner Morris concluded that the ‘local area’ includes both sides of the street and that the ‘visual catchment’ is the minimum area to be considered in determining compatibility.

The visual catchment which incorporates the subject site is characterised by an eclectic mix of residential flat buildings and single dwellings. Two and three storey residential flat buildings are dominant on the western side of Malabar Road while one and two storey dwellings are predominant on the eastern side of the road. The eastern side of the road also supports a small B1 Neighbourhood Business zone of 2 storeys height.

The buildings in the visual catchment are of a variety of architectural styles ranging from 1940’s art deco to post war austerity to contemporary where the original housing stock has been redeveloped. The residential flat buildings are now considered to be ‘non conforming uses’ as they are prohibited in the current R2 Low Density Residential zone. By contrast single dwellings and boarding houses are conforming uses.

The surrounding locality exhibits a variety of forms, heights and densities as previously mentioned. It is not possible to estimate the site densities of any particular development as this information is unavailable. Importantly, the proposed site density of 0.5:1 is in conformity with the zoning under the RLEP 2012 and the non-discretionary development standard for floor space ratio under the SEPPARH.

Of most relevance to the character of the proposed development are the two nearest developments on either side as viewed from Malabar Road. Both are residential flat buildings. No. 218 to the south is contemporary (about 1990) and No. 214 to the north is of the period of the original subdivision (about 1940). No. 218 is 3 storeys in height and No. 214 is 2 storeys in height. No. 218 is a very broad building as viewed from the street while No. 214 is narrow such as the building on the subject site. In considering the design approach for the boarding house, it was considered appropriate to implement a built form more closely analogous to a residential flat building in form but the form to be appropriate to the available site width. The resulting building is considered to be designed appropriately and will sit comfortably between the two adjoining residential flat buildings.

The general built form is therefore considered to be compatible with the surrounding built environment in the R2 zone and is consistent with the present character of the local area in the visual catchment. The future character is guided by the zone objectives and development standards of the RLEP 2012. In this regard, the R2 zone may achieve a building height of 9.5m. The proposal is compliant with the height of buildings development control as well as the floor space ratio as mentioned above. Therefore, it cannot be said that the application seeks overdevelopment of the site. In terms of land use, the proposal is in total conformity with the vision of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan.

Our conclusion is that the building will be compatible with the present character established by the historic development of the locality and the future character as envisaged under the RLEP 2012.

Comment: The conclusions drawn above are concurred with. The design of the development is capable of co-existing in harmony with the existing built form in its surroundings by virtue of the proposed scale, number of storeys, roof form, setbacks and external colours and materials. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to satisfy the local character requirements within Clause 30A of the ARHSEPP 2009.

 

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.

 

The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed land use and built form will provide housing in a manner that reasonably protects 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)

0.5:1 for boarding house

0.49:1

Yes

Height of Building (Maximum)

9.5m

8.8m

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 controls that are relevant to the proposed boarding house development are addressed below.

 

3.1      Section C4 – Boarding Houses

 

DCP Clause

Control

Proposal

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA/ Conditioned)

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 design of the development provides north and east facing windows where possible to capture sunlight.

 

Private balconies/terraces are not provided. However, this requirement is inconsistent with the ARHSEPP 2009. Further, the private open space area provided exceeds the minimum 20m2 requirement and the site is located in close proximity to Popplewell Park which provides passive recreation opportunities. 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, acceptable on merit.

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.

The design of the outdoor communal open space area is generally consistent with the DCP requirements. The amended plans indicate the provision of a BBQ in the rear setback area. The design of the space does not include a pergola for weather protection, however, this variation is not considered to be a determinative matter. 

Yes

2.3 - Indoor communal living areas

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; and

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

 

Based on 19 lodgers, a 22.8m2 indoor communal room is required. The proposed communal room achieves this requirement and the dimensions are in excess of the minimum 3m requirement. Further, the communal room is orientated towards north to maximise solar access and improve amenity for future users.

Yes

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 clotheslines to maximise solar access while not compromising the street amenity or usability of communal open space.

All kitchen/bathroom and laundry facilities are provided within each of the boarding rooms. It is however noted that a kitchen and bathroom is also provided in the common room on the ground floor.

 

The information contained in the Operational Plan of Management states that each room will contain a washing machine and dryer. As a result, a communal laundry and associated clothesline is not necessary. 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

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 common room includes an east facing window which provides casual surveillance opportunities across the adjacent car parking spaces. There are west facing windows within boarding room 5 which enables some general observation of the communal open space area at the rear of the site.

 

There is a clearly delineated pedestrian access path from the front boundary to the entries of boarding rooms 1,2,3 and 4 as well as the stairs servicing the first floor.

Yes

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 internal layouts of each of the boarding rooms are generally compliant with the DCP design guidelines.

 

The indoor and outdoor communal areas are both provided at ground level which minimises overlooking, privacy and acoustic impacts to adjoining properties.

 

Wet areas such as bathrooms are all located adjacent to each other to minimise noise transmission between rooms.

 

A privacy screen has been incorporated into the design of the first floor external walkway on the southern elevation. 

 

The proposed privacy outcomes are discussed in greater detail in the “Key Issues” section of this report. 

 

The application has been accompanied by an acoustic report which demonstrates that, subject to various recommendations, the proposed development will meet the relevant noise requirements.

Yes

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. 

 

An Operational Plan of Management has been submitted which addresses the necessary criteria set out within the DCP.

Yes

 

4.         Referral Comments

 

Engineering & Landscape Officer

The application was reviewed by Council’s Development Engineer and Landscape Development Officer who supported the proposed development subject to various conditions of consent. Those conditions have been incorporated into the recommendation.

 

 

 

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. 226/2018 for demolition of existing structures, construction of a 2 storey boarding house in 2 building forms comprised of 16 boarding rooms, 8 car park spaces, motorcycle and bicycle spaces, landscaping and associated works, at No. 216-216A Malabar Road, South Coogee, subject to the development consent conditions attached to the report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Dev Consent Conditions DA/226/2018 - 216-216A Malabar Road, SOUTH COOGEE

 

 

 

 


Dev Consent Conditions DA/226/2018 - 216-216A Malabar Road, SOUTH COOGEE

Attachment 1

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Randwick Local Planning Panel            14 February 2019

 

 

Development Application Report No. D2/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      1 Adams Avenue, Malabar (DA/814/2018)

 

Folder No:                      DA/814/2018

Author:                          William Jones, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

 

Proposal:                       Alterations and additions to the existing building including changes to the existing ground floor commercial premises, changes to the existing first floor dwelling, addition of a second floor to accommodate a second dwelling, rooftop terrace, ground floor car parking and courtyard, new detached first floor commercial premises, strata subdivision and associated site works.

Ward:                             South Ward

Applicant:                      CK Design P/L

Owner:                           Zenith Property Holdings Australia 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 contravenes the height of buildings development standard contained in Clause 4.3 and floor space ratio (FSR) development standard contained in Clause 4.4 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP) by more than 10%.

 

The proposal seeks development consent for alterations and additions to the existing building including changes to the existing ground floor commercial premises, changes to the existing first floor dwelling, addition of a second floor to accommodate a second dwelling, rooftop terrace, ground floor car parking and courtyard, new detached first floor commercial premises, strata subdivision and associated site works at 1 Adams Avenue, Malabar.

 

The proposal was notified and advertised in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP). Three (3) submissions were received from 3 property addresses raising key concerns with view loss, visual privacy, visual amenity, non-complaint FSR and building height, overshadowing, car parking and building encroachment into existing easements on site.

 

The proposal contravenes the height of buildings standard under Clause 4.3 of the RLEP by 27.36% (9.5m maximum permitted and 12.1m proposed, measured to the southern side of the rooftop terrace canopy), and contravenes the floor space ratio standard under Clause 4.4 of the RLEP by 66.9% (1:1 permitted and 1.66:1 proposed). Despite the non-compliances and subject to conditions (i.e. deletion of the first floor commercial space at the rear of the site), the proposal is considered to be compatible with the desired future character of the immediate locality with the built-form enforcing the corner site and helping to define the business precinct. The proposal will not adversely impact the amenity of adjoining or surrounding properties and will support the primary business function of the zone. Subsequently the proposed development is in accordance with the objectives of Clause 4.3 Height of buildings and Clause 4.4 Floor space ratio standards, and the objectives of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone pursuant to the RLEP. In addition the Applicant’s written request pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the RLEP has adequately addressed that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standards.

 

The key issues relate to the non-compliant building height and FSR in terms of bulk and scale and related visual amenity impacts and view loss. The proposed FSR (1.66:1) is greater than the FSR of the adjoining 3 storey residential flat building to the east (1.55:1) that was approved via DA/361/2015, and is greater than the FSR of the other buildings within the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone (5-7 Adams Avenue is 0.9:1, and 9-11 Adams Avenue is 1:1). Given the issues associated with the proposed first floor detached commercial premises (i.e. view loss to the 2-storey dwelling located to the west at 6 Nix Avenue, non-compliant wall height and potential non-compliances with the access requirements) and in order to reduce the extent of the FSR variation, a condition is recommended to delete the proposed detached commercial premises. The resulting FSR will be 1.45:1 (297.4m2) being a 49.8% variation. It is noted that another condition is recommended to reinstate the corner entrance to the ground floor commercial premises, which will reduce the gross floor area of the building by a further 3m2. Therefore, as a result of the recommended conditions, the FSR will be 1.43:1 (294.4m2) being a 48.3% variation.

 

The proposed building height (12.1m) is similar to the adjoining building height (12m), with other buildings within the business precinct also comprising 3 storeys. However, due to the site being sited on the high side of Adam’s Avenue, the building height will be notably higher than the adjoining property at 3 Adams Avenue. Therefore, to maintain the building height consistency and streetscape rhythm, a condition is recommended to reduce the height of the main building by 400mm. Other conditions are also recommended to reduce the extent of the north-facing portion of the terrace canopy by 2m, and to provide a more recessive colour for the canopy / stair and the first and second floor elevations. Subject to these conditions, the proposal is considered suitable for the site and is compatible with existing buildings within the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone and surrounding dwellings within the R2 Low Density Residential zone. It is noted that existing buildings within the business zone are no longer utilised for commercial uses. The proposal will reintroduce a commercial use within the business zone that will service the needs of residents while providing well-integrated residential development. The proposal is subsequently recommended for approval.

 

Proposal

The proposal seeks development consent for alterations and additions to the existing building including changes to the existing ground floor commercial premises, changes to the existing first floor dwelling, addition of a second floor to accommodate a second dwelling, rooftop terrace, ground floor car parking and courtyard, new detached first floor commercial premises (to be deleted by conditions), strata subdivision and associated site works at 1 Adams Avenue, Malabar.

The proposed development is defined as ‘shop top housing’ pursuant to the RLEP (comprising ground floor commercial with dwellings above). It is noted that no specific commercial use is proposed as part of the DA. A condition is recommended so that the future use of the commercial premises shall be subject to either a Complying Development Certificate or a new Development Application.

Specific works include:

·      Alterations and additions to the existing ground floor commercial premises including replacement of the original corner entry to the south with additional floor area, deletion of the kitchen and garage and replacement with additional floor area, provision of a toilet and common access stair to the residential units above, and changes to windows.

·      Replacement of the enclosed northern ground floor garden with an open courtyard (half of which serves as a commercial parking space), and construction of a new detached double garage with garbage room and stair access to the first floor commercial premises above.

·      Alterations and additions to the existing first floor residential unit including room / window reconfiguration to provide for a 3 bedroom apartment, increased ceiling height and provision of a north-facing balcony.

·      Addition of a new second commercial premises at the first floor above the detached double garage with north-facing balcony.

·      Addition of a new second floor comprising a 3 bedroom apartment with north-facing balcony.

·      Addition of a partially covered communal rooftop terrace with BBQ area and landscaping around the outsides of the terrace, including provision of an A/C / services room.

·      Strata subdivision to create 4 strata lots.

 

Figure 1. 3D perspective looking north-east.


 

Site Description and Locality

 

The subject site is identified as 1 Adams Avenue, Malabar, and is formally described as Corner Lot 49, SEC 12 in DP 244782. The site has an area of 198.5m2 with a north-south orientation. The site is a long, narrow allotment that has a principal frontage of 7.36m to Adams Avenue to the south, a secondary frontage of 28.95m to Nix Avenue to the west, and a rear frontage of 6.72m to Rubie Lane to the north. The subject site comprises an existing two-storey mixed use development constructed in 1968 with the ground floor comprising a commercial premises and courtyard, and the first floor comprising a 3 bedroom dwelling.

 

The subject site sits within a block of 4 properties as part of an isolated pocket of B1 Neighbourhood Centre zoned land. The other 3 properties within this block have all been converted to three storey residential flat buildings prior to the introduction of the current RLEP and no longer comprise commercial uses. Only the subject building retains a commercial premises at the ground floor, which based on Council records has not been tenanted for some years.

 

Surrounding residential development forms part of the R2 Low Density Residential zone and comprises new 2 storey dwelling houses, dual occupancies and older single storey dwelling houses. To the east of the site is a public park known as Rubie Reserve and further to the east of that is the Randwick Golf Club. It is noted that the site is not within a Heritage Conservation Area or the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area pursuant to the RLEP.

 

Figure 2. Subject site (bordered in green) as part of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone.

 

Relevant history

 

Subject Site

The applicant previously lodged a similar DA for the subject site (DA/181/2018), which proposed a residential flat building with a third dwelling on the ground floor and studio dwelling above the detached garage. The DA was withdrawn however given permissibility for the residential flat building could not be established pursuant to Clause 6.14 of the RLEP, which states:

 

(1)  The objective of this clause is to enable the use of an existing dwelling house or residential flat building in certain business zones.

(2)  This clause applies to land in Zone B1 Neighbourhood Centre or Zone B2 Local Centre.

(3)  Development consent must not be granted to a dwelling house or a residential flat building on land to which this clause applies unless:

 

(a)  the development relates to a building that existed when this Plan commenced and was designed or constructed for the purposes of a dwelling house or a residential flat building, and

(b)  the consent authority is satisfied that:

 

(i)  the development will not detrimentally impact on the desired future character of the locality, and

(ii)  the development will result in satisfactory residential amenity for its residents, and

(iii)  the degree of modification to the footprint and facade of the building is minor.

 

Based on Council’s records, the building was designed and constructed for the purposes of a ground floor shop and unit above and not for a dwelling house or a residential flat building. A meeting was held with the Applicant and the DA was subsequently withdrawn. The subject DA was then lodged, proposing shop top housing (ground floor commercial with residential above), which is permitted with consent. It is noted that Council’s Strategic Planning Department are reviewing the subject pocket of B1 Neighbourhood Centre zoned land as part of the RLEP review. 

 

Adjoining property

The adjoining property to the east (3 Adams Avenue) contains a three storey residential flat building that is subject to a DA approval (DA/361/2015) for construction of new garage with studio unit above fronting Rubie Lane, new rear balconies to first and second floor units, and new metal awning over the existing rooftop terrace and changes. The DA was approved by the Council Committee, which proposed variations to the building height (12m) and FSR (1.55:1) controls pursuant to the RLEP.

 

Figure 3. Approved site plan (left) and southern elevation (right) of 3 Adams Avenue.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

·      6 Nix Avenue, Malabar

·      10 Nix Avenue, Malabar

·      3 Adams Avenue, Malabar

 

Issue

Comment

The building height is excessive. The height does not match 3 Adams Avenue as stated in the SEE and is not justified given the additional structures on the roof will impact visual amenity and views. The site is on the higher side of Adams Avenue, which will emphasise bulk and scale.

Noted. A condition is recommended to reduce the main building height by 400mm. The variation pursuant to Clause 4.3 Height of buildings of the RLEP has been assessed and is supported (refer to Detailed Assessment section).

Privacy impacts, in particular due to the rooftop terrace and new windows and balconies that will have a direct view to properties to the west.

Adverse privacy impacts will not occur from the rooftop terrace given it is proposed on the roof of the second floor, which sits higher than surrounding residential development and is set back from the edges of the building, restricting direct diagonal views. The rooftop terrace and windows are sufficiently set back from surrounding residential development, and therefore direct overlooking will not occur.

Overshadowing. The shadow diagrams do not indicate solar access already received in the morning to western properties.

The shadow diagrams indicate some additional overshadowing of south-western properties from 8:00am until 9:00am on 21 June. However, these properties will continue to receive compliant solar access from 10:00am onwards in accordance with the requirements of the RDCP.

Noise impacts.

Adverse noise impacts from the commercial premises’ is not expected to occur. The subject site is zoned for business uses and the commercial premises is permitted with consent in the zone. No specific commercial use is proposed as part of this DA, which will be subject to either a Complying Development Certificate (‘CDC’) or a new Development Application (‘DA’). Therefore the future use of the commercial premises will be further assessed and a condition is recommended to enforce this.

 

Adverse noise impacts are not expected to occur from the dwellings given only 2 dwellings are proposed. The rooftop terrace is not excessively sized and will only serve the 2 dwellings. A condition is recommended so that the rooftop terrace is not used by occupants or customers of the commercial premises.

The planter boxes surrounding the rooftop terrace will contain landscaping that could add to visual amenity impacts.

It is considered that the landscaping will help to soften the appearance of the building without contributing to adverse bulk and scale. A condition is recommended by Council’s Landscape Development Officer so that the mature height of the landscaping is restricted to a height of 400mm.

Parking is inadequate.

Car parking has been assessed by Council’s Development Engineer and is supported (refer to Referrals section).

The plans do not recognize a bus stop adjacent to the western frontage of the site.

Noted. Council’s Development Engineer has provided a condition so that the bus stop is relocated further south towards Adams Avenue at cost to the Applicant.

The survey has not been prepared by a registered Surveyor. The survey cannot therefore be relied upon.

The survey has been prepared by a surveyor, albeit not a registered surveyor. Notwithstanding, Council’s Development Engineer advises that the survey provides sufficient information for DA assessment. A condition is recommended as part of the requirements during construction and site work so that a Registered Surveyor’s check survey certificate or other suitable documentation must be obtained at the following stage/s of construction to demonstrate compliance with the approved setbacks, levels, layout and height of the building to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA):

 

·           prior to construction (pouring of concrete) of footings and boundary retaining structures,

·           prior to construction (pouring of concrete) of each floor slab,

·           upon completion of the building, prior to issuing an Occupation Certificate,

·           as otherwise may be required by the PCA.

 

The survey documentation must be forwarded to the Principal Certifying Authority and a copy is to be forwarded to the Council, if the Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority for the development.

Brickwork is shown on and above the easement.

Noted. However according to Council’s Development Engineer all proposed works are wholly located within the property boundaries of the subject site. Standard conditions are recommended to ensure works are contained within the property boundaries and to ensure no loss of support for the adjoining property. A condition is also recommended to ensure full structural design certification of the proposed works along the common eastern boundary prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

The proposed FSR is excessively non-compliant.

The variation pursuant to Clause 4.4 floor space ratio of the RLEP has been assessed and is supported (refer to Detailed Assessment section).

The ground floor commercial tenancy is not viable.

The subject site is zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre and the proposed development is permitted with consent pursuant to the RELP.

A use for the ground floor commercial tenancy has not been specified. Sufficient commercial parking is not provided.

Future occupation and fit-out of the commercial premises’ will be subject to either a Complying Development Certificate for first use of premises, or a separate Development Application. Car parking has been assessed by Council’s Development Engineer and is supported (refer to Referrals section).

The rooftop terrace incorporates solid building elements that will impact the amenity of adjoining properties and the streetscape.

Noted. Conditions are recommended to reduce the height of the main building by 400mm and to reduce the extent of the northern section of the terrace canopy by 2m.

The balcony of the commercial studio as well as the proposed Juliet balconies are located over Council land.

Noted. A condition is recommended that requires the deletion of the detached commercial space above the car spaces at the rear of the site including the associated stairs and balcony.

Submission recommends reduced bulk and scale of the rooftop terrace structures, reduced size of the A/C enclosure, and provision of a balustrade between the rooftop BBQ area and the adjoining terrace for security purposes.

Noted. Conditions are recommended to reduce the length of the northern section of the terrace canopy by 2m and to reduce the length of the services room by 1.5m measured from the southern boundary. Privacy screening is proposed along the eastern side of the BBQ area, with balustrading to the terrace already provided. This in conjunction with the setback of the terrace due to the planter box does not warrant further balustrading for security purposes.

The second floor comprises a dark colour that will exacerbate the bulk and scale of the building.

Noted. A condition is recommended so that a more recessive colour is selected, to be submitted to Council for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

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 been submitted to Council. Pursuant to Clause 4.3 of the RLEP, the height of buildings must not be more than 9.5m on the site. A maximum building height of 12.1m is proposed, measured from the southern side of the uppermost roof of the rooftop access stair above existing ground level. The rooftop terrace canopy sits below the roof of the stair, however due to the slope of the existing ground level the southern section of the canopy is 12m in height. All of the balustrading to the terrace is also in breach of the maximum permitted building height, as well as the southern parapet of the terrace and approximately half of the FFL of the terrace.

 

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

Development Standard

9.5m

Existing building height

7.5m measured to the southern parapet.

Proposed building height

12m measured from the northern end of the uppermost roof of the rooftop access stair increasing to 12.1m at the southern end.

 

11.8m measured from the northern end of the rooftop terrace canopy increasing to 12m at the southern end.

 

10.5m measured from the northern end of the rooftop terrace balustrading increasing to 10.9m at the southern end.

 

10.3m measured from the southern parapet.

 

9.9m measured from the southern end of the FFL of the rooftop terrace reducing to 9.6m at approximately half way towards the northern end.

Exceedance of the Development Standard

26.31% to 27.36% (uppermost roof).

 

24.21% to 26.31% (rooftop terrace canopy).

 

10.52% to 14.73% (rooftop terrace balustrading).

 

8.42% (southern parapet).

 

1.05% to 4.21% (FFL of rooftop terrace).

 

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

 

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

 

·      The proposed development is in accordance with the objectives of Clause 4.3 height of buildings as the size and scale of the development is compatible with the desired future character of the immediate business precinct, and the development will not result in adverse amenity impacts to adjoining properties (subject to conditions).

 

·      The proposal is in accordance with the objectives of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone as the development will provide small-scale commercial uses and residential development that is well-integrated with and supports the primary business function of the zone, and will minimise the impact and protect the amenity of residents in the zone and adjoining residential zone (subject to conditions).

 

It is noted that the proposed building height (12.1m) closely matches the approved building height of 3 Adams Avenue to the east (12m). However, as the subject site is located on the high-end of Adams Avenue, the building will be visibly taller than 3 Adams Avenue when viewed from the streetscape and surrounding properties. To reduce the bulk and scale of the development and to ensure the proposal better integrates with existing buildings in the business precinct, a condition is recommended to lower the overall height of the building by 400mm by limiting the maximum floor to ceiling height of the first and second floor to 2.6m (2.8m proposed). The resulting building height will be at RL 48.85 to the top of the rooftop terrace canopy, which will closely match the adjoining canopy at 3 Adams Avenue (RL 48.64). The parapet wall height fronting Adams Avenue will be reduced to RL 47.35 (approximately) that will more closely match the parapet of 3 Adams Avenue approved at RL 47.1.

 

Although this will result in a minor variation to the RDCP with regards to the minimum ceiling height (2.7m), a 2.6m ceiling height is acceptable noting the existing limited ceiling height of the first floor (being 2.4m) and the minimum floor to ceiling height for habitable rooms as specified by the Building Code of Australia is 2.4m. Conditions are also recommended to reduce the extent of the north-facing portion of the rooftop terrace canopy by 2m, and to provide a more recessive colour for the canopy / stair and first and second floor elevations, which will further reduce visual amenity impacts of the development when viewed from the streetscape and surrounding properties.

 

Figure 4. Proposed building (left) and approved building at 3 Adams Avenue (right).

 

Floor Space Ratio

The proposal seeks to vary the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) development standard contained within the RLEP. A Clause 4.6 exception has been submitted to Council. Pursuant to Clause 4.4 of the RLEP, the FSR must not be more than 1:1 on the site. A FSR of 1.66:1 is proposed.

 

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

Development Standard

1:1 (198.5m2)

Existing FSR

0.98:1 (195.1m2)

Proposed FSR

1.66:1 (331.4m2)

Exceedance of the Development Standard

66.9%

 

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

 

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

 

·      The proposed variation is in accordance with the objectives of Clause 4.4 floor space ratio as the size and scale of the development is compatible with the desired future character of the immediate business precinct, the building is well articulated and respond to environmental and energy needs, and the development will not result in adverse amenity impacts to adjoining properties (subject to conditions).

 

·      The proposal is in accordance with the objectives of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone as the development will provide small-scale commercial uses and residential development that is well-integrated with and supports the primary business function of the zone, and will minimise the impact and protect the amenity of residents in the zone and adjoining residential zone (subject to conditions).

 

The proposed FSR (1.66:1) is greater than the FSR of the adjoining 3 storey residential flat building to the east (1.55:1) that was approved via DA/361/2015, and is greater than the FSR of the other buildings within the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone (5-7 Adams Avenue is 0.9:1, and 9-11 Adams Avenue is 1:1). Given the proposed first floor, detached commercial premises will result in view loss to the 2-storey dwelling located to the west at 6 Nix Avenue, and to reduce the extent of the FSR variation a condition is recommended to delete the proposed detached commercial premises. The resulting FSR will be 1.45:1 (297.4m2) being a 49.8% variation. It is noted that another condition is recommended to reinstate the corner entrance to the ground floor commercial premises, which will reduce the gross floor area of the building by a further 3m2. Therefore, as a result of the recommended conditions, the FSR will be 1.43:1 (294.4m2) being a 48.3% variation. The original shop entrance will help identify the ground floor as a commercial premises, ensuring a clearly defined commercial entrance is provided that is separate from the residential accommodation entrance off Nix Avenue.

 

External Wall Height

Clause 4.4 of part C2 of the RDCP requires a maximum external wall height of 8m where the site is subject to a 9.5m building height limit under the RLEP. A maximum wall height of 10m is proposed associated with the main building at the southern elevation reducing to 9.6m at the northern elevation.

 

The objectives of clause 4.4 are as follows:

 

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

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

·      To control the bulk and scale of development and minimise the impacts on the neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing, privacy and visual amenity.

 

A variation to the control is supported for the following reasons:

 

·      The subject site is located within an isolated pocket of business zoned land with existing buildings comprising 3 storeys with similar wall heights. The proposed wall height will therefore be compatible with the existing streetscape.

·      The proposal complies with controls relating to solar access and privacy (subject to conditions to provide privacy screening).

·      The proposal will not result in adverse visual amenity impacts on neighbouring properties given sufficient articulation is provided and appropriate setbacks to the uppermost roof reduces the bulk and scale of the development. To further reduce bulk and scale, conditions are recommended to reduce the building height by 400mm (to more closely match the approved height of 3 Adams Avenue), reduce the extent of the rooftop terrace canopy and to provide a more recessive colour for the canopy / stair and first and second floor elevations.

 

View Sharing

Clause 5.5 of part C2 of the RDCP requires a reasonable level of view sharing from neighbouring dwellings, streets and public open space areas. View loss was also raised as a concern in one of the submissions relating to the additional building height and the additional FSR proposed.

 

The objectives of clause 5.5 are as follows:

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

1.    Quality of Views:

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The property that is likely to have views affected by the proposed development is the two-storey dwelling located to the west of the site at 6 Nix Avenue, which currently receives obstructed water views to the east across the subject site and across the roof of the studio dwelling at 3 Adams Avenue. It is noted that 10A-10B Nix Avenue (a two-storey dual occupancy) does not currently receive views across the subject site due to the existing three-storey RFB at 3 Adams Avenue. Other properties to the west are single storey and therefore do not receive views across the subject site.

 

Figure 5. Water views from 6 Nix Avenue across subject site (waterline shown in red).

 

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

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: Views are obtained from the front of the affected property from standing and seated positions.

 

3.    An assessment of the extent of the impact.

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: Views from 6 Nix Avenue are from the first floor bedrooms, hallway and balcony that serves the bedrooms. The proposed RL of the roof of the detached commercial premises (RL 43.55) is lower than the approved RL of the roof of the studio dwelling at 3 Adams Avenue (RL 43.65). However, the studio at 3 Adams Avenue has a sloping roof (sloping downwards from north to south) whereas the proposed commercial premises has consistent flat roof, and the depth of the proposed commercial premises is approximately 100mm longer than the adjoining studio. Some of the water views will therefore be lost.

 

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

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposed detached commercial premises complies with the maximum permitted building height, however the commercial premises does contribute to the non-compliant FSR and also does not comply with Clause 2.4.2 of Part D6 of the RDCP with regards to the maximum permitted wall height for ancillary buildings fronting laneways (4.5m maximum permitted and 6m proposed). It is noted that the 3 storey shop top housing development does not contribute to view loss. To maintain views from 6 Nix Avenue, and to reduce the extent of the FSR variation a condition is recommended so that the detached, first floor commercial premises is deleted.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:           Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

That the application for alterations and additions to the existing building including changes to the existing ground floor commercial premises, changes to the existing first floor dwelling, addition of a second floor to accommodate a second dwelling, rooftop terrace, ground floor car parking and courtyard, new detached first floor commercial premises, strata subdivision and associated site works be approved (subject to conditions) for the following reasons:

 

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

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

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


Detailed Assessment

 

1.         Section 4.15 matters for consideration

 

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

 

Section 4.15 ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

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

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

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

Nil.

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

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

 

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

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

 

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

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

The site is located in close proximity to local services and public transport. The site is able to accommodate the proposed development without resulting in adverse amenity impacts. Therefore, the site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

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

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

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

The proposal promotes the objectives of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone and is consistent with the objectives of the height of buildings and floor space ratio development standards pursuant to the RLEP. The proposal will not result in any significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be in the public interest.

 

2.         Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

2.1        State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPS)

 

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

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

 

The aims of the Vegetation SEPP are:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: Council’s Landscape Officer has assessed the proposal and advises there is minimal vegetation on the site, comprising shrubs that hold no landscape value. Therefore their removal is supported. Proposed landscaping around the rooftop terrace is sufficient to help protect biodiversity values noting the business zoning of the site.

 

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

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

 

2.2        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

The site is zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposed shop top housing and detached commercial premises development is permissible with Council’s consent. The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will provide a range of small-scale commercial uses and well-integrated residential development that will minimise impact and protect the amenity of residents (subject to conditions).

 

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

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

Height of Building (Maximum)

9.5m.

12m measured from the northern end of the uppermost roof of the rooftop access stair increasing to 12.1m at the southern end.

Does not comply.

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

1:1

1.66:1 (331.4m2)

Does not comply.

 

A)         Clause 4.6 – Exception to Development Standard – Height of Buildings

The proposal seeks to vary the height of buildings development standard contained within Clause 4.3 of the RLEP. A Clause 4.6 exception has been submitted to Council. Pursuant to Clause 4.3 of the RLEP, the height of buildings must not be more than 9.5m on the site. A maximum building height of 12.1m is proposed, measured from the southern side of the uppermost roof of the rooftop access stair above existing ground level. The rooftop terrace canopy sits below the roof of the stair, however due to the slope of the existing ground level the southern section of the canopy is 12m in height. All of the balustrading to the terrace is also in breach of the maximum permitted building height, as well as the southern parapet of the terrace and approximately half of the FFL of the terrace.

 

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

Development Standard

9.5m

Existing building height

7.5m measured to the southern parapet.

Proposed building height

12m measured from the northern end of the uppermost roof of the rooftop access stair increasing to 12.1m at the southern end.

 

11.8m measured from the northern end of the rooftop terrace canopy increasing to 12m at the southern end.

 

10.5m measured from the northern end of the rooftop terrace balustrading increasing to 10.9m at the southern end.

 

10.3m measured from the southern parapet.

 

9.9m measured from the southern end of the FFL of the rooftop terrace reducing to 9.6m at approximately half way towards the northern end.

Exceedance of the Development Standard

26.31% to 27.36% (uppermost roof).

 

24.21% to 26.31% (rooftop terrace canopy).

 

10.52% to 14.73% (rooftop terrace balustrading).

 

8.42% (southern parapet).

 

1.05% to 4.21% (FFL of rooftop terrace).

 

Clause 4.6 RLEP Request to Vary Development Standard

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

(a)    the consent authority is satisfied that:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The applicant’s written request above has adequately addressed that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard given the proposed variation will not result in adverse amenity impacts to surrounding properties and promotes the objectives of the standard and the objectives of the zone.

 

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: It is considered that the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the height of buildings development standard and the objectives of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone.

 

Consistency with the objectives of the height of buildings standard:

 

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

 

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The locality is taken to be the properties that are part of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone. The proposed development is of a similar height to the existing buildings, which are all three storeys. The proposal helps to define the prominent street corner as part of the business zone. The non-compliant building height associated with the rooftop terrace canopy is setback from the edges of the building (7.6m from Adams Avenue, 2m from Nix Avenue, and 15.2m to Rubie Lane) and does not contribute to adverse additional bulk and scale when viewed from the street or surrounding properties that are part of the surrounding R2 Low Density Residential zone. Therefore the size and scale of the development is compatible with the desired future character of the locality subject to a condition to lower the overall building height by 400mm, which will ensure a similar building height to 3 Adams Avenue providing a consistent streetscape within this locality. To further reduce perceived bulk and scale, a condition is also recommended to reduce the extent of the northern section of the canopy from 4m to a maximum of 2m measured from the northern façade of the access stair. This will ensure sufficient weather protection is provided to the BBQ area while reducing visual bulk and scale.

 

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposal will not adversely impact the amenity of adjoining properties in terms of visual amenity, privacy, overshadowing and views subject to conditions to lower the height of the 3 storey building by 400mm, deleting the detached commercial premises, reducing the extent of the rooftop terrace canopy, and providing more recessive colours for the rooftop stair / canopy and for the first and second floors (refer to Key Issues section).

 

 


 

Consistency with the objectives of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone: 

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

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

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposal will provide a small scale commercial premises (ground floor), in conjunction with residential development that is well integrated with the commercial use and that will support the primary business function of the zone. The proposal will minimize the impact of development on the locality and will protect the amenity of residents in the immediate and surrounding zone, subject to conditions.

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

Variation from the adherence to the height of buildings standard on this occasion is of benefit to the orderly use of the site given the proposal will help to define the prominent street corner as part of the business zone whist not impacting the amenity of residents or compromising the desired future streetscape character of the business zone. The majority of the second floor complies with the maximum permitted building height and is consistent with other three-storey buildings within the business zone. The variation that relates to the rooftop terrace access / canopy is of benefit to the orderly use of the site by providing access and shelter for communal open space.

 

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

 

B)         Clause 4.6 – Exception to Development Standard – Floor Space Ratio

The proposal seeks to vary the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) development standard contained within the RLEP. A Clause 4.6 exception has been submitted to Council. Pursuant to Clause 4.4 of the RLEP, the FSR must not be more than 1:1 on the site. A FSR of 1.66:1 is proposed.

 

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

Development Standard

1:1 (198.5m2)

Existing FSR

0.98:1 (195.1m2)

Proposed FSR

1.66:1 (331.4m2)

Exceedance of the Development Standard

66.9%

 

Clause 4.6 RLEP Request to Vary Development Standard

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

(d)    the consent authority is satisfied that:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The applicant’s written request above has adequately addressed that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard given the proposed variation will not result in adverse amenity impacts to surrounding properties and promotes the objectives of the standard and the objectives of the zone.

 

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: It is considered that the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the floor space ratio development standard and the objectives of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone.

 

Consistency with the objectives of the floor space ratio standard:

 

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

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The locality is taken to be the properties that are part of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone. The proposed FSR (1.66:1) is greater than the FSR of the adjoining 3 storey residential flat building to the east (1.55:1) that was approved via DA/361/2015, and is greater than the FSR of the other buildings within the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone (5-7 Adams Avenue is 0.9:1, and 9-11 Adams Avenue is 1:1). The proposed FSR is therefore considered excessive and the size and scale of the development as proposed is not compatible with the desired future character of the locality.

 

Given the proposed first floor, detached commercial premises will result in view loss to the 2-storey dwelling located to the west at 6 Nix Avenue and non-compliances with the relevant controls of the DCP, in order to reduce the extent of the FSR variation, a condition is recommended to delete the proposed detached commercial premises. The resulting FSR will be 1.45:1 (297.4m2) being a 49.8% variation. It is noted that another condition is recommended to reinstate the corner entrance to the ground floor commercial premises, which will reduce the gross floor area of the building by a further 3m2. Therefore, as a result of the recommended conditions, the FSR will be 1.43:1 (294.4m2) being a 48.3% variation.

 

Subject to this condition, the proposal will provide a balanced size and scale in conjunction with existing development whilst helping to define the prominent street corner as part of the business zone. The non-compliant floor space ratio does not contribute to adverse additional bulk and scale when viewed from the street or surrounding properties that are part of the surrounding R2 Low Density Residential zone. Therefore subject to conditions the size and scale of the development is compatible with the desired future character of the immediate business locality.

 

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposal will not adversely impact the amenity of adjoining properties in terms of visual amenity, privacy, overshadowing and views subject to conditions to lower the height of the 3 storey building by 400mm, deleting the detached commercial premises, reducing the extent of the rooftop terrace canopy, and providing more recessive colours for the rooftop stair / canopy and for the first and second floors (refer to Key Issues section).

 

Consistency with the objectives of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone: 

 

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

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

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposal will provide a small scale commercial premises (ground floor), in conjunction with residential development that is well integrated with the commercial use and that will support the primary business function of the zone. The proposal will minimize the impact of development on the locality and will protect the amenity of residents in the immediate and surrounding zone, subject to conditions.

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

Variation from the adherence to the floor space ratio standard on this occasion is of benefit to the orderly use of the site given the proposal will help to define the prominent street corner as part of the business zone whist introducing commercial premises and residential accommodation that supports and contributes to the business purpose of the zone. The proposal will not impact the amenity of residents or compromise the desired future streetscape character of the business zone.

 

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

 

3.        Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013

 

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

 

The relevant provisions of the DCP are addressed below. Minor variations are assessed within the corresponding tables.

 

DCP Clause

Control

Proposal

Compliance

B7

Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access

3.

Parking & Service Delivery Requirements

 

Car parking requirements:

 

1 space per 40m2 GFA for commercial premises.

 

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 advises that there is an existing parking shortfall associated with the commercial premises and first floor dwelling by 2.5 spaces. The proposed development will result in an increased parking shortfall of 0.8 spaces, therefore there is a parking shortfall of 3 spaces (6 spaces required and 3 spaces provided).

 

Noting the existing shortfall and minor increased shortfall, Development Engineering is supportive of the variation noting there is sufficient on street parking available, and the site is adjacent to a bus stop (refer to Development Engineering referral comments further below). Notwithstanding Development Engineering comments, a condition is recommended to delete the first floor, detached commercial premises, which will reduce the parking shortfall.

Variation supported by Development Engineering.

 

The following controls as part of C2 of the RDCP relate to the residential component of the mixed use development and are assessed where there are no controls provided for Neighbourhood Centres and Shop Top Housing as part of D6 of the RDCP, which is assessed further below.

 

C2

Medium Density Residential

2

Site Planning

2.3.2

Communal open space

 

Communal open space for residential flat building is to be:

 

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

(b)   Designed for passive surveillance.

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

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

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

Communal open space is provided as part of the rooftop terrace. The rooftop terrace will permit casual passive surveillance of the street and is orientated north. Landscaping is provided around the edges of the terrace. The terrace is partially covered and suitable for a variety of recreation uses.

Complies.

3

Building Envelope

3.1

Floor space ratio

 

1:1 required by the LEP

1.66:1

Does not comply. Refer to Detailed Planning Assessment.

3.2

Building height

 

9.5m required by the LEP

 

12.1m proposed.

Does not comply. Refer to Detailed Planning Assessment.

3.3

Building depth

 

For residential flat buildings, the preferred maximum building depth (from window to window line) is between 10m and 14m. Any greater depth must demonstrate that the design solution provides good internal amenity such as via cross-over, double-height or corner dwellings / units.

The building depth from window line to window line is 20m. The minor variation is supported however given both units have 3 aspects and will have abundant light and ventilation, affording good residential amenity.

Minor variation supported.

4

Building Design

4.2

Roof design

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

The proposed flat roof minimises visual bulk and scale and is consistent with other buildings within the business precinct.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Given the building has 3 frontages with operable windows, all internal rooms will receive adequate natural light and ventilation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposed access stair and canopy roof is sufficiently setback from the street frontages and will not be readily visible from the public domain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The rooftop terrace will not result in direct sightlines to surrounding dwellings given it is located on the second floor roof and is setback from the edges of the building so as not to permit direct downward views. The size and location of the terrace is appropriate noting it will serve only 2 dwellings, and is of a similar size as the adjoining terrace at 3 Adams Avenue. The access stair and canopy is sufficiently setback from the edges of the building and will not result in adverse visual amenity impacts (subject to a condition to reduce the extent of the canopy towards the north).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The landscaping proposed around the edges of the rooftop terrace has been assessed by Council’s Landscape Officer and is supported.

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies subject to condition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

4.4

External wall height and ceiling height

 

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

A maximum wall height of 10m is proposed associated with the main building at the southern elevation reducing to 9.6m at the northern elevation.

Does not comply. Refer to Key Issues section.

 

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

A condition is recommended to reduce the ceiling heights of the first and second floors to 2.6m from 2.8m (refer to Key Issues section).

 

The resulting celling heights will not adversely reduce visual amenity considering the dual aspects provided and generous proportions of internal spaces and provision of POS that exceeds minimum requirements.

Minor variation supported.

4.5

Pedestrian Entry

 

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

Pedestrian and vehicular access is separated and clearly distinguished.

Complies.

 

(ii)       Present new development to the street in the following manner:

-    Locate building entries so that they relate to the pedestrian access network and desired lines.

-    Design the entry as a clearly identifiable element in the façade composition.

-    Integrate pedestrian access ramps into the overall building and landscape design.

-    For residential flat buildings, provide direct entries to the individual dwellings within a development from the street where possible.

-    Design mailboxes so that they are convenient to residents, do not clutter the appearance of the development at street frontage and are preferably integrated into a wall adjacent to the primary entry (and at 90 degrees to the street rather than along the front boundary).

-    Provide weather protection for building entries.

 

Postal services and mailboxes

(i)        Mailboxes are provided in accordance with the delivery requirements of Australia Post.

(ii)       A mailbox must clearly mark the street number of the dwelling that it serves.

(iii)      Design mail boxes to be convenient for residents and not to clutter the appearance of the development from the street.

The proposal is for alterations and additions to an existing building. The new pedestrian entrance to the residential units on the side of the building fronting Nix Avenue relate well to the existing pedestrian access network and is clearly definable.

 

A new entrance to the ground floor commercial premises is proposed adjacent to the courtyard, which is not particularly well defined or visible from the public domain. A condition is recommended so that the original entrance provided on the corner of Adams Avenue and Nix Avenue is reinstated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mailboxes are provided within the secured pedestrian entry.

Complies subject to condition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

4.6

Internal circulation

 

 (i)    Enhance the amenity and safety of circulation spaces by:

-      Providing natural lighting and ventilation where possible.

-      Providing generous corridor widths at lobbies, foyers, lift doors and apartment entry doors.

-      Allowing adequate space for the movement of furniture.

-      Minimising corridor lengths to give short, clear sightlines.

-      Avoiding tight corners.

-      Articulating long corridors with a series of foyer areas, and/or providing windows along or at the end of the corridor.

As only 2 dwellings are proposed, the proposed common stair provides sufficient circulation.

Complies.

 

(ii)       Use multiple access cores to:

-    Maximise the number of pedestrian entries along a street for sites with wide frontages or corner sites.

-    Articulate the building façade.

-    Limit the number of dwelling units accessible off a single circulation core on a single level to 6 units.

As only 2 dwellings are proposed, the proposed single access core is sufficient.

Complies.

 

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

Not proposed.

N/A

4.7

Apartment layout

 

 (i)    Maximise opportunities for natural lighting and ventilation through the following measures:

-    Providing corner, cross-over, cross-through and double-height maisonette / loft apartments.

-    Limiting the depth of single aspect apartments to a maximum of 6m.

-    Providing windows or skylights to kitchen, bathroom and laundry areas where possible.

-    Providing at least 1 openable window (excluding skylight) opening to outdoor areas for all habitable rooms and limiting the use of borrowed light and ventilation.

 

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

All apartments have dual aspects and are naturally cross-ventilated and provided with adequate natural light.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apartment layouts will accommodate flexible use of rooms.

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

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

Both apartments are provided with compliant POS that exceed minimum requirements.

Complies.

 

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

Kitchens are open plan and not provided within main circulation spaces.

Complies.

4.12

Earthworks Excavation and backfilling

 

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

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

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

Minimal excavation and backfilling is proposed associated with construction of the courtyard and parking facility.

Complies.

 

Retaining walls

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

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

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

None proposed.

N/A

5

Amenity

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.

All habitable rooms are provided with natural daylight via windows.

Complies.

 

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

Appropriate sun shading devices have been provided to north-facing living room windows.

Complies.

 

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

All habitable rooms are provided with window openings to outdoor areas.

Complies.

 

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

All habitable rooms are capable of natural ventilation.

Complies.

 

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

Both apartments (100%) are cross-ventilated.

Complies.

 

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

Both kitchens (100%) have access to natural ventilation.

Complies.

 

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

N/A

N/A

5.3

Visual privacy

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Windows facing north and west are setback approximately 20m from dwellings within the R2 Low Density Residential zone, and are separated by a street. Therefore adverse privacy impacts will not occur.

 

Balconies are orientated to the north and are not orientated to any habitable room windows of adjoining dwellings. The rooftop terrace will overlook the adjoining rooftop terrace to the east, however this is acceptable given both rooftop terraces are communal and not POS, and 2m high privacy screening is proposed along the eastern side of the BBQ area. A condition is recommended to ensure that the privacy screening has a height of 1.6m to reduce visual bulk, and is appropriately designed with gaps that do not exceed 30mm.

 

The main building and detached parking facility are orientated towards the front and rear of the site, with suitable separation between them.

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies subject to condition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

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

 

 

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

-    Translucent glazing

-    Fixed timber or metal slats

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

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

Privacy screening to the sides of the north-facing balconies is not necessary given the balconies will not directly overlook nor be directly overlooked by surrounding properties. Screening to the rooftop terrace is not necessary given direct overlooking will also not occur. Privacy screening would also add to unnecessary visual bulk.

 

A condition will ensure compliance with this part.

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies subject to condition.

5.5

View sharing

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

View sharing will be reasonably maintained subject to a condition to delete the detached commercial premises (refer to Key Issues section).

Complies subject to condition.

5.6

Safety and security

 

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

Entry points to the building can be appropriately secured.

Complies.

 

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

Indirect access is provided from the car park to the common staircase, which is acceptable considering the narrow width of the site and the desire to utilise the stair structure to break up internal living and sleeping areas rather than impeding the north-facing living areas.

Minor variation supported.

 

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

All apartments are provided with secured POS areas and openable habitable room windows that can be appropriately secured.

Complies.

 

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

No obstruction to lines of sight to the building or open space areas will occur.

Complies.

 

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

The car park provided within the car park for the commercial premises is provided with a sliding security grille. The car parking provided as part of the detached parking facility is open, which is supported given other parking facilities within the business precinct fronting Rubie Lane are also open, which reduces the dominance of parking facilities in the streetscape. Good passive surveillance to the car park will be achieved via the north-facing balconies and habitable room windows.

Minor variation supported.

 

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

Capable of being provided.

Complies.

 

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

A condition is recommended to ensure compliance with this part.

Complies.

 

(ix)      Improve opportunities for casual surveillance without compromising dwelling privacy by designing living areas with views over public spaces and communal areas, using bay windows which provide oblique views and casual views of common areas, lobbies / foyers, hallways, open space and car parks.

Casual surveillance can be achieved from the north-facing living room windows and balconies.

Complies.

 

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

A condition is recommended to ensure compliance with this part.

Complies.

 

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

A condition is recommended to ensure compliance with this part.

Complies.

6.1

Location

 

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

The parking facility is located off the secondary street frontage.

Complies.

 

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

No driveway is proposed.

N/A

 

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

No driveway is proposed.

N/A

 

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

Entry is proposed off the secondary frontage.

N/A

 

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

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

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

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

At-grade car parking is proposed, which is supported given the development is not for a new building. The car park is setback behind the front facade.

Complies.

6.2

Configuration

 

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

Garage and hardstand proposed.

N/A

 

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

No driveway is proposed.

N/A

 

(iv)   Provide basement or semi-basement car parking consistent with the following requirements:

(a)     Provide natural ventilation. 

(b)     Integrate ventilation grills into the façade composition and landscape design.

(c)     The external enclosing walls of car park must not protrude above ground level (existing) by more than 1.2m. This control does not apply to sites affected by potential flooding.

(d)     Use landscaping to soften or screen any car park enclosing walls.

(e)     Provide safe and secure access for building users, including direct access to dwellings where possible.

(f)      Improve the appearance of car park entries and avoid a ‘back-of-house’ appearance by measures such as:

-     Installing security doors to avoid ‘black holes’ in the facades.

-     Returning the façade finishing materials into the car park entry recess to the extent visible from the street as a minimum.

-     Concealing service pipes and ducts within those areas of the car park that are visible from the public domain. 

Basement car parking is not proposed.

N/A

7

Fencing and Ancillary Development

7.1

Fencing

 

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

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

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

-    Steel post and chain wire

-    Barbed wire or other dangerous materials

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

Material details of the sliding access gate to the commercial parking space and the increased height of the existing eastern boundary wall (between the main building and the detached parking facility) have not been provided. A condition is recommended to ensure details are submitted to Council for approval.

Complies subject to condition.

7.2

Front Fencing

 

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

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

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

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

- Front fence for sites facing arterial roads.

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

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

(v)    The fence must incorporate stepping to follow any change in level along the street boundary. The height of the fence may exceed the aforementioned numerical requirement by a maximum of 150mm adjacent to any stepping.

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

(vii)  Gates must not open over public land.

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

The sliding access gate to the commercial parking space fronting Nix Avenue is in-line with the nil setback of the building and has a maximum height of 1.8m, which is permitted noting the site is a corner allotment and the gate fronts the secondary frontage.

Complies.

7.3

Side and Rear Fencing

 

 (i)       The maximum height of side, rear or common boundary fences is limited to 1800mm, as measured from the ground level (existing). For sloping sites, the fence must be stepped to follow the topography of the land, with each step not exceeding 2200mm above ground level (existing).

(ii)       In the scenario where there is significant level difference between the subject and adjoining allotments, the fencing height will be considered on merits.

(iii)      The side fence must be tapered down to match the height of the front fence once pasts the front façade alignment.

(iv)      Side or common boundary fences must be finished or treated on both sides.

The existing eastern boundary wall (between the main building and the detached parking facility) is shown on the eastern elevation at 2.1m in height, however the western elevation appears to show this wall at 3m. A condition is recommended to ensure that the wall does not exceed 2.1m in height, which is sufficient to ensure privacy between the garden / courtyard areas of 1 and 3 Adams Avenue. It is noted that this wall height was not surveyed, however based on a site inspection is appears that the wall is 2.1m in height as depicted on the eastern elevation.

Complies subject to condition.

7.6

Storage

 

 (i)       The design of development must provide for readily accessible and separately contained storage areas for each dwelling.

(ii)       Storage facilities may be provided in basement or sub floor areas, or attached to garages. Where basement storage is provided, it should not compromise any natural ventilation in the car park, reduce sight lines or obstruct pedestrian access to the parked vehicles.

(iii)      In addition to kitchen cupboards and bedroom wardrobes, provide accessible storage facilities at the following rates:

(a)       Studio apartments – 6m3

(a)       1-bedroom apartments – 6m3

(b)      2-bedroom apartments – 8m3

(c)       3 plus bedroom apartments – 10m3

Dedicated storage is not provided as part of the at-ground car park. This is not desirable given the open design of the car park. Some storage areas are provided within each apartment, which is sufficient considering the proposal is for alterations and additions to an existing building, and a new RFB is not proposed.

Complies.

7.7

Laundry facilities

 

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

Sufficient area is available as part of the compliant POS for clothes drying facilities.

Complies.

 

(ii)       Provide internal laundry for each dwelling unit.

Each apartment is provided with an internal laundry as part of the main bathroom.

Complies.

 

(iii)      Provide a separate service balcony for clothes drying for dwelling units where possible. Where this is not feasible, reserve a space for clothes drying within the sole balcony and use suitable balustrades to screen it to avoid visual clutter.

Sufficient area is available as part of the compliant POS for clothes drying facilities.

Complies.

7.8

Air conditioning units:

 

·      Avoid installing within window frames. If installed in balconies, screen by suitable balustrades.

·      Air conditioning units must not be installed within window frames.

Air conditioning units are provided as part of the rooftop terrace level and located within a services room.

Complies.

 

D6 Table: Neighbourhood Centres


DCP Clause

Controls

Proposal

Compliance

2.3

Building heights

 

i) In neighbourhood centres with a 9.5m maximum height limit, development must not exceed 2 storeys in height (with the exception of habitable roof space/partial floor, which must be setback so as not to be visible from the street or incorporated into the roof design to have the appearance of a roof rather than an additional storey).

 

iii) The minimum floor to ceiling height for a floor must comply with the following table:

 

-    3.3m ground floor

-    2.7m upper floors

 

The proposed ground floor commercial premises is a maximum of 1 storey, which complies. The entire shop top housing development is 3 storeys, which is supported given the existing 3 storey development within the business zone, with the third storey helping define the corner of the precinct.

 

 

The ground floor commercial has an existing floor to ceiling height of 2.9m. The minor variation is supported given the ground floor commercial is existing.

Minor variation supported.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minor variation supported.

2.4

Setbacks

 

i) 0m setback for development up to 9.5m in building height.

 

2m setback for development above 9.5m in building height.

 

Corner allotments:

 

-    A minimum 1.5metre x 1.5metre splay corner across all levels at the intersection of two roads. No walls or plantings higher than 600mm may be located within the splay corner.

 

ii) Provide increased setbacks over and above the aforementioned minimum requirements, or demonstrate the suitability of an alternative setback having regard to the the following matters:

 

7 existing predominant street setback

 

7 character of the street

A nil front setback exists to Adams Avenue and a nil secondary front setback exists to Nix Avenue for the ground and first floors. The new second floor is also proposed to maintain the 0m setback. Given the setback is existing, the minor variation is supported. The second floor will not impede sight-lines from traffic or pedestrians and will help to define the corner of the precinct by maintaining the same setback as the adjoining second floor of 3 Adams Avenue.

 

 

A 0m setback is also proposed to the corner of Nix Avenue and Rubie Lane for the ground floor garage. The minor variation is supported given the detached parking facility matches the setback of the adjacent approved studio dwelling at 3 Adams Avenue and other parking facilities / secondary dwellings along the northern side of Rubie Lane, maintaining the streetscape rhythm. Council’s Development Engineer also supports the proposal, noting there will be no impacts to traffic or pedestrian safety.

Minor variation supported.

 

2.4.2 Rear Setback

 

iii) Where the site has rear lane access, car parking structures (hardstand carspace, carport or garage) and ancillary development must have a 1m minimum setback from the rear boundary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i) All ancillary buildings fronting laneways must have a maximum height of not more than 6m. The maximum external wall height is limited to 4.5m. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ancillary buildings on laneways must have a mass and scale secondary to the primary dwelling on the allotment. Any upper level (for instance, storey above garage) must be contained within the roof form as an attic storey. 

 

iv) Where there is no rear lane access and the site adjoins land in a residential zone, provide a minimum rear setback of 15% of allotment depth or 5m, whichever is the lesser.

The parking facility has frontage to a rear laneway and a 0m setback is proposed. The minor variation is supported given the parking facility matches the setback of the adjacent approved studio dwelling at 3 Adams Avenue, with the setback consistent with other parking facilities / secondary dwellings along the northern side of Rubie Lane, maintaining the streetscape rhythm. Council’s Development Engineer also supports the proposal, noting there will be no impacts to traffic or pedestrian safety.

 

The proposed detached commercial premises has a building height of 6m and wall height of 6m. The variation is not supported given the proposed detached commercial premises will contribute to unnecessary visual bulk and scale, and will contribute to view loss. Therefore a condition is recommended to delete it.

 

Subject to a condition to delete the first floor detached commercial premises, the resulting parking facility will be secondary in scale to the principal building.

 

 

 

Rear laneway provided and the site does not directly adjoin properties that are within a residential zone.

Minor variation supported.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does not comply.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies subject to condition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

2.4.3 Side setback

 

v) Where the site’s side boundary adjoins land in a business zone, provide a zero metre side setback.

The site is within a business zone and the building is provided with a 0m setback to the eastern side boundary.

Complies.

3

Building design

 

i) Where a development has two street frontages, each façade treatment must respond to the buildings in those streets. 

 

ii) Include shopfronts on side street frontages of corner sites to enhance the commercial potential of the space and minimise blank walls to the streetfront.

 

iii) Facades should display proportions and detailing which respect the prevailing building facades across the centre (i.e. designing fine grain shop fronts, where the existing subdivision is fine grain).

 

iv) Distinguish residential entries from commercial/retail entries in the case of mixed use development.

 

 

 

v) Design shopfronts, including entries and windows, to reinforce any prevalent character in the centre.

 

vi) All street frontage windows at ground level are to have clear glazing. Large glazed shopfronts should be avoided, with window configurations broken into discrete sections to ensure visual interest.

 

vii) All facade elements must be contained within the site boundaries.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

viii) Building services, such as drainage pipes shall be coordinated and integrated with overall facade and balcony design.

 

ix) Balconies to the street facade are to be recessed behind the principal building facade.

 

x) Balcony balustrades should comprise a light open/glazed material and should be compatible with the style of the building.

 

 

xi) The development of colonnades is discouraged.

All street frontages are well articulated and respond well to the existing buildings within the streets.

 

 

A condition is recommended to maintain the existing corner entrance and a new side entrance is proposed to the ground floor commercial premises.

 

The shop front is consistent with other ground floors within the precinct in terms of proportions and detailing.

 

 

 

 

A condition is recommended to maintain the existing corner entrance, which will ensure separate commercial and residential entrances are provided.

 

The shop front is consistent with other ground floors within the precinct in terms of entries and windows.

 

Clear glazing is proposed at the ground floor, with window configurations broken into sections.

 

 

 

 

Some of the façade details to the windows of the ground floor, including to the residential floors above appear to be located partially over the site boundary. A condition is recommended so that no part of the building can extend across the site boundaries.

 

Services are not shown on the facades of the building.

 

 

 

 

All balconies are located behind the principal building façade (Adams Avenue).

 

 

Except for where privacy screening is required via condition, balustrades will comprise light open/glazed materials as shown on the drawings.

 

No colonnades are proposed.

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies subject to condition.

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies subject to condition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

3.2

Roof forms

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

v) Structures such as ventilation shafts, lift over7runs and service plants, should be wholly contained within roof structures and not project above the roof line.

A parapet is provided to the approved building at 3 Adams Avenue. A similar parapet is proposed that will reflect the rhythm, scale and detailing of the adjoining building.

 

A flat roof is proposed.

 

 

 

 

 

A flat roof is proposed, which is reflective of the other buildings within the business zone. A condition is recommended to reduce the floor to ceiling heights of the first and second floor so that the roof to the outdoor terrace more closely matches the roof of the adjoining building at 3 Adams Avenue, reducing bulk and scale.

 

The proposed flat roof relates well to the scale of the building by minimising bulk and scale.

 

 

The access stair to the rooftop terrace is provided with a flat roof, which minimises bulk and scale.

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

Complies subject to condition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

Complies.

3.3

Awnings

 

i) Provide continuous street frontage awnings to all new development. 

 

ii) Generally awnings should be a minimum 3 metres deep and setback a minimum 600mm from the kerb.

 

iii) Design new awnings to be complementary with their neighbours and aligned with the general alignment of existing awnings in the street.

 

iv) Cantilever awnings from the building must have a minimum soffit height of 3.5metres.

 

v) Provide under awning lighting to improve public safety.

 

vi) Colonnades along the street edge are inappropriate.

 

vii) Canvas blinds along the street edge may be suitable where they would assist in sun access/protection. 

 

viii) Signage on canvas blinds is inappropriate.

 

ix) Ensure all awnings are structurally sound and safe and comply with relevant BCA requirements.

Given the ground floor is an existing commercial premises and no awning is provided, and given the adjoining building to the east that are part of the business zone are no longer utilised for commercial uses and are not provided with awnings, an awning is not considered necessary.

N/A

3.4

Colours, materials and finishes

 

i) Utilise high quality and durable materials and finishes which require minimal maintenance.

 

ii) Combine different materials and finishes to assist building articulation and modulation. The use of face bricks and/or natural stone cladding may assist the integration of new development into the existing streetscape.

 

iii) The following materials are considered incompatible:

• Large wall tiles;

• Rough textured render and/or bagged finish;

• Curtain walls; and

• Highly reflective or mirror glass.

 

iv) Avoid large expanses of any single material to facades.

 

v) Visible light reflectivity from building materials used on the facades of new buildings should not exceed 20%.

The submitted materials schedule has been assessed and is considered to be appropriate. However, the proposed dark charcoal colour of the steel cladding to the first and second floor and to the rooftop terrace stair and roof is not supported as it enhances the bulk and scale of the development. A condition is recommended so that a lighter, more recessive colour is used, to be submitted to an approved by Council.

Complies subject to condition.

3.5

Lighting

 

i) The external lighting of buildings must integrate external light features with the architecture of the building.

 

ii) Under awning lighting should be provided in accordance with the relevant Australian Standard.

 

iii) Where residential development is located above or adjoins the development, provide location and design details demonstrating that light is directed away from residences.

 

iv)  Avoid floodlights or excessive lighting of buildings.

 

A condition is recommended to ensure compliance with this part.

Complies subject to condition.

3.6

Signage

     

i) The location, size and design of signage must integrate with the architectural detail of the building and act as a unifying element to the neighbourhood centre.

 

ii) Signage must not:

• obscure important architectural features;

• dominate the architecture of buildings;

• protrude from, or stand proud of, the awnings;

• project above any part of the building to which it is attached;

• cover a large portion of the building façade.

 

iii) Avoid fin signs, signage on canvas blinds, signage on roller shutters and projecting wall signs and large elevated solid panel business and building name signs including those fixed on parapets or roofs.

 

iv) Ensure that signs provide clear identification of premises for residents, visitors and customers.

 

v) All premises must display a street number. The height of these numbers should be legible but not a dominating feature, and no less than 300mm presented in a clear readable font.

 

vi) Signage must relate to the business being carried out on the property.

 

vii) Early building names (on parapets, pediments, etc) should be preserved wherever possible.

 

viii) Any signage structure or sign must have regard to the impact on residential occupants in terms of illumination and visual impact.

 

None proposed.

N/A

4

Public domain

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

iv) Doors shall not encroach over the footpath when open. The use of fully operable glass walls or windows (eg pivot, stacking or bi7fold) to open cafés and restaurants to the street is encouraged, where suitable for the prevailing character of existing buildings in the centre.

 

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

The ground floor commercial premises is proposed to wrap around the corner, with blank walls minimised.

 

 

Vehicular entrances are limited towards the laneway.

 

 

None proposed.

 

 

 

 

 

A condition is recommended to ensure compliance with this part.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

None proposed.

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

Complies subject to condition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

4.2

Pedestrian friendly access and spaces

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Opportunities for public links are not available on the subject site.

 

 

 

 

Opportunities for public links are not available on the subject site.

 

 

 

Pedestrian and vehicular accesses are separated.

 

 

 

Level access is available.

 

 

 

 

 

None proposed.

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

4.3

Vehicular access

 

i) Where new development has access available off rear laneways or side streets, vehicular access must be provided from the laneway or side streets.

 

ii) Where no alternative street frontage is available:

-    demonstrate alternative sustainable measures for meeting parking and delivery requirements.

-    The entry to the building should be designed to give priority to pedestrians by maintaining a constant grade for the footpath crossing for pedestrians.

-    Before the exit from the site, speed bumps and or warning signs to give way to pedestrians should be provided. The vehicle crossing area of the footpath should be identified by pavement blending with the footpath treatment as required by Council’s Engineering Services.

 

iii) Design driveways to minimise visual impact on the street and maximise pedestrian safety. Setback any rear lane garage doors 1 metre from the laneway alignment.

 

iv) Avoid locating accessways to driveways adjacent to the doors or windows of habitable rooms.

Access to the car parking is provided off the side street (Nix Avenue).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Due to the 0m setback, no driveway is proposed. Council’s Development Engineer supports the proposed design.

 

 

 

Due to the 0m setback, no driveway is proposed.

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

4.4

Loading areas

 

i) Provide for loading facilities on site wherever feasible or demonstrate that suitable alternative arrangements to minimise impact on other premises and people within the centre.

 

ii) Service/delivery areas are to be located to minimise conflict between pedestrians/cyclists and vehicles and to minimise impact on residential amenity of neighbouring properties.

 

iii) Where new development has access available off rear laneways or side streets, loading areas shall be located off these areas.

Given the small size of the site and of the commercial premises’, a dedicated loading area is not warranted. One parking space is provided for the commercial premises, which is sufficient to permit general loading and unloading and is supported by Council’s Development Engineer.

Complies.

5

Amenity

5.1

Solar access

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

iv) 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, and service areas to the south and west of the development).

 

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

Based on the submitted shadow diagrams, surrounding properties as part of the R2 Low Density Residential zone will continue to receive compliant solar access, which is attributed to the north-south orientation of the site. The nearest adjacent dwelling is 3 Adams Avenue, which adjoins the eastern common boundary as part of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone. Based on the submitted shadow diagrams, the north-facing living room windows as well as the rooftop terrace of 3 Adams Avenue will continue to receive compliant solar access in accordance with this part.

 

 

 

 

 

Living areas and POS is orientated to the north and will receive good solar access.

 

 

 

 

 

North-facing living room windows are shaded by awnings to the balconies.

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

5.2

Acoustic and visual privacy

 

 

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

 

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

-    Locating bedrooms away from busy roads and other noise sources;

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

The ground floor commercial premises adjoins the living area of the ground floor residential unit at 3 Adams Avenue. The proposed first floor commercial premises is detached from the main building, however is adjacent to the first floor studio dwelling of 3 Adams Avenue therefore there is potential for acoustic impacts to occur. Notwithstanding, a condition is recommended to delete the detached, first floor commercial premises.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No exhaust vents are proposed. Given the small size of the proposed commercial premises, noise impacts are not expected to occur. No specific commercial use is proposed. Future hours of operation will be subject to either a Complying Development Certificate or a Development Application.

 

Standard operating hours shall be enforced via condition.

Complies subject to conditions.

6

Shop top housing

 

i) Entries to residential apartments are to be separated from commercial entries to provide security and an identifiable address for each of the different users.

 

ii) Each dwelling must be provided with private open space directly accessible from its living area, in the form of either a balcony at least 2m deep or a terrace or private courtyard at least 10 square metres in area. 

 

iii) Private open spaces should be:

-    located adjacent to and accessible from the main living areas of the dwelling;

-    located so as to maximise solar access, i.e. preferably orientated from north7east to north7 west;

-    located to ensure privacy and away from noisy locations, where possible; and

-    screened by vegetation or a wall to ensure privacy. 

 

 

iv) If an elevator is provided for residential use, it must not be used for retail loading or waste removal.

 

v) Separate the waste storage facilities for commercial and residential components of a development.

 

vi) Site services and facilities (such as letterboxes and drying yards) should be designed:

-    to enable safe and convenient access by residents;

-    in an aesthetically sensitive way;

-    to have regard to the amenity of adjoining developments and streetscape;

-    to require minimal maintenance; and

-    to be visually integrated with the development.

Commercial and residential entries are separate.

 

 

 

 

 

The proposed dwellings are provided with balconies that are 2.5m in depth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The proposed dwellings are provided with north-facing balconies located adjacent to the main living areas. Privacy screening to the west is not necessary given the setback to surrounding dwellings afforded by the street. Privacy screening to the east is not necessary given a wall is proposed, and privacy screening to the north is not necessary given the significant setback to residential dwellings to the north will ensure direct overlooking will not occur.

 

 

 

 

 

 

None proposed.

 

 

 

 

Development Engineering is supportive of the waste storage subject to conditions.

 

 

Mailboxes are provided within the secured pedestrian access at the ground floor off Nix Avenue.

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

4.         Referral Comments

 

Development Engineering / Landscape

An application has been received for alterations and additions to the existing building including additional floor to allow for conversion of ground floor to commercial space, 3 dwellings, parking area, roof terrace and associated works (variation to height and floor space ratio controls) and strata subdivision of the building.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Architectural Plans by CK Design Rev D  dated 8th June 2018;

·      Statement of Environmental Effects by

·      Detail & Level Survey by Jim Alvir Surveying dated 10/03/2017

·      Strata Plan sheet A130 by CK Design (stamped 19th Nov)

 

General Comments

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

 

It should be noted that the following plans and documentation should not be approved as part of any development consent for this application for the reasons provided below;

 

Plan/Document                                                                        Reason

 

Waste Management Plan (stamped 19th Nov)                   Additional information is required (see waste comments)

 

Parking Comments

Sec 3.2 Part B7 of Council’s DCP 2013 states;

 

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

 

Existing & Proposed parking demand has been determined using the following parking rates specified in Part B7 of Council’s DCP;

 

·      1 space per 40m2 (commercial)

·      0.5 spaces per studio unit

·      1.5 spaces per 3 bedroom unit

 

Existing Situation

There is currently a shop (of area approx. 80m2 not counting existing garage carspace) on the ground floor and a 3 bedroom unit on the first floor. Garage parking for one vehicle only is provided on the site and is accessed from Nix Avenue on the western side of the development.

 

Existing Parking Demand               = 1.5 spaces (3B unit) + 2 spaces (shop 80m2)

                                                    = 3.5 spaces

 

Existing Parking provided               = 1 space

 

Existing Parking Shortfall               = 2.5 spaces              

 

Proposed Development

The proposed development will reconfigure the existing building such that overall the proposed development will comprise of 2 x 3 bedroom apartments & retention of the commercial shop including conversion of existing garaged space to additional commercial space. An additional commercial studio of 34m2 is also proposed at the rear above the carspaces.

 

The total commercial area on the site now amounts to 130.5m2 (96.5 + 34.0) being an increase on the existing situation.

 

Proposed Parking Demand             = ((2 x 1.5) Residential) + (130.5/40 Commercial)

 

                                                    = 3.0 + 3.3 = 6.3 spaces

 

Proposed Parking Provided             = 3 spaces

 

Proposed Parking Shortfall             = 3.3 spaces (increase of 0.8 spaces above the existing shortfall of 2.5 spaces)

 

The additional parking demand is generally catered for with the exception of a small deficiency of 0.8 spaces. Development Engineering does not generally support increasing parking shortfalls however it is acknowledged in this case that the shortfall increase is relatively minor amounting to less than 1 space and will not create any unacceptable impacts on the availability of on-street parking in the locality. On-Street parking was observed to be readily available within close proximity of the site.

 

It should also be noted that the site is located immediately adjacent to a bus stop serving routes 399 (La Perouse to City via Malabar) & X99 (Little Bay to City Express)

 

The parking provision is therefore considered to be satisfactory and there are no objections from Development Engineering.

 

Parking Layout

The proposed carspaces appear to comply with the minimum requirements of AS 2890.1 in regards to size, grades and overhead clearances however this has also been conditioned for future plans submitted for the construction certificate.

 

Bus Stop to be relocated

There is an existing J-stand bus stop sign adjacent to the Nix Avenue frontage which will need to be relocated further south towards Adams Avenue to avoid conflict with the proposed vehicle crossings. 

 

This is not expected to create any issues however the location of the relocated bus stop sign will be subject to approval by Randwick Traffic Committee (RTC). Appropriate conditions have been included in this report.

 

Common Boundary Wall & Easement Comments

The subject site shares a common boundary with No.3 Adams Avenue and there are existing reciprocal easements for support over each property extending to approximately 165mm either side of the common boundary. Although not directly affecting Development Engineering’s assessment, the assessing officer is advised to include standard building conditions ensuring no loss of support for the adjoining building at No.3 Adam Avenue as part of any consent. Full structural design certification of the proposed works along this common boundary prior to issuing of a construction certificate is also advised.

 

Development Engineering’s only relevant concern would be to ensure that any vertical or horizontal extension to the ‘easements for support’ be undertaken by a registered surveyor and registered at NSW Land Registry services (LRS) prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate.

 

There is also an existing “Easement to permit overhanging structure to remain” that allows an existing awning within the subject property at No.1 Adams Avenue to encroach into No.3 Adams Avenue.  The proposed works within No.1 Adam Avenue indicate the encroaching awning will be removed, hence the easement will no longer be required. It is therefore recommended that this easement over No.3 Adams Avenue be extinguished prior to the issuing of a final occupation certificate. A suitable condition has been included in this report.

 

Drainage Comments

Stormwater runoff from the (redeveloped portion) site shall be discharged to the kerb and gutter along the site frontage by gravity (preferably without the use of a charged system);

 

Waste Management Comments

The Waste Management Plan (WMP) submitted with the application shall not be approved as part of any consent as it does not contain any information on the on-gouing management of waste for the completed development. An amended WMP will be required to be submitted and approved by Council’s waste Management Coordinator prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

The proposed development will comprise a total of 2 units which will require the minimum provision of 1 x 240L bins for garbage and 1 x 240L bins for recycling. As the future use of the commercial premise is not yet known the exact number of bins required is not able to be determined however separate bins shall be provided for the commercial area. All bins will likely be presented to Nix Avenue for collection. There are no objections from Development Engineering. Separate bin storage area should be provided for the commercial area

 

Landscape Comments

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

 

Undergrounding of Power

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 Council resolution was designed to limit the proliferation of private power poles within the front setbacks of developed properties which were creating significant visual amenity impacts throughout Randwick LGA. The subject site is located within 15m of a power pole on the same side of the street hence the above clause would normally be applicable.

 

It is noted in this case however that  the building is built up to the street boundary opposite the mains pole on Council’s verge hence a private pole within the site would not be possible in any case. An underground connection may also be difficult to achieve. Power supply to the site is currently via a direct connection from the mains pole to the dwelling being only a few metres in length. This arrangement is the most practical and as the aim of the Council resolution is still achieved (i.e. no private poles) the condition has not been recommended in this instance.

 

Assessing Officer’s comment: Development Engineering comments are noted, and standard conditions will be provided ensuring no loss of support for the adjoining building at 3 Adams Avenue, and structural design certification for the proposed works along this common boundary prior to issuing of a Construction Certificate (refer to Condition no. 20). As per Development Engineering’s comments, a condition is also recommended to ensure that any vertical or horizontal extension to the ‘easements for support’ be undertaken by a registered surveyor and registered at the NSW Land Registry services (LRS) prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate.

 

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

B.         That the RLPP grants development consent under Sections 4.16 and 4.17 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/814/2018 for alterations and additions to the existing building including changes to the existing ground floor commercial premises, changes to the existing first floor dwelling, addition of a second floor to accommodate a second dwelling, rooftop terrace, ground floor car parking and courtyard, new detached first floor commercial premises, strata subdivision and associated site works at No. 1 Adams Avenue, Malabar subject to the development consent conditions attached to the report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Development Consent conditions - DA/814/2018 - 1 Adams Avenue, Malabar

 

 

 

 


Development Consent conditions - DA/814/2018 - 1 Adams Avenue, Malabar

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            14 February 2019

 

 

Development Application Report No. D3/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      15 Seaside Parade, South Coogee (DA/6/2018/A)

 

Folder No:                      DA/6/2018/A

Author:                          Chahrazad Rahe, Senior Assessment Planner     

 

 

Proposal:                       Modification of approved development by amendment to pool structure with pool plant under pool structure, changes to pool deck and swimming pool.

Ward:                             East Ward

Applicant:                      Rolf Ockert Architect Pty Lyd

Owner:                           Jemmiffer Coelho & Julien Coelho

Summary

Recommendation:          Approval

map 15 seaside

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

 

Ù

North

 

 


Executive summary

The subject application is referred to the RLPP as the original application was considered at the former Randwick Development Assessment Panel (RDAP) meeting on 14th June 2018 due to the development contravenes the development standard for building height by more than 10%.   At the meeting the Panel resolved to defer determination of the DA pending several issues relating to the proposed works to the rear deck and swimming pool being addressed by the applicant.

 

Subsequently amended plans were received by Council on 6 July 2018 and the application was again referred to the Panel for determination on 21st August 2018 with Council officers recommending approval subject to conditions.  At the meeting the Panel resolved to issue development consent (with the variation to height of building being supported); however, the approval was subject to a number of deferred commencement conditions relating to the rear pool structure and surround deck area.  The applicant has now lodged a Section 4.55(2) application to modify the deferred commencement conditions imposed by the Panel.

 

In accordance with Council delegation of authority, the Section 4.55(2) application must be referred back to the Panel for determination.

 

Proposal

The application is seeking approval to modify the pool structure as approved in the following manner:

·      Below Pool Level

-     Provision of pool plant & equipment areas under the deck and pool structure; and

-     New landscaping fronting foreshore area.

 

·      Pool Level

-     Finished deck level at RL 18.59;

-     Pool to have a length of 8.8 metres, extending a maximum of 2.82 metres beyond the foreshore building line; and

-     Width of deck extended 1 metre to the north.

 

Site Description and Locality

 

The site is located on the eastern side of Seaside Parade and is legally identified as Lot 7, Section 3 in DP9452. The lot is an irregular shape with a frontage to Seaside Parade of 15.77m, a northern side boundary of 40.54m and a southern side boundary of 43.555m. The site’s eastern boundary is defined by the mean high water mark. The site has an area of 654m².  The site slopes away from the street with a fall of approximately 3 metres from the seaside Parade frontage to the rear garden area and a significant fall beyond this with a steep rocky ravine which traverses the northern half of the site and extends under the existing building.  The site currently contains a three storey rendered and tile dwelling with a large deck above disused swimming pool at the south-eastern corner of the site.

 

Located within the nature strip fronting the site are two mature Coastal Banksia’s and a Cottonwood.

 

Seaside Parade is characterised by large dwelling houses oriented towards the east to capture panoramic ocean views.

 

Adjoining the site to the north is No. 13 Seaside Parade which contains a rendered dwelling presenting as two storeys to Seaside Parade, and four storeys at the rear towards the ocean. Adjoining the site to the south is No. 19 Seaside Parade which also contains a rendered dwelling presenting as two storeys to Seaside Parade, and four storeys at the rear towards the ocean. Opposite the site, on the western side of Seaside Parade lies No. 14 Seaside Parade containing a three-storey rendered dwelling with tiled roof.

 


 

Relevant history

 

On 1 January 1965, Council granted approval under Building Application number BA/91/1965 for the construction of the existing swimming pool.

 

On 11 February 2014, Council granted approval under development application number DA/529/2013 for the construction of a timber deck over the existing swimming pool to rear of existing dwelling, access stairs from the deck to foreshore and timber cladding around the pool.

 

Under DA/6/2018 an application was submitted for demolition of the existing dwelling and garage, retention of existing swimming pool and associated deck above, construction of a new part one to part four storey dwelling house with double garage, associated site and landscaping works.  The application was referred to the Randwick Local Planning Panel (RLPP) meeting on 14 June 2018 as it contravenes the development standard for building height by more than 10%.  At the meeting, (despite the variation to the height of building being support) it was resolved that the application be deferred to enable the applicant to address the following issues:

 

§  The store room below pool level has not been included in the Gross Floor Area (GFA) calculation and appears to be above existing ground level and therefore, the development may exceed the floor space ratio standard under Clause 4.4 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012) and consequently in the absence of a Clause 4.6, the Panel has no power to grant development consent.

§  A revised survey plan is required to show the existing ground levels beneath the proposed pool and associated built form to confirm whether excavation is proposed and to determine the extent of the GFA (above existing ground level) to be included in the FSR calculation.

§  The proposed pool and associated built form encroaches into the foreshore building line and from the information available, the proposal would be inconsistent with Clause 14 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018 (SEPP (Coastal Management) 2018) and clauses 6.6 and 6.7 of the RLEP 2012.  The Panel considers the proposed built form should not encroach on the foreshore building line as the site is highly visible from the foreshore area.

§  The Panel is not satisfied on the information available that sufficient steps have been taken to minimise the impact of the pool and associated built form upon the foreshore area consistent with Clause 14 of the SEPP (Coastal Management) 2018 and clauses 6.6 and 6.7 of the RLEP 2012.

§  The architectural documentation of the pool and associated structures is incomplete and inconsistent.

 

In addition, the Panel is of the view that the northern edge of the deck at RL18.55 should be setback a minimum of 900mm from the adjacent boundary to improve the amenity of the adjoining neighbour and provide greater separation between built forms.

 

The applicant is to submit amended plans by 6 July 2018 to address the above matters and the Panel will then determine the application.  In the event that the applicant does not wish to submit amended plans then the Panel will determine the application in its current form.

 

Subsequently, the applicant submitted amended plans to Council on 6 July 2018, in response to the above RDAP’s resolution.  These amended plans were considered at the RLPP meeting of 21 August 2018 and it was concluded that the proposed changes address some of the Panel’s reasons for deferral, however, the panel does not accept the that the Supplementary Report adequately addresses the impacts of the retention of the pool structure as part of a development application for the redevelopment of the site.  Based on this reason, the Panel resolved that the application can be ameliorated to an acceptable level through the imposition of a deferred commencement condition that requires amended plans to be submitted for the approval of Council’s Manager Development Assessment that read as follows:

 

i.          demolish or substantially demolish the existing pool structure including the deck above and as far as practicable reinstate a natural profile to the rock surface below;

 

ii.          provide a deck (and pool as required) and supporting structure at the ‘Pool Level’ Floor Plan with:

 

(a)        a height so that it does not exceed RL 18.59 at any point (other than for BCA compliant balustrading).

 

(b)        a length so that it does not encroach beyond (i.e. eastwards of) the Foreshore Building Line in RLEP 2012.  

 

(c)        a width (i.e. in a north-south dimension) so that it does not exceed the width of the existing deck over the pool.

 

iii.         any new pool is to be fully contained within the outer boundaries of the deck and supporting structure in ii above.

 

iv.         No ‘gross floor area’ as defined under RLEP 2012 is to be included in the deck and supporting structure in ii above.

 

v.         the deck (and pool) and the underside structure are all to be designed to a high standard as architectural/decorative elements, integrated with the design of the remainder of the dwelling house and finished in a low maintenance finish of dark/visually recessive tones.   All plant and equipment are to be fully screened from view from any public space.

 

In addition, a deferred commencement condition is also to be imposed which requires that the development consent for DA/529/2013 and BA/91/1965 must be surrendered or amended to be consistent with the requirements of this consent. This is to prevent more than one consent applying to the land, which have inconsistent requirements.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Section 4.55 Assessment

 

Under the provisions of Section 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (the Act), as amended, Council may only agree to a modification of an existing Development Consent if the following criteria have been complied with:-

 

a)   it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and

 

b)   it has consulted with any relevant public authorities or approval bodies, and

 

c)   it has notified the application & considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification.

 

Substantially the same development

 

The provisions of Section 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 requires Council to be satisfied that the development to which consent, as modified, relates is substantially the same development for which consent was originally granted.

 

The proposed modifications are not considered to result in a development that will fundamentally alter the originally approved development. The pool structure formed part of the original consent and does not affect an important, material or essential aspect of the originally approved development.

 


 

Key Issues

 

Reasons for deferred commencement conditions and responses

 

a)    Amended plans are to be submitted for the southern part of the ‘Pool Level’ Floor Plan (i.e. that part adjoining the rumpus room at that level) which:

 

i.     demolish or substantially demolish the existing pool structure including the deck above and as far as practicable reinstate a natural profile to the rock surface below;

 

Response:

The plans indicate that the existing structure to the southern side will be demolished and new pool structure will be reconstructed with a mixture of concrete, sandstone cladding, glass balustrades and glazing panels which are considered to be materials and finishes that will blend in with the surrounding colours, finishes and vegetation; and therefore, will be consistent with the natural profile of the existing rock cliff surface as demonstrated in Photo 1 below.

 

15 seaside section

 


 

ii.    provide a deck (and pool as required) and supporting structure at the ‘Pool Level’ Floor Plan with:

 

(a)          a height so that it does not exceed RL 18.59 at any point (other than for BCA compliant balustrading),

 

Response:

The pool level has been lowered by 1m to RL 18.59 and is consistent with the above condition.

      

(b)          a length so that it does not encroach beyond (i.e. eastwards of) the Foreshore Building Line in RLEP 2012,

 

  Response:

The proposed swimming pool structure encroaches into the foreshore building line by a maximum of 3.18 metres and the pool store/plant area below will encroach beyond the foreshore building line by a maximum of 1 metre.  The proposal does not meet this requirement, refer to Clause 6.6 – Foreshore Building Line within this report which addresses this section of the condition.

 

(c)          a width (i.e. in a north-south dimension) so that it does not exceed the width of the existing deck over the pool.

 

Response:

The proposal will extend 1m towards the north beyond the width of the existing structure and does not comply with this condition.  Notwithstanding the above, it is not considered that the extended portion of the deck will result in any unreasonable amenity impacts on the foreshore line or neighbouring properties.  The extended portion is to the north and is not visible from Marine Parade coastal walkway.  In addition to the above, the pool deck area is setback significantly from the neighbouring property at no. 13 Seaside Parade and is 1 metre lower than the existing pool structure which will reduce the amenity impacts as viewed from the neighbouring property.

 

In addition to the above, the pool plant room under the pool and deck area is recessed approximately 2m from the edge of the pool and deck area as shown in figure 3 below which represents an improvement to the profile of the development on the land and will reduce the visual impacts as viewed from the water front.

 

photo 6

 

iii.   any new pool is to be fully contained within the outer boundaries of the deck and supporting structure in ii above.

 

Response:

The pool is contained within the outer boundaries of the existing deck and supporting structures; however, as discussed above the deck extends 1 metre to the north beyond the structure below which has been assessed above and is considered to be acceptable.   Refer to State Environmental Planning policy (Coastal Management) 2018 & Clause 6.6 – Foreshore Building Line of the LEP which further addresses this condition.

 

iv.   No ‘gross floor area’ as defined under RLEP 2012 is to be included in the deck and supporting structure in ii above.

 

Response:

The swimming pool, deck and supporting structures below do not provide any GFA as per the definition in the RLEP 2012 and therefore, the modified development will not be increasing the approved FSR of 0.599:1 on the site.  Refer to Clause 4.4 – Floor Space Ratio below.

 

v.    the deck (and pool) and the underside structure are all to be designed to a high standard as architectural/decorative elements, integrated with the design of the remainder of the dwelling house and finished in a low maintenance finish of dark/visually recessive tones. All plant and equipment are to be fully screened from view from any public space.

 

Figure 6 below demonstrates that the proposal complies with the above condition in that the pool, deck and underside structure is designed with high standard of architectural/ decorative elements (i.e. a mixture of concrete, sandstone cladding, glass balustrades and glazing panels), and will integrate within the design of the approved dwelling house.   A external finishes schedule has been submitted which demonstrates that the proposed finishes are of low maintenance and are finished with neutral and dark/visually recessive tones which blend in the rock cliff interface.   The plant and equipment are fully screened and are not visible from any of the public spaces through the use of opaque glass and appropriate landscaping.  Planting is proposed on the northern and eastern side of the gully on the top perimeter of the rock outcrop which will provide habitat for native birds and insects.

 

Concerns from the Panel

The Panel is not satisfied that the retention of the existing pool structure addresses its concerns that “the proposal would be inconsistent with Clause 14 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018 (SEPP (Coastal Management) 2018) and clauses 6.6 and 6.7 of the RLEP 2012.  The Panel considers the proposed built form should not encroach on the foreshore building line as the site is highly visible from the foreshore area” or that “sufficient steps have been taken to minimise the impact of the pool and associated built form upon the foreshore area consistent with Clause 14 of the SEPP (Coastal Management) 2018 and clauses 6.6 and 6.7 of the RLEP 2012”.

 

Response:

 

State Environmental Planning policy (Coastal Management) 2018

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018 commenced on 3 April 2018 and consolidates previous coastal SEPPs into one integrated policy. The site is located within the coastal environment area and the coastal use area, and therefore the provisions of the SEPP applies.

 

Division 3 Coastal environment area

 

13   Development on land within the coastal environment area

(1)  Development consent must not be granted to development on land that is within the coastal environment area unless the consent authority has considered whether the proposed development is likely to cause an adverse impact on the following:

 

(a)  the integrity and resilience of the biophysical, hydrological (surface and groundwater) and ecological environment,

(b)  coastal environmental values and natural coastal processes,

(c)  the water quality of the marine estate (within the meaning of the Marine Estate Management Act 2014), in particular, the cumulative impacts of the proposed development on any of the sensitive coastal lakes identified in Schedule 1,

(d)  marine vegetation, native vegetation and fauna and their habitats, undeveloped headlands and rock platforms,

(e)  existing public open space and safe access to and along the foreshore, beach, headland or rock platform for members of the public, including persons with a disability,

(f)   Aboriginal cultural heritage, practices and places,

(g)  the use of the surf zone.

 

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

 

(a)  the development is designed, sited and will be managed to avoid an adverse impact referred to in subclause (1), or

(b)  if that impact cannot be reasonably avoided—the development is designed, sited and will be managed to minimise that impact, or

(c)  if that impact cannot be minimised—the development will be managed to mitigate that

impact.

The modified development is consistent with Clause 13 as the proposal will not change access opportunities to the foreshore and will not affect recreational use of the coast.  The plantroom below the pool and deck structure has been recessed approximately 2m at the interface of the pool structure above reducing the impacts as viewed from the water front.  The proposal will continue to protect and enhance the sensitive coastal environment and will not impact on natural features or processes of the coastline.

 

Division 4 Coastal use area

 

14   Development on land within the coastal use area

(1) Development consent must not be granted to development on land that is within the coastal use area unless the consent authority:

 

(a)   has considered whether the proposed development is likely to cause an adverse impact on the following:

 

(i)    existing, safe access to and along the foreshore, beach, headland or rock platform for members of the public, including persons with a disability,

 

(ii)    overshadowing, wind funnelling and the loss of views from public places to foreshores,

 

(iii)   the visual amenity and scenic qualities of the coast, including coastal headlands,

(iv)   Aboriginal cultural heritage, practices and places,

(v)   cultural and built environment heritage, and

 

(b)   is satisfied that:

(i)    the development is designed, sited and will be managed to avoid an adverse impact referred to in paragraph (a), or

(ii)    if that impact cannot be reasonably avoided—the development is designed, sited and will be managed to minimise that impact, or

(iii)   if that impact cannot be minimised—the development will be managed to mitigate that impact, and

 

(c)   has taken into account the surrounding coastal and built environment, and the bulk, scale and size of the proposed development.

 

(2)  This clause does not apply to land within the Foreshores and Waterways Area within the meaning of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005.

 

The modified development will not change access opportunities to the foreshore and will not affect recreational use of the coast.  The proposal does not affect any known Aboriginal cultural heritage or Aboriginal place and will not impact on natural features of the coastline.  The reconstructed pool structure is designed to blend in with the surrounding colours, finishes and vegetation and will be consistent with the natural profile of the existing rock cliff surface. 

 

The modified development has reduced the scale and bulk of the pool structure by lowering the height of the existing pool structure by 1 metre and recessing the lower portion of the pant room by approximately 2m which softens the built form as viewed from the water front.  The modified development now responds better to character of the coastline and other developments to the rear of the dwellings in terms of bulk, scale, landscaping and materials and finished.

 

The proposal therefore satisfies the requirements of the Coastal Management SEPP.

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

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

 

Description

Council Standard

Approved

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

0.6:1

0.599:1

The approved FSR of 0.599:1 will not be altered.

Yes

Height of Building (Maximum)

9.5m

19.9m

19.9m

Variation was supported in the original application.

 

Clause 4.3 – Height of Building

 

The proposed modifications will not be altering the maximum building height of the dwelling.  The pool structure will result in a maximum height of approximately 5.5m from the natural ground level of the rock cliff and will comply with the control.

 

Clause 4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

 

The proposed modifications will not be altering the approved gross floor area of the dwelling (of 0.599:1).  Amended plans have been received indicating the area below the swimming pool will be used as plant & equipment room and will not be used for habitable purposes.  Hence, as per the definition of GFA under the RLEP 2012 the plant & equipment room, deck and supporting structures are excluded from the calculations.   A condition will be included to ensure that the area below the swimming pool will not be used for habitable purposes.

 

Clause 6.6 – Foreshore Building Line

 

The following concerns were raised by the Panel:

 

The impacts of the proposal when assessed against the relevant requirements of SEPP (Coastal Management) 2018 and RLEP 2012 are unacceptable. In particular, the proposed new dwelling with the retention of the existing pool structure is not consistent with the objective of cl 6.6 (Foreshore Building Line) of RLEP 2012 to ensure that development in the foreshore area will not …. affect the significance and amenity of the area. The Panel is not satisfied that the appearance of the proposal from both the waterway and adjacent foreshore areas, will be compatible with the surrounding area, and that any … natural or aesthetic significance of the land on which the development is to be carried out and of surrounding land will be maintained (cl 6.6(3)(b) and (f)). 

 

The proposal is also not consistent with the objectives of cl.6.7(1) (Foreshore Scenic Protection Area) of RLEP 2012 (a) to recognise, protect and enhance the natural, visual and environmental qualities of the scenic areas of the coastline, (b) to protect and improve visually prominent areas adjoining the coastal foreshore, (c) to protect significant public views to and from the coast, and (d) to ensure development in these areas is appropriate for the location and does not detract from the scenic qualities of the coast.  The Panel is not satisfied that the proposed new dwelling with the retention of the existing pool structure is located and designed to minimise its visual impact on public areas of the coastline, including views to and from the coast, foreshore reserves, open space and public areas, and contributes to the scenic quality of the coastal foreshore (cl 6.7(3)(a) and (b)).

 

Furthermore, the Panel considers that the proposed new house with the retained pool structure is likely to cause an adverse impact on the visual amenity and scenic qualities of the coast, including coastal headlands cl 14(1)(a)(iii), and the Panel is not satisfied that the development is designed or sited to avoid, minimise or mitigate this impact (cl 14(1)(b)) nor has taken into account the surrounding coastal and built environment, and the bulk, scale and size of the proposed development (Clause 14 (1)(c)).

 

Response:

 

The existing swimming pool & associated structure currently encroaches into the foreshore building line as identified in figure 4 below.   This image illustrates that the adjoining development have similar swimming pool structures that encroach further beyond the foreshore building line than the proposed structure.

 

The proposed swimming pool structure will continue to encroach into the foreshore building line by a maximum of 3.18 metres and the pool store/plant area below will encroach beyond the foreshore building line by a maximum of 1 metre which does not comply with this control. 

 

Clause 6.6 (2)(c) allows development for the purposes of swimming pools within the foreshore area, provided the development will not impact on natural foreshore processes or affect the significance and amenity of the area.

 

Clause 6.7 (3)(a) requires development within the foreshore scenic protection area to be located and designed to minimise visual impacts.

 

The initial concerns raised by the Panel, regarding the bulk and scale of the pool structure as viewed from the coast has now been addressed and will not cause environmental harm to the surrounding foreshore area.  The modified pool structure is located in a similar location to the existing disused pool and deck with a metre extension to the north (from the footprint of existing structure), which is not significantly noticeable from the foreshore line.   Moreover, the modified pool structure is now located 1 metre lower than the height of the existing pool structure and the lower portion of the plant room is recessed by approximately 2m which softens the appearance of the structure on the foreshore as demonstrated in Figures 4 and 6 below.  The modified development now responds better to character of the coastline and other developments to the rear of the dwellings in terms of bulk, scale, landscaping and materials and finishes.  Refer to Figures 5 & 6 which demonstrates that the proposed development responses better than the existing structure to the coast and contributes more appropriately to the scenic quality of the coastal foreshore area.

 

The modified pool structure will be consistent with the architectural language, materials and treatment between the retained structure and the new structure of the dwelling house.  As discussed above the colour scheme complements the coastal area and its appearance will be compatible with other surrounding similar structures within the area when viewed from the coastal walkway in particular Marine Parade where it’s most visible.  Refer to Figures 5 & 6 below.

 

The proposal will contribute to achieving the objectives of the zone in which the land is located and is considered to be consistent with the maters of consideration under this clause.

 

photo 7

Figure 4: Aerial view of the existing Foreshore Building Line

 

photo 8

Figure 5: Existing View from Marine Parade coastal walkway

 

photo 9

Figure 6: Proposed View from Marine Parade coastal walkway

 

Randwick DCP 2013

 

Part C1 – Low Density Residential

 

Sub-section 5.6 – View Sharing

 

Views are currently enjoyed from the property towards the headland at Gordon Bays and Clovelly at the eastern end of the existing terrace. 

 

Condition 1 of the consent required the pool structure to be setback within the foreshore building line.

 

The additional setback as required by Condition 1 does not provide any greater level of amenity or views for the adjoining properties and public domain, it will only reduce the extensive views currently enjoyed for the subject property.   Moreover, as discussed above the proposed pool structure is considered to be acceptable built form within the foreshore area and as viewed from the visible coastal walkways.

 

Sub-section 7.5 - Swimming and Spa Pools

 

Controls

 

i)        Locate behind the alignment of the front building facade.

 

ii)       Locate to minimise damage to the root system of existing trees on the adjoining properties, as well as trees on the subject site proposed or required to be retained. 

 

iii)      Locate to minimise noise impacts on the adjoining dwellings. 

 

iv)      The coping level of the pool must relate to the topography of the site. On sloping allotments, the higher side of the site must be excavated, so that the pool structures do not protrude more than 1m above ground level (existing) on the lower side. 

 

v)       Setback the outer edge of pool coping a minimum of 900mm from the rear and side boundaries.

 

vi)      The side and rear setback areas must incorporate screen planting extending along the full length of the pool. The planting must be capable of reaching a mature height of not less than 3m. This requirement may not apply where there is a need to retain existing view corridors from adjoining and nearby properties.

 

vii)     Position any decking away from the side and rear boundaries to minimise adverse privacy impacts on the neighbours. 

 

viii)     Locate the pool pump and filter away from the neighbouring dwellings. The equipment must be contained within an acoustically treated enclosure that limits noise generation.  

 

 

The proposal will be replacing the existing pool structure to the rear and will be lowered by 1 metre.  The extension of the deck (by 1m) to the north will not be visible from the public domain and will not affect the amenity of the adjoining properties as it is setback substantially from the neighbouring property to the north at no. 13 Seaside Parade.

 

There are no existing trees that will be impacted by the proposed development.  A landscape plan has been which indicates that a planter box with mixed planting to be provided to the eastern end of the deck to screen the pool plant. 

 

Also, the pool structure and deck is in keeping with similar structures along the foreshore and is not expected to cause additional noise or privacy impacts to neighbouring dwellings than what currently exists.   The pool pump and equipment is located below the swimming pool & deck area away from neighbouring bedrooms.

 

The modified development meets the above control objectives.

 

Section 4.15 Assessment

 

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

State Environment Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

 

Clause 55A of the EP & A Regulation requires that a new BASIX certificate be lodged for amended plans or where a section 4.55 modification makes a material change to the BASIX commitments as originally approved.

 

The applicant has submitted a new BASIX certificate. The plans have been checked with regard to this new certificate and they are consistent with the requirements indicated for DA stage. Standard conditions of consent requiring the continued compliance of the development with the SEPP:BASIX were included in the original determination.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

The proposed modifications are ancillary to the approved development, which will remain substantially the same. The development remains consistent with the general aims and objectives of the RLEP 2012.

 

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 development remains compliant with the objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive 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 proposed modifications have responded appropriately to the relevant planning controls and will not result in any significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality.

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

The site has been assessed as being suitable for the development in the original development consent.

 

The modified development will remain substantially the same as the originally approved development and is considered to meet the relevant objectives and performance requirements in the RDCP 2013 and RLEP 2012. Further, the proposed modifications will not adversely affect the character or amenity of the locality.

 

Therefore the site remains suitable for the modified development.

 

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

 

No submissions have been received.

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

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

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:            Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The application is recommended for approval for the following reasons:

a)       The proposed modifications are considered to result in a development that is substantially the same as the previously approved development.

b)       The modified development will be consistent with Clause 14 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018 (SEPP (Coastal Management) 2018) and clauses 6.6 and 6.7 of the RLEP 2012. 

c)       The proposed modification satisfies the relevant matters for consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended.

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

e)       The modified will not result in significant adverse environmental impacts upon the amenity and character of the locality within the foreshore.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the RLPP, as the consent authority, grant consent under Section 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Application No. DA/6/2018 for modification of approved development by amendment to pool structure with pool plant under pool structure, new landscaping with changes to pool deck and to swimming pool, at No. 15 Seaside Parade, South Coogee, in the following manner:

 

·      Delete Deferred Commencement Condition 1 (a)

 

·      Amend Condition 1 to read:

 

1.    The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans and supporting documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s approved stamp:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

1.01 d4 Roof Plan

Rolf Ockert Architect

July 2018

1.02 d4 Upper Level Plan

Rolf Ockert Architect

July 2018

1.03 d4 Entry and Living Level

Rolf Ockert Architect

July 2018

1.04 d4 Pool Level Plan

Rolf Ockert Architect

July 2018

1.05 d4 Below Pool Level

Rolf Ockert Architect

April 2018

2.01 d4 West and North Elevations

Rolf Ockert Architect

July 2018

2.02 d4 South Elevation

Rolf Ockert Architect

July 2018

2.03 d4 East Elevation

Rolf Ockert Architect

July 2018

2.04 d4 Long Section

Rolf Ockert Architect

July 2018

2.05 d4 Long Section 2

Rolf Ockert Architect

April 2018

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

879801S

20/12/17

 

EXCEPT where amended by Section 4.55 “A”:

·           Council in red on the approved plans; and/or

·           Other conditions of this consent; and/or

·           the following Section 4.55 plans and supporting documents only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 4.55 plans and detailed in the Section 4.55 application:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

1.04 s1 Pool Level Plan

Rolf Ockert Architect

October 2018

1.05 s2 Below Pool Level Plan

Rolf Ockert Architect

January 2018

2.01 s1 West and North Elevations

Rolf Ockert Architect

November 2018

2.02 s1 South Elevation

Rolf Ockert Architect

November 2018

2.03 s1 East Elevation

Rolf Ockert Architect

November 2018

2.04 s1 Long Section 1

Rolf Ockert Architect

October 2018

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

879801S_02

20 October 2018

 

·      Amend Condition 3 to read as follows:

 

External Colours, Materials & Finishes

3.         a)     The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are to be compatible with the adjacent development to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the streetscape.

 

Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (i.e. a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to issuing a construction certificate for the development.

 

b)    The external colours, materials and finishes schedule for pool structure to the rear of the dwelling shall be in accordance with the following plan:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

M.01 (Revision s1) Material Palette

Rolf Ockert Architect

January 2019

 

·      Add the following conditions:

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

The following conditions of consent must be complied with prior to the ‘Principal Certifying Authority’ issuing an ‘Occupation Certificate’.

 

Note:    For the purpose of this consent, any reference to ‘occupation certificate’ shall also be taken to mean ‘interim occupation certificate’ unless otherwise stated.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, Council’s development consent and to maintain reasonable levels of public health, safety and amenity.

 

Swimming Pool Safety

52.       a)     Swimming pools are to be designed and installed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and be provided with childproof fences and self-locking gates, in accordance with the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and the Swimming Pools Regulation 2008.

 

                   The swimming pool is to be surrounded by a child-resistant barrier (e.g. fence), that separates the pool from any residential building (as defined in the Swimming Pools Act 1992) that is situated on the premises and from any place (whether public or private) adjoining the premises; and that is designed, constructed and installed in accordance with Australian Standard AS 1926.1 – 2012 (Swimming Pool Safety Part 1 - Safety Barriers for Swimming Pools).

 

                   Gates to pool area must be self-closing and latching at all times and, the gate is required to open outwards from the pool area and prevent a small child opening the gate or door when the gate or door is closed.

 

                   Temporary pool safety fencing is to be provided pending the completion of all building work and the pool must not be filled until a fencing inspection has been carried out and approved by the principal certifying authority.

 

                   A ‘warning notice’ must be erected in a prominent position in the immediate vicinity of the swimming pool, in accordance with the provisions of the Swimming Pools Regulation 2008, detailing pool safety requirements, resuscitation techniques and the importance of the supervision of children at all times.

 

Swimming Pool Requirements

52.        b)   Swimming pools are to be designed, installed and operated in accordance with the following general requirements:

 

i.    Backwash of the pool filter and other discharge of water is to be drained to the sewer in accordance with the requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation; and

ii.  All pool overflow water is to be drained away from the building and adjoining premises, so as not to result in a nuisance or damage to premises; and

iii.  Water recirculation and filtrations systems are required to comply with AS 1926.3 – 2010:  Swimming Pool Safety – Water Recirculation and Filtration Systems; and

iv. Pool plant and equipment is to be enclosed in a sound absorbing enclosure or installed within a building, to minimise noise emissions and possible nuisance to nearby residents.

 

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS

The following operational conditions must be complied with at all times, throughout the use and operation of the development.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, Council’s development consent and to maintain reasonable levels of public health and environmental amenity.

 

Swimming pool

59.       The pool plant and equipment shall not be operated during the following hours if the noise emitted can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises, or, as otherwise specified in relevant Noise Control Regulations:

 

·         before 8.00am or after 8.00pm on any Sunday or public holiday; or

·         before 7.00am or after 8.00pm on any other day.

 

60.     The area below the swimming pool shall not be used for habitable purposes.

 

ADVISORY NOTES

The following information is provided for your assistance to ensure compliance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, or other relevant legislation and Council’s policies.  This information does not form part of the conditions of development consent pursuant to Section 80A of the Act.

 

A10      Council’s assessment of this application does not include an assessment of compliance with the Swimming Pool Act 1992.  All pool barriers, fences and structures within properties containing a swimming pool must comply with the requirements of the Swimming Pool Act 1992, BCA and relevant Australian Standards.

 

Details of compliance with the Swimming Pool Act 1992, Building Code of Australia and relevant Standards must be included in the Construction Certificate to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Randwick Local Planning Panel            14 February 2019

 

 

Development Application Report No. D4/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      12 Campbell Street, Clovelly (DA/653/2018)

 

Folder No:                      DA/653/2018

Author:                          Jayden Perry, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

 

Proposal:                       Alterations and additions to approved development at lower ground floor level, addition of balustrade and access stairs to create trafficable roof on garage with associated works.

Ward:                             North Ward

Applicant:                      Buckandsimple

Owner:                           TJ Markham

Summary

Recommendation:          Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

 

Ù

North

Locality Plan


 

Executive summary

 

The application is referred to the RLPP as 10 or more unique submissions by way of objection were received.

 

The subject application under the provisions of Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended) proposes making alterations and additions to an approved Complying Development at lower ground floor level, addition of balustrade and access stairs to create trafficable roof on garage with associated works.

 

The proposal was notified to the surrounding properties for 14 days and a total of fourteen (14) unique submissions were received during this period. The main issues raised in the submissions were regarding privacy impacts resulting from the rooftop garden terrace, stability of surrounding properties resulting from excavation and unauthorized works. 

 

The proposed lower ground floor excavation and addition of kitchen, laundry and bathroom facilities is consistent with the relevant objectives of the zone and will not impact on the amenity of the surrounding residents or on the streetscape contribution of the building and as such has been recommended for approval.

 

The proposed stairway and balustrade to the rooftop of the rear garage will significantly impact upon the acoustic and visual privacy of surrounding neighbours and will set an undesirable precedent within the vicinity of the site and as such a condition has been placed on the consent requiring these elements be deleted from the proposal.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

Proposal

The proposed development is for the alterations and additions to an approved Complying Development at lower ground floor level, addition of balustrade and access stairs to create trafficable roof on garage with associated works.

 

Details of the proposed development are as follows:

 

·      Excavation at lower ground level beneath approved dwelling to create additional floor area.

·      Installation of a kitchen, living room, laundry and bathroom facilities on lower ground level.

·      Additional of balustrade to rooftop garden area above garage.

·      Additional of stairs to the eastern elevation of the garage structure allowing access to the rooftop garden.

Issues were raised by council officer to the applicant and included missing east and west facing section plans taken from the internal courtyard pool area. The applicant submitted the following additional plans in response to the information request:

-     Additional short section between pool and rear garage facing east.

-     Additional short section between pool and rear garage facing west.

 

Site Description and Locality

 

The subject site is zoned R2 and consists of a part two part three-storey dwelling house and is located on the western side of Campbell Street with a substantial east-west gradient sloping down from the front to the rear of the site. The surrounding development consists of single and multi-level dwelling houses and medium rise residential flat buildings.

 

Relevant history

 

CDC/168/2018:

The subject site was subject to a Complying Development Certificate which consisted of the alterations & addition to an existing two storey dwelling & outbuilding of swimming pool & associated retaining walls. These works are currently under construction at the subject site, with the current development application under assessment tying in to the approved CDC plans. The most current CDC plans relating to the site are as follows:

 

Lower Ground Floor Level.

Ground Floor Level.

First Floor Level.

Figure 1. Approved plans at the site under  CDC/168/2018/A

 


 

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:

 

·      Unit 1, 14-16 Campbell Parade, Clovelly   - 3 Unique Submissions Received

·      Unit 7, 14-16 Campbell Street, Clovelly

·      Unit Unknown, 14-16 Campbell Street, Clovelly

·      Unit Unknown, 14-16 Campbell Street, Clovelly

·      Address unstated, assumed to be 14-16 Campbell Street, Clovelly

·      33 Park Street, Clovelly

·      8 Campbell Street, Clovelly

 

The submissions raised the following concerns:

 

Issue

Comment

Proposed access stairs and balustrade to rooftop garden resulting in a habitable rooftop terrace above rear garage will impact upon visual and acoustic privacy of surrounding residents, will increase levels of light pollution and will reduce green area on site.

Agreed. A condition has been placed on the consent requiring the deletion of these elements. See key issues for further discussion.

 

 

Entertaining area will result in light spillage to surrounding properties.

Agreed. Condition 31 of the consent requires external lighting be directed away from neighbouring properties.

 

No dimensions are on plans relating to side setbacks.

Noted. Measurements were undertaken by the officer to determine setback distance to adjoining properties.

 

Excavation may affect the foundations and structural integrity of surrounding buildings.

Agreed. Standard conditions have been placed on the consent requiring a dilapidation report be prepared prior to excavation commencing and that adjoining properties be supported throughout the excavation process.

 

‘Existing’ structures on plans do not reflect existing structures including new deck and pergola. These may impact solar access and views to the coast.

The site was subject to a Complying Development Certificate & subsequent amendment (CDC/168/2018/A) and this relates to documentation / works approved under the CDC application.

 

No development application was lodged for the demolition of existing dwelling and construction of new dwelling.

The site was subject to a Complying Development Certificate & subsequent amendment (CDC/168/2018/A) and this relates to documentation / works approved under the CDC application.

 

No drawings show internal view of basement or of lower ground level. Also no drawings show internal elevation of basement walls along boundary with No. 14-16 Campbell Street, Clovelly. Grey areas on plans are confusing and have no meaning.

Agreed. Additional section drawings were requested by the assessing officer and were received and re-notified to objectors.

 

Side elevations of basement taken at lower ground level were not required as this did not form part of the proposal.

 

Grey area on plans references the approved CDC works and these were checked against the CDC plans and found to be true. As such the information submitted was considered to be adequate to undertake an assessment of the proposal.

 

Images were submitting relating to excavation having occurred prior to DA lodgment including the change in levels over time (photographic evidence).

The site was subject to a Complying Development Certificate & subsequent amendment (CDC/168/2018/A) which approved the demolition and excavation of rear entry to dwelling and rear stairs to allow for excavation of sub-floor area. It is believed that the excavation undertaken in the time after the lodgment of the DA related to the approved CDC works. This has been confirmed by the applicant in writing.

 

 

Upon request by the assessing officer the applicant submitted additional section drawings to council during the assessment period. Whilst not requiring formal notification given the works proposed no changes to the proposal and didn’t have significant additional bearing on the nature of the proposal, those who made submissions regarding the original proposal were notified by email and given the opportunity to comment on the additional information. The additional plan was also uploaded to the online DA tracking portal. The following submissions were received relating to the additional information:

 

·      Unit 1, 14-16 Campbell Parade, Clovelly

·      Unit 7, 14-16 Campbell Street, Clovelly

·      Address unstated, assumed to be 14-16 Campbell Street, Clovelly – 2 Unique Submissions Received

·      33 Park Street, Clovelly

 

The submissions raised the following additional concerns:

 

Issue

Comment

Proposed access stairs and balustrade to rooftop garden resulting in a habitable rooftop terrace above rear garage will impact upon visual and acoustic privacy of surrounding residents, will increase levels of light pollution and will reduce green area on site.

Agreed. A condition has been placed on the consent requiring the deletion of these elements. See key issues for further discussion.

 

 

Proposed balustrade height is low and will allow for people to look into the adjoining property. Proposed trees on southern edge of terrace will be ineffective at preventing privacy. Difference in levels between sites will result in privacy impacts.

Agreed. A condition has been placed on the consent requiring the deletion of these elements. See key issues for further discussion.

 

 

No development application was lodged for the demolition of existing dwelling and construction of new dwelling.

The site was subject to a Complying Development Certificate & subsequent amendment (CDC/168/2018/A) and this relates to documentation / works approved under the CDC application.

 

Natural ground levels have been misrepresented on plans. Ongoing investigation (with images to prove) shows ground level before and after works begun. DA plans indicated ground level post excavation (when in reality no excavation had taken place at the time of DA lodgment).

The site was subject to a Complying Development Certificate & subsequent amendment (CDC/168/2018/A) which approved the demolition and excavation of rear entry to dwelling and rear stairs to allow for excavation of sub-floor area. It is believed that the excavation undertaken in the time after the lodgment of the DA related to the approved CDC works and the DA plans reflected these works (which had not actually taken place yet) however this is not considered to be an issue given the DA was relying on works approved under the CDC.

 

There has been no documentation relating to structural support of adjoining properties, with excavation going ahead at the property prior to DA approval.

A visit to the site along with inspection of CDC plans relating to the property revealed that the excavation undertaken related to the CDC (and not DA). Any excavation relating to the CDC is the responsibility of the certifier and should have been included in the CDC. In relation to proposed additional excavation standard conditions have been placed on the consent requiring a dilapidation report be prepared prior to excavation commencing and that adjoining properties be supported throughout the excavation process and for the ongoing future.

 

No details were submitted relating to storm water drainage. A new 4.4m long roof is proposed under the DA with no drainage details provided.

Standard conditions have been placed on the consent relating to storm water drainage (including requiring that additional drainage documentation to be supplied to the certifier for review).

No additional roof is proposed as part of the DA.

 

The proposed excavation is excessive and is non-compliant with the RDCP 2013 in relation to depth and setbacks.

The non-compliance in this instance has been assessed as being acceptable in this instance and meets the objectives of the relevant clause. See key issues for further discussion.

 

Proposed dwelling structure is non-compliant in with side setback controls. Amended CDC drawings show irrelevant structures such as ‘blade walls’ which should be no longer required given they do not support any structure. Additionally ‘roof terraces are not permitted under CDC applications’.

The site was subject to a Complying Development Certificate & subsequent amendment (CDC/168/2018/A) and this relates to documentation / works approved under the CDC application.

The proposed roof terrace is applicable to the current proposal and has been assessed as being unacceptable and as such a condition has been placed on the consent requiring its deletion.

 

Survey submitted with the application is incorrect and does not represent correct location of garage. The survey does also not show spot levels at adjoining properties.

The proposal does not include altering the location of the garage and as such the misrepresentation in the survey plans does not have bearing on the assessment of the application (also considering all proposed works to the garage roof in this instance have not been approved). It was considered that the survey provided enough detail and spot levels at adjoining properties were not necessary in this instance. Further to this a visit to the site confirmed difference in levels and provided enough information for an adequate assessment to take place.

 

Proposed lower ground floor kitchen and bathroom may allow for the premises to be used as a primary and secondary dwelling.

Agreed. Condition 34 has been placed on the consent limiting the use of the dwelling to be single use occupation only. Further to this a condition has been placed on the consent requiring the deletion of the kitchen. See key issues for further discussion.

 

Schedule of materials was not provided with the application and there are concerns these will impact upon surrounding properties.

A condition has been placed on the consent requiring the applicant submit a colours and materials schedule prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

 

Key Issues

 

CDC/168/2018 & CDC/168/2018/A - Concurrent Applications (Complying Development Certificate and Development Application)

 

The subject site was recently subject to an application for alterations and addition to an existing two storey dwelling & outbuilding of swimming pool and associated works under CDC/168/2018 and the most recent amendment CDC/168/2018/A. Works relating to this approval are currently underway on site.

 

The current application seeks to extend the lower ground floor area 4m toward the east to accommodate an additional laundry and bathroom area, along with constructing stairs and a balustrade to the rooftop garden. The balustrade and stairs and proposed excavation relies partly on the most resent Complying Development Certificate lodged for the site, which approved the construction of a rooftop garden above the rear garage and the demolition of existing rear steps and landscaping and excavation of a ‘sub-floor area’ in the same location on the lower ground level. Complying Development Certificates and Development Application Consents may operate concurrently however this may give rise to confusion relating to the timing of approvals and to what constitutes as being ‘existing’ conditions. As such a comparison of the works approved under CDC/168/2018/A and the current proposal have been compared in figures 2, 3 and 4 below.

 

 

 

 

Figure 2. Comparison of approved CDC excavation (top) and proposed DA excavation (bottom) - long sections.

 

 

Figure 3. Comparison of approved CDC excavation (left) and proposed DA excavation (right) - lower ground floor plans.

 

Figure 4. Comparison of approved CDC green roof (left) and proposed DA habitable area (right) - floor plans.

 

The plans when compared clearly show the additional excavation proposed as part of the current application including alterations to the approved subfloor area to be used as a kitchen and living area along with the stairs and balustrade to the green roof area. A visit to the site on the 6th of November 2018 confirmed the extent of the CDC excavation, seen in figure 5 below. This has been confirmed in writing by the applicant. The construction at the site has meant that the site survey which represented the existing ground levels at the time of lodgment no longer reflects site conditions given works have begun relating to the CDC approval. Notwithstanding this it is considered that the existing survey and site visit images provide adequate information for assessment of the application to continue and as such a new survey was not requested.

 

Figure 5. Proposed location of lower ground kitchen and living area.

 

 

 

 

 

Lower Ground Floor Excavation

 

Part of the current proposal includes excavating an area underneath the approved dwelling to a depth of 1.5m below the existing ground level (prior to construction beginning) at a width of 8.28m and length of 4m toward the eastern boundary. The proposed excavation will be approximately 400mm from the northern and southern side boundaries. This is non-compliant with Clause 4.6 of Part C1 of the RDCP 2013 which limits excavation to a depth of 1m with setbacks of 900mm from side and rear boundaries. Notwithstanding this non-compliance, the merits of an application may be assessed against the objectives of the relevant clause.

 

The proposed excavation is largely a result of the topography of the site, with there being a 3.3m drop between the front and the rear of the site. Further to this the proposal will not reduce the amount of private open space existing on site and will not impact upon the structural integrity of surrounding sites given conditions have been placed on the consent ensuring the structural integrity of surroundings sites is to be protected. It is considered in this instance that the proposal meets the objectives of the clause for the following reasons

 

-      The size and scale of the existing dwelling remains unaltered and will not impact upon the existing streetscape or adjoining neighbours considering the works are wholly contained within the existing building envelope.

-      The amenity of residents in the vicinity and the broader context of the area will not be adversely impacted by the additional floor space. The proposal will not directly result in any significant adverse impacts on the adjoining residential properties or the adjoining reserve in terms of perceived bulk, scale and view loss.

-      Conditions placed on the consent ensuring surrounding properties are supported and excavation is undertaken according to the relevant standards are considered to adequately protect the structural stability of surrounding properties.

 

As such the proposal has been recommended for approval.

 

Rooftop Terrace Garden

 

A non-habitable rooftop garden above the rear garage along Park Lane was approved under CDC/168/2018/A. The current proposal seeks to make additions to this by constructing an access stairwell to the rooftop garden along the eastern elevation of the garage and constructing a 1m high balustrade around the edge of the garden, rendering the rooftop garden into a rooftop terrace area. This is non-compliant with clause 4.4 of Part C1 of the RDCP 2013 which states that rooftop terraces must not be provided on the uppermost roof of the building or outbuilding (except in cases where the garage is lower than the dwelling on a sloped site and fronts the main street which does  not apply in this instance).

 

The proposed terrace area is directly adjacent to a residential flat building to the south at No. 14-16 Campbell Street including the outdoor and living area of Unit 1, seen in figure 6 below. There exists a number of examples of part rooftop terrace part rear yard areas along Park Lane having been approved at different times. Notwithstanding this it is considered in this instance that allowing stairs and a balustrade to the rooftop garden area would result in its use as an outdoor recreation area which would significantly increase the potential for people to gather on the terrace area and consequently will impact upon the visual and acoustic privacy of the surrounding properties rendering it non-compliant with clause 5.3 and 5.4 of Part C1 of the RDCP 2013. The installation of a privacy screen along the southern edge of the terrace area is not considered to be an acceptable compromise as being to the north of the adjoining neighbour would result in significant overshadowing to the property to the south and would significantly add to the bulk of the structure possibly affecting views of surrounding properties. As such this part of the proposal is not recommended for approval and a condition has been placed on the consent requiring the staircase and balustrade to the rear outbuilding be deleted from the proposal.

 

Figure 6. Location of garden rooftop terrace area (atop outbuilding structure).

 

Figure 7. Proposed location of rooftop terrace as viewed from the living area at Unit 1, 14-16 Campbell Street. (Source: Owner of property).

 

Lower Ground Level Kitchen Area

 

The current proposal consists of adding laundry, bathroom and kitchen facilities to the lower ground floor level. Given the existing rear access to the site the additional facilities would enable the use of the lower ground level as a secondary dwelling. No approval has been sought under Division 2 of the SEPP: Affordable Rental Housing 2009 for a secondary dwelling. As such it is considered necessary in this instance to delete the proposed kitchen facilities until such time that a further application is lodged and is assessed as a secondary dwelling. A condition has been placed on the consent requiring the kitchen be deleted from the approved plans and limiting the dwelling to single occupancy use.

 

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 approved development at lower ground floor level with associated works be approved (subject to conditions) for the following reasons:

 

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

 


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 Residential R2 Low Density under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible in the zone. See table below for compliance with development standards.

 

The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will protect the amenity of the local residents and character of the surrounding streetscape.

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

Nil.

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

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

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

2.         Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

2.1        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

 

The site is zoned R2 under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will protect the amenity of the local residents and character of the surrounding streetscape.

 

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)

0.75:1

0.67:1

Yes

Height of Building (Maximum)

9.5m

No change.

N/A

 

Clause 6.7 – Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

The proposal site exists within the foreshore scenic protection area. Under the Randwick LEP 2012, development consent must not be granted for development on land which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the development:

 

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

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

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

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

 

The proposed works will not impact the views to and from the coast as there will be no increase to the height and scale of the structure. The application is considered to generally meet the aims and objectives of this clause.

 

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.

 

3.1        Section C1

 

DCP Clause

Controls

Proposal

Compliance

 

Classification

Zoning = R2

Complies. 

3

Building envelope

 

 

3.1

Floor space ratio LEP 2012 = 0.75:1

Site area = 320.5m2

Proposed FSR = 0.67:1

 Complies.

3.2

Building height

 

 

 

Maximum overall height LEP 2012  = 9.5m