BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Randwick Local Planning Panel

Meeting

 

 

 

   Thursday 14 March 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 March 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Randwick Local Planning Panel

 

Notice is hereby given that a Randwick Local Planning Panel meeting will be held in the Council Chamber, 1st Floor, 90 Avoca Street, Randwick on Thursday, 14 March 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

D5/19          1-3 Marcel Avenue, Coogee (DA/459/2017)....................................................... 1

D6/19          330 Anzac Parade, Kensington (DA/442/2018)............................................... 105

D7/19          6 Fraser Street, Randwick (DA/557/2017/B).................................................. 137

D8/19          11 Raglan Street, Malabar (DA/500/2018)...................................................... 143

Miscellaneous Reports

Nil    

 

 

 

 

Kerry Kyriacou

Director City Planning


Randwick Local Planning Panel    14 March 2019

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D5/19

 

Subject:                  1-3 Marcel Avenue, Coogee (DA/459/2017)

Folder No:                     DA/459/2017

Author:                          Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                      Demolition of all structures on site and construction of a part 3 part 4 residential flat building comprising of 12 dwellings and 2 levels of basement parking for 18 vehicles, associated site and landscaping works.

Ward:                            North Ward

Applicant:                     Mrs M McMorrow and Mr SV McMorrow

Owner:                          Mrs M McMorrow and Mr SV McMorrow

Summary

Recommendation:        Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Executive summary

 

The application is referred to the Randwick Local Planning Panel (RLPP) as the development is subject to the State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65) has ten or more submissions have been received and involves variation to development standard of height of building by more than 10%.

 

The proposal seeks development consent for demolition of all structures on two sites and construction of a part 3 part 4 residential flat building across an amalgamated site (1,011sqm) comprising 12 dwellings and 2 levels of basement parking for 18 vehicles, associated site and landscaping works. The sites are unique in that two different height standards in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Randwick LEP) applying to each of the two sites with a 12m maximum height applying to No. 1 Marcel Avenue and a 9.5m maximum height applying to No. 3 Marcel Avenue south east of No. 1. A 0.9:1 maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) standard under the Randwick LEP applies to both sites.

 

The proposal, as submitted, has a height of 12.05m exceeding the 9.5m maximum height standard applying to the part of the development located over No. 3 Marcel Avenue and the 12m height limit applying to No. 1 Marcel Avenue. The application as originally submitted had a calculated floor space ratio of 1.03:1 (0.94:1 FSR calculated by the applicant) exceeding the 0.9:1 maximum FSR standard applicable to both properties under the Randwick LEP.

 

The proposal was advertised and notified in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (Randwick DCP). Submissions were received as part of the advertising and notification period. The content of submissions raised concerns with the proposed bulk and scale, reduced natural light, overshadowing, privacy and acoustic impacts, tree retention, depth of excavation, increased demand for on-street parking and traffic congestion, safety, view loss, lack of separation, and impacts on stormwater drainage.

 

In the course of assessment, amended schemes were received by Council with the latest received on 25 January 2019 being the subject of this assessment. The amended scheme and revised documentation includes:

 

·      Level 2: increasing south-eastern side setback from 4.013m to 6.764m thereby reducing floor area.

·      Level 3: increased south-eastern side boundary setback from 5.249m to 8.3m reducing floor area. The increased setback results in similar levels of overshadowing to No. 5 Marcel Avenue’s north-west facing bay windows as that which would be caused by a Randwick DCP compliant 8m maximum wall height which operates in conjunction with the 9.5m maximum height standard in the Randwick LEP and the 4m side setback control.

·      Reduced FSR from the 1.03:1 down to 0.93:1. Please note: The originally submitted scheme’s FSR was incorrectly calculated by the applicant as having a FSR of 0.94:1 by virtue of incorrectly excluding horizontal common circulation spaces.

·      Resolved issues associated with relocated overland flow from the middle of the two sites to a lower western side boundary along the rear of properties facing Carrington Road (from No. 89 to 95).

·      Additional information relating to the car lift operation.

·      The applicant submitted an amended written request seeking to vary the Height and FSR standards pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the RLEP.

 

Re-notification of the amended drawings and documentation were not required due to the reduced scale of the development.

 

The variations to the Randwick LEP standards for height and FSR are supported as it is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the standards and the R3 Medium Density Residential zone. It is unreasonable and unnecessary to strictly apply the standards on the basis that the proposed height is largely a consequence of the localised low points of the site, the exceedance of the FSR is minor, the proposal has compliant Randwick DCP side and rear setbacks with greater south-eastern side setbacks providing a more appropriate transitioning of bulk down to the south-east, suitable treatment to side windows and balconies minimises privacy impacts, overshadowing to neighbouring properties is suitably minimised whereby additional overshadowing  to southern neighbour’s is largely unavoidable due to both their southward orientation and their lower land levels.  

 

The proposed development has a part three part four storey scale and will be compatible with the desired future character of the locality, it reasonably protects the amenity of residents and presents an appropriate transition in bulk and scale between the differing height standards permitted for each part of the site. The applicant has suitably demonstrated that the key issues of building height, solar access, visual amenity and impacts on adjoining properties have been suitably minimised.

 

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

 

Proposal

 

Demolition of all structures on site and construction of a part 3 part 4 storey residential flat building comprising of 12 dwellings and 2 levels of basement parking for 18 vehicles, associated site and landscaping works.

 

Amended plans were received by Council on 25 January 2019 increasing south eastern side setback opposite 5 Marcel Avenue at levels two and three to 7m from the 4m side setback.

 

Perspective of scheme.

 

Site and surrounding area

 

The subject site includes the amalgamation of two irregular shaped properties identified as No. 1 and No. 3 Marcel Avenue located at the southern side of Marcel Avenue. The site has an area of 1,011sqm and as shown in the aerial below, front, side and rear boundaries have irregular lengths and directions. The aerial image below also shows, 0.5m spaced contour lines, and a gradient of around 8% occurs from front to rear. At the rear a significant pronounced steep slope more akin to a drop off to neighbouring properties to the rear fronting Ritchard Avenue. The topography is a consistent characteristic along this side of Marcel Avenue as well as properties to the west that front Carrington Road. The opposite side of Marcel Avenue has an upslope in the opposite direction where the lower land level is at the front.

 

Figure 1: Aerial image of the subject sites bounded in green showing two single detached dwellings. are located whereby due to the slope of land, a single storey scale is at the front and a two storey scale is at the rear of each site characteristic of built forms along this side of Marcel Avenue running eastward from No. 5 Marcel Avenue and beyond as shown in the photos below.

 

Photo 1: front elevation of No. 1 Marcel Avenue

 

Photo 2: Front elevation of No. 3 marcel Avenue and No. 5 Marcel Avenue at left.

 

Photo 3: Rear elevation of No. 1 Marcel Avenue and No. 3 Marcel Avenue shown at right.

 

Photo 4: Rear elevation of No. 5 Marcel Avenue looking towards No. 3 Marcel Avenue.

 

Western side and rear: Adjoining to the west side boundary are rear boundaries of properties fronting Carrington Road from No. 89-91, 93 and 95 Carrington Road. The rear boundary adjoins two properties at No. 97 Carrington Road and No. 10 Ritchard Avenue whose ground levels sit between 5 and 7m further below the subject sites rear yard. The development at No 97 Carrington Road contains a residential flat building over 3-5 storey scale from front to rear whose rear building facade is shown below.

 

Photo 5: No. 97 Carrington Road showing the rear elevation with roof terrace on top.

 

 

 

Photo 6: Part 3 part four storey scale of No. 97 Carrington Road has a similar sloping topography to that of the subject site. Also shown is the substantial drop in land level between the rear of No. 1 Marcel Avenue and the neighbouring property.

 

Photo 7: No. 10 Ritchard Avenue shows the roof of the dual occupancy at No. 10 Ritchard Avenue located on a battle-axe site at left and at right partial view of rear of the RFB at 97 Carrington Road including open terraced areas.

 

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:

 

1.   93 Carrington Road, Randwick

2.   18/83 Carrington Road, Randwick

3.   5/83 Carrington Road, Randwick

4.   12/83-87 Carrington Road, Randwick

5.   18/83-87 Carrington Road, Randwick

6.   89-91 Carrington Road, Randwick

7.   Planning consultant on behalf of No. 89-93 Carrington Road

8.   93 Carrington Road, Randwick

9.   2/129A Carrington Rd, Coogee

10. 6 Dick Street, Randwick

11. 8 Dick Street, Randwick

12. 14 Dick Street, Randwick

13. 5 Marcel Avenue, Randwick

14. 4/6 Marcel Avenue, Randwick

15. 7A Marcel Avenue, Randwick

16. 7B Marcel Avenue, Randwick

17. 9 Marcel Avenue, Randwick

18. 12 Marcel Avenue, Randwick

19. 15 Marcel Avenue, Randwick

20. 16 Marcel Avenue, Randwick

21. 20 Marcel Avenue, Randwick

22. 3/23 Marcel Avenue, Randwick

23. 3/26 Marcel Avenue, Randwick

24. 5/26 Marcel Avenue, Randwick

25. 29 Marcel Avenue, Randwick

26. 30 Marcel Avenue, Randwick

27. 2/31 Marcel Avenue, Randwick

28. 34 Marcel Avenue, Randwick

29. 2/42 Marcel Avenue, Randwick

30. 1/18 Moira Crescent, Randwick

31. 5/27 Moira Crescent, Randwick

32. 4/31 Moira Crescent Randwick

33. 10 Ritchard Avenue, Randwick

34. 6 Local Residents – unknown address.

 

Issue

Comment

On-street parking demand and traffic congestion will increase as a result of the proposed development and question the methodology of the traffic report.

 

Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the proposal and raises no objections on the grounds of parking provision or the car lift operation. The proposal is not expected to result in unreasonable traffic generation impacts in given the number of units within the development scheme.

The development may result in people parking across our driveway.

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

The proposed development will not preserve the heritage value of the streetscape.

The subject site and neighbouring buildings are not heritage items and the development is not within the within the visual catchment of heritage items except for the roadway and kerb along Marcel Avenue.  Council’s Heritage Planner raises no objection to the proposed development on heritage grounds however a condition is included relating to unexpected finds of remains relating to the construction of the footpath and kerb layback – heritage items under the Randwick LEP.

The proposed development will result in the removal of existing trees.

Council’s Landscape Officer has inspected the site and considers that there are no significant on site trees worthy of retention. Suitable conditions are included requiring the Construction Certificate to contain landscape details substantially consistent with the DA Landscaping plans.

The narrowness of the street cannot sustain additional traffic.

The Marcel Avenue road reserve allows for parked vehicles and still allows for bio-directional traffic flow however it is tight. The wider driveway reduces the likelihood of cars banking up. As well, the relatively low traffic generation, location of the site at the end of Marcel Avenue, low probability of simultaneous use of car lift and the provision of a waiting bay mean it is unlikely that the proposed development will result in any significant traffic impacts.

The notification of residents further afield has not been undertaken

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the provisions in Part A of the Randwick DCP.

Flooding and overland flow issues

Councils Development Engineer has considered the overland flow through the site and raises no objections to the proposal on the grounds of flooding and drainage.

Noise and congestion during construction

Suitable construction site management conditions and traffic management plans can mitigate impacts from the construction phase of the development.

Overdevelopment into a side street.

Marcel Avenue allows medium density development.

Excessive height and density.

The density and height standards are exceeded, however an assessment of the relevant objectives of these standards reveals no significant or unreasonable adverse impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

The applicant’s assertion that the differing height standards are anomalous is not substantiated but rather deliberate.

Noted, amendments to the scheme reduce the scale of the development moving towards the south eastern end of the site which is subject to a lower 9.5m height standard at No. 3 Marcel Avenue than the 12m height standard applying to the north western end of the site at No. 1 Marcel Avenue.

Excessive overshadowing

The solar access retained to neighbouring properties are compliant with the ADG controls namely at 89-91, 93 and 95 Carrington Road, No. 5 Marcel Avenue and No. 10 Ritchard Avenue. The proposed development results in significant shadowing to the rear yard of No. 97 Carrington Road however this is largely a consequence of the subject site sitting well above the affected site and the proposed development is sited much further away from the rear yard than the minimum required under the ADG.

Loss of privacy

The main concerns with the proposed scheme relates to the side facing windows and balconies which are within 6m of the neighbouring properties open spaces and windows. The rear and front balconies and windows do not lend themselves to adverse privacy impacts due to the separation of the development from the respective boundaries and it is not considered that absolute privacy can be relied upon in the urban context.

The proposed development may result in less water pressure for residents in Marcel Avenue

A S73 certificate is required to be submitted as part of the development process. Sydney water is responsible for the delivery of water to the street.

There seems to be no provision for sustainable eco living.

A BASIX certificate has been submitted with the application indicating that it meets the sustainable development requirements for energy consumption, and thermal loading. The proposal contains provisions for a water tank that is to be used for watering of open space areas. The apartment has dual aspects ensuring good cross ventilation and daylight access lacing less reliance on artificial means of heating/cooling and daylight.

Car lifts are prone to malfunction and request that a ramp be used instead.

The car lift as a mechanical device may be more susceptible to malfunction, however this does not preclude its use. Council’s development engineer has also considered that car lift and raises no major objections to its use within the development given the site constraints.

The proposal doesn’t appear to provide areas for bins.

The proposal provides a waste bin area. Certain conditions will require additional details prior to occupation of the development.

No provision for a front fence or side fencing.

The proposed development contains a front fence however conditioned to meet certain design controls. The proposal is capable of providing side fencing in accordance with the Dividing Fences Act.

Propose extending the Heritage conservation zone to include the western end of Marcel Avenue.

Noted and heritage conservation has been considered in the assessment of the application.

The proposal does not satisfy the requirements under Clause 4.6 of the Randwick LEP and relevant case law.

The proposed development complies with the requirements under Clause 4.6.

The building will affect views.

The views from neighbouring properties are distant coastal views over 1.4km away from the affected units in No. 81-83 Carrington Road. Moreover the views are across the north western side boundary of the site and across the part of the development that is subject to the higher building height standard and compliant with that standard.  Having regard to the planning principle for view sharing it is not considered that the proposed development is unreasonable and that the loss of views is reasonable.

There is no acoustic report submitted with the application, one should be submitted with the application and re-notified. Water pumps installed to remove stormwater result in noise nuisance.

Suitable conditions have been included to ameliorate noise impacts from the developments mechanical equipment. It is not considered necessary to require an up-front acoustic report.

The sites should be treated and developed separately. 

Varying standards don’t preclude development for the purposes of a permissible form of development on the site. If anything the development of the amalgamated site allows for greater amenity and less impact on the neighbouring properties by virtue of greater separation afforded to the amalgamated site than that afforded to sites with narrow widths.

 

The proposed plans don’t accurately show the exceedance of the height standard.

Noted, however an assessment is carried out against the actual height of the development having regard to the maximum standard and an assessment of the Clause 4.6 exception. In this respect, it is considered unreasonable and unnecessary to strictly apply the standard.

The visual bulk as viewed from No. 10 Ritchard Avenue and 97 Carrington Road will be significant given the two storey difference in land level between the two properties.

In relation to No. 10 Ritchard Avenue, the proposed development meets the minimum rear setback control, moreover, the difference in land level and presence of landscaping within No. 10 Ritchard Avenue and the proposed development will provide a reasonable screening of the proposed development thereby suitably minimising the visual amenity impact. In relation to No. 97 Carrington Road, the proposed development is sited further away from the rear boundary than that required by the controls and this part of the proposed development is compliant with the maximum height standard and only marginally exceeds the maximum wall height control. Notwithstanding, the proposed development contain suitable articulation comprising of glazing and balcony depths such that the development avoids dominant unrelieved mass.

The proposed setbacks from the sides and rear are insufficient.

See discussion of setbacks in the key issues. It is not considered that greater setbacks are warranted except for those employed in the amended scheme and for the separation from the side facing balconies at the south eastern side of the development at level 02.

The proposed excavation will have untold impacts on the stormwater and drainage on neighbouring properties.

See Development Engineers comments relating to flooding.

 

Key Issues

 

Clause 4.6 exceptions to development standards

 

- Height of buildings

The proposed development exceeds the maximum height of buildings development standard of 9.5m applying to No. 3 Marcel Avenue and 12m applying to No. 1 Marcel Avenue pursuant to Clause 4.3 of the RLEP. The table below identifies the maximum height of the development, and variances:

 

Development

Front

Rear

Variance

No. 1 Marcel Avenue – 12m height standard

10.75m – Complies

11.85m - Complies

No variance above

No. 3 Marcel Avenue – 9.5m height standard

10.22m – Does not comply

12.05m – does not comply

Front = 7.5%

Rear = 26.8%

Note: The height of the lift overrun and skylights extend 900mm above the roof height, however these elements are sited well within the roof and away from boundaries of the site and do not have any appreciable adverse impacts on the amenity of the  neighbouring properties or streetscape character. As such, the focus of the assessment relates to the main roof height exceeding the maximum height standard. 

 

Figure 2: Front elevation facing Marcel Avenue. Plan excerpt showing the front elevation of the proposed development including the increased eastern side setback at the top two levels. The different building height standards applying to No. 1 and 3 Marcel Avenue are also shown.

 

Figure 3: rear elevation. Plan excerpt shows the rear elevation located over the lowest parts of the existing ground level.

 

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

 

Although the lift overrun further exceeds the standard, there are only minor impacts on the streetscape and neighbouring properties given its limited mass, and it is located well away from the street frontage, and neighbouring properties.  The most pronounced impacts occur as a result of the proposed development exceeding the height of buildings standard across the south eastern side and parts of the rear elevation subject to the 9.5m maximum height standard that is applicable to No. 3 marcel Avenue. It is at the south eastern side elevation where the development has undergone most amendments during the course of assessment resulting in greater setbacks from the side boundary opposite No. 5 Marcel Avenue. The greater than minimum side setbacks seek to transition down the bulk, scale and massing of the development eastward ensuring a greater separation of built form to future development moving eastward along Marcel Avenue which is subject to the lower height standard.

 

Despite the exceedance, the height of the development along the southern side boundary is considered acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The proposed development responds appropriately to the sloping nature of the site and characteristic topography of the surrounding area. The wall height breaches along the south-eastern low parts of the site are an inherent response of built form to the topography in the surrounding area.

 

·      The additional overshadowing to the south-eastern neighbour is minimised to the extent that it would be comparable to a compliant wall height along this elevation and also minimises impacts on the neighbour’s visual amenity.

 

·      The applicant has demonstrated with solar access diagrams that suitable levels of solar access will be retained to the neighbouring properties and the development itself.

 

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

 

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

 

– Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

The proposed development exceeds the maximum 0.9:1 floor space ratio (FSR) development standard pursuant to Clause 4.4 of the RLEP. The proposed floor space ratio is 0.93:1, which is a variation of 3.3%. The applicant has submitted an exception to the development standard as required under Clause 4.6 of the RLEP and assessed in the detailed assessment section further below in this report.

 

In short, the applicant provides well-founded planning arguments stating that the maximum standard for the FSR should not be strictly applied and that the overall bulk and scale of development will satisfy the objectives under the Randwick LEP. The variation from the standard is relatively minor and the overall bulk and scale of the development will be consistent with the scale of development envisaged by the standards in the Randwick LEP for both properties providing an appropriate transition in bulk and scale between the differing height of buildings standards applicable to each of the properties at No. 1 and 3 Marcel Avenue. Whilst a reduced floor area may be made it would not result in any appreciable benefits to the streetscape but would rather result in a disjointed and abrupt drop in size and scale. There are no inordinate or unreasonable adverse impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

 

The development will contribute to the existing and future streetscape character, is reflected by the well-articulated and stepped in elements of built form and provides greater than minimum and appropriate spatial separation between neighbouring properties and will suit rhythm of setbacks for medium density development that currently occur along Marcel Avenue and that envisaged by the Randwick DCP.

 

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

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

 

Visual Privacy (Section 3F of the Apartment Design Guide – ADG)

A number of submissions raised privacy impacts as a key issue. Visual privacy is assessed having regard to the design criteria of the ADG, which takes precedence over the RDCP with regards to controls relating to visual privacy and provides minimum separation distances from buildings to site boundaries to ensure visual privacy is maintained (the setback controls in the RDCP do however still apply and are also assessed further below).

 

For buildings up to 12m in height (4 storeys) a 3m setback to side boundaries is required for non-habitable rooms and 6m for habitable rooms.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: Habitable rooms do not comply with the minimum 6m setback requirement to eastern and western side boundaries. A varying setback of between 4m and 3m minimum setback to all boundaries is proposed, therefore all non-habitable rooms comply.

 

The relevant design guidance supporting the design criteria states the following:

 

·       New development should be located and oriented to maximise visual privacy between buildings on site and for neighbouring buildings. Design solutions include:

-    site layout and building orientation to minimise privacy impacts (Section 3B Orientation)

-    on sloping sites, apartments on different levels have appropriate visual separation distances (greater step in at the higher levels)

A variation to the design criteria (6m separation) is supported for the following reasons:

 

·     The building orientation is in accordance with section 3B Orientation of the ADG given:

 

-    Building separation to adjoining buildings increases on upper levels, therefore the visual bulk of the development decreases and sufficient articulation is provided. Visual intrusion to the south-east of No. 5 Marcel Avenue is minimised with increased south-eastern side setbacks to upper levels (L02 & L03). The side facing balconies are conditioned to contain appropriately designed privacy screens in order to restrict views towards this neighbours north-east facing openings and their open space

 

·      The site is a sloping site, and the majority of apartments will not overlook the majority of existing buildings on neighbouring properties in accordance with a greater step in along the south eastern side elevation, greater than minimum rear setbacks.

 

·      Where there is overlooking within minimum distances, the proposed scheme contains additional privacy measures such as external screening to windows and balconies obstructing direct sight lines within these shorter distances of neighbouring properties.

 

·      Conditions are included requiring additional privacy measures. A condition also recommends additional privacy screens are provided to the north west and south east facing habitable room windows that are fixed slats with openings not more than 30mm or vertical/horizontal louvres up to a height of 1.6m measured above the finished floor level with clear glazing provided above. This will ensure that adverse privacy impacts will not occur while allowing solar access. Subsequently a condition is recommended to ensure revised drawings are submitted to Council for approval. 

 

Considering the urban context of the site and surrounding area having regard to spatial separation of buildings, the proposed building separation is supported, which in conjunction with the provision of additional setbacks and privacy screens will ensure that adverse privacy impacts will not be significant.

 

Side Setbacks

The site has an effective width of 26.94m and sub-clause 3.4.2 i) of part C2 of the Randwick DCP for medium density residential development requires 4m side setbacks. The proposed development complies with the required side setbacks.

 

The proposed side boundary setback is supported for the following reasons:

 

·      The closest neighbouring property is 5 Marcel Avenue, which is setback 4m from the ground level and level 1 units, between 4m and 6.98m from the level 2 balcony and windows respectively and between 5.85m and 8.32m from the level 3 balcony and windows respectively. The increased setbacks on the upper levels 2 and 3 will help reduce visual bulk and improve building articulation and privacy when viewed from 5 Marcel Avenue and the streetscape.

 

·      Other neighbouring properties to the north-western side (from 89 to 95 Carrington Road) are setback to the proposed building by approximately 4m and comply with the RDCP controls. The rear of these buildings are further separated from the development which provides between 9m and 16m separation.

 

·      Adequate building separation is provided to neighbouring dwellings that will not result in adverse impacts to visual and acoustic privacy, solar access, air circulation and views. The proposal complies with key design criteria provided as part of the ADG, and Randwick DCP in relation to solar access, visual amenity, open space and deep soil landscaping and rhythm of setbacks along the street and therefore, increased setbacks are not warranted.

 

The proposed development provides greater than minimum side setbacks along both side boundaries at the upper level to the south east. It also provides good articulation along the building facades and reserves the side boundaries for landscaping although it is limited in providing obstructive landscaping along the western side boundary due to the relocated overland flow path from the middle of the site. As noted above, the proposed development also provides appropriate visual and acoustic privacy relationship with the neighbouring properties some of which is subject to appropriate conditioning such as requiring additional privacy screening along the proposed level 2 and 3 side balconies. The proposed development also provides suitable levels of solar access to the neighbouring properties either through orientation and or through increased side setbacks.

 

Rear Setback

Sub-clause 3.4.3 i) of part C2 of the Randwick DCP relating to Medium Density Residential development requires a minimum rear setback of 15% of the allotment depth or 5m, whichever is the greater. The site has varying depths of 36.64m to the east and 40.23m to the west requiring a rear setback of 5.496m and 6.0345m respectively. The proposed development has rear setbacks of 6.036m at the eastern corner, 5.553m in the centre of the building and 11.1m at the western corner complying with the controls. Separation from the properties and buildings adjoining the site to the rear are between 15.5m and 19m to the south at No. 97 Carrington Road, and there is a separation of between 16.9m from the rear building line of No. 10 Ritchard Avenue. The resulting building separation is compliant with the separation required under the ADG are considered acceptable taking account the site constraints such as the abrupt drop in land level to these rear adjoining properties.

 

External Wall Height

Sub-clause 4.4 of part C2 of the Randwick DCP permits a maximum wall height up to 8m where a site is subject to a 9.5m building height limit and a wall height of 10.5m where a site is subject to a 12m height limit under the Randwick LEP.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposed external wall height at the south-eastern elevation opposite No. 5 Marcel Avenue is subject to the 9.5m maximum height standard and exceeds the 8m control ranging in height between 10.22m at the front and 11.92m at the rear. At the north-western side of the building the opposite the rear of buildings fronting Carrington Road, is subject to the 12m maximum height standard and exceeds the 10.5m control at the ranging in height between 10.75m at the front and 11.94m at the rear.

 

The objectives of the control 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:

 

·      At the south eastern side elevation facing No. 5 Marcel Avenue, the breach to the wall height control is isolated to levels 02 and 03 of the building, which is due to the slope of the site. The building incorporates greater side setback at these two levels providing greater than minimum side setbacks to the building line required by the Randwick DCP. The greater side setbacks provide a transition of bulk down from the higher 10.5m maximum control applicable to the part of the development at No. 1 Marcel Avenue down to the lower 8m maximum height control applicable to the south eastern part of the site at No. 3 Marcel Avenue and beyond. Overall, the proposed building as amended responds to the site characteristics and excessive massing is not proposed and as a result, the bulk and scale of the development is considered to be compatible with the future streetscape character.

 

·      The proposed development provides compliant floor to ceiling heights and contains window openings with multiple aspects and are greater than 10% of the floor area ensuring adequate access to light and ventilation.

 

·      The proposed roof form is a flat roof design, which helps reduce bulk and height. The stepped nature of the building, increased upper floor side boundary setbacks, a change in colours and materials and the proposed green roofs will ensure the building is sufficiently articulated when viewed from surrounding properties reducing visual amenity impacts.

 

·      There will be no unreasonable adverse impacts to surrounding properties in terms of overshadowing, privacy and visual amenity (refer to other Key Issues sections).

 


 

Solar Access to Surrounding Development

Part 4A of the ADG requires Living rooms and private open spaces of buildings on neighbouring properties receive a minimum of 2 hours direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm at mid-winter.

 

Part 3B Orientation of the ADG identifies that Building orientation directly affects residential amenity including solar access and influences other matters including visual and acoustic privacy to both the development and neighbouring sites. The ADG provides building separation as a means to providing reasonable levels of solar access to neighbouring properties. In this respect, the only aspects of the development that do not meet the 6m building separation control include the south-eastern side boundary from No. 5 Marcel Avenue namely ground level and level 01 which are setback 4m from the side boundary and the north western side of the proposed development from the rear of properties fronting Carrington Road from No.’s 89 to 95 Carrington Road which is only 4m from the side boundary.

 

·      No. 5 Marcel Avenue (single dwelling) and

 

Despite these non-compliance with the separation controls the proposed development provides for ample solar access to these properties by virtue of a greater than minimum south-eastern side setback from No. 5 Marcel Avenue. Having particular regard to No. 5 Marcel Avenue, the greater than minimum setbacks are provided to ensure no appreciable difference between the overshadowing caused by the proposed development compared with that caused by a compliant 8m wall height along this side elevation. It is further noted that the building at No. 5 Marcel Avenue overshadows its own allotment which is not dissimilar to the overshadowing of other allotments along this side of Marcel Avenue.

 

·      No. 89-91, 93 & 95 Carrington Road (multi-unit dwellings and residential flat building)

 

The orientation of the allotment to the north western side boundary means additional overshadowing of the rear yards of these properties with no overshadowing beyond 8.30am during the winter solstice.

 

 

·      Rear property (No. 97 Carrington Road – Residential flat building)

 

Additional overshadowing occurs to the south-eastern rear façade of the residential flat building from 8:30am to 9:30am, with no additional shadowing beyond that occurring during the winter solstice. The rear open spaces of this property will be overshadowed by the proposed development however it is considered that this is largely a consequence of the downward sloping topography where the drops markedly at the rear boundary and unavoidable particularly given that the scheme has a larger rear setback and also compliant with the overall height standard.

 

·      Rear property (10 Ritchard Avenue – dual occupancy):

 

Additional overshadowing occurs to the north eastern private open space containing a swimming pool and the north-east facing elevation of the building at No. 10 Ritchard Avenue. The private open space and swimming pool will retain solar access between 11.30am and 1.30pm during the winter solstice complying with the ADG controls. The north-east facing elevation will also retain three hours of solar access during the winter solstice at various times between 8.30am and 2.30pm. It is important to note that existing tall trees at the rear of No. 10 Ritchard currently obstruct solar access and this property is unavoidably vulnerable to overshadowing largely as a consequence of the abovementioned drop in ground level at the rear.

 

Overall, considering the topography of the area, which slopes considerably from front to rear and significant separation between the proposed development and the affected buildings at No. 10 Ritchard Avenue and No. 97 Carrington Road, the level of overshadowing caused by the proposal is considered reasonable.

 

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 design of the proposal has a three storey scale along Marcel Avenue which is generally consistent with the size and scale envisaged by the Randwick LEP standards for height and floor space ratio and the Randwick DCP provisions relating to medium density development. The proposed development as amended will contribute to the desired future streetscape character of the zone and will not result in any unreasonable significant adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring residents.

 

The proposal exceeds the lower height standard applying to the eastern half of the site. The applicant’s clause 4.6 exception to this development standard is considered to have provided well-founded planning arguments and that strictly applying the development standard would be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances. In this regard, the development presents a three storey scale along the street frontage and the sizable eastern side boundary setback provides a good transition in scale between the higher building height standard applying to the western side of the from down to the eastern side of the property and further along this side of Marcel Avenue. The applicant has also demonstrated that despite exceeding the maximum building height standard, the greater upper level eastern side setbacks provide both visual relief and maximising solar access to 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

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

See the relevant sections of this report.

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

Nil.

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

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

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

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

 

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

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

The proposed development as amended is suitable for the site.

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 


 

2.         Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

2.1       State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPS)

 

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

SEPP No. 65 aims to promote quality design of Residential Flat Buildings. The proposal is subject to the policy as it involves the development of a residential flat building being 3 storeys and more in height containing four or more dwellings. The proposal has been considered by Council’s Design Review Panel. The Panel’s comments are included in the referral comments section further below. Clause 28 of SEPP 65 requires the consent authority to consider the Apartment Design Guide (ADG). An assessment is carried out against the key ADG design criteria requirements in Part 3: Siting the Development and Part 4: Designing the Building of the Apartment Design Guide. Any non-compliance to the design criteria includes a merits based assessment as per the design guidance of the ADG. Minor variations are assessed within the table with more significant variations assessed as part of the Key Issues section above:

 


TABLE 2: SEPP No. 65 Apartment Design Guide – Compliance Table

ADG - Design Criteria

Proposal

Compliance

Communal and Public Open Space

Communal open space has a minimum area equal to 25% of the site (252.75m2).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

98m2 of communal open space is located at the south-western part of the site representing 9.6% of the site area. The original proposal provided no communal open space citing that the steeply sloping rear part of the site made it difficult to provide for an accessible area. Additionally, the ADG permits less communal open space as a design guidance where the proposal provides larger than minimum ground level courtyard areas of private open space. The reasoning provided by the applicant is justified for providing less than the minimum however it is important to note that not providing communal open space is not considered justifiable given the development is not considered to contain a small number of units and the communal open space provided will provided a fundamental service to future occupants amenity.

 

Principal communal open space will receive 2 hours direct sunlight between 8:30am and 12.30pm, with direct sunlight reaching a minimum of 50% of the area. 

 

Does not comply with the minimum area required – refer to merit assessment at left.

Deep Soil Zones

Deep soil zones are to meet the following minimum requirements:

Site Area

Minimum Dimension

Deep Soil Zone (% of site area)

650m2 – 1,500m2

3m

7% (55.76m2)

 

The provision of deep soil landscaping is approximately 328m2 (32%) with minimum 3m dimension.

 

 

 

Complies.

Visual Privacy

Separation between windows and balconies is provided to ensure visual privacy is achieved. Minimum required separation distances from buildings to the side and rear boundaries are as follows:

 

Building Height

Habitable Rooms and Balconies

Non-habitable rooms

Up to 12m (4 storeys)

6m

3m

 

4m minimum setbacks to side and 5.553m to the central rear boundary is proposed, therefore non-habitable room windows comply.

 

Habitable room windows at ground and first floor level of the eastern side and all levels of the western sides do not comply with the minimum 6m setback requirement to side and rear boundaries.

 

Does not comply – refer to Key Issues section above.

Solar Access and Daylight

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

 

 

 

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

 

Based on the submitted solar access diagrams, all units will get solar access with units G.02, 1.03, & 2.03 not receiving two hours of solar access. Therefore 73% of units will receive compliant solar access.

 

All units will receive solar access in mid-winter.

 

The recommended condition requiring privacy screening also required clear glazing measured from 1.6m above finished floor level, which will ensure solar access is maintained. Considering the site constraints (topography and internal allotment), the level of solar access achieved is satisfactory.

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

Natural Ventilation

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

 

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

 

Cross-through apartment

cross ventilating apartment on one level with two opposite aspects

 

All apartments (100%) can be naturally cross ventilated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unit 2.03 (level 02) is a cross through apartment with a depth greater than 18m. However this unit contains three aspects with sizable areas of openings providing for excellent cross ventilation.

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

Ceiling Height

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

·      Habitable Rooms – 2.7m

·      Non-habitable rooms – 2.4m

 

Floor to ceiling heights for all units is 2.7m.

 

 

Complies.

 

Apartment Layout

Apartments are required to have the following minimum internal areas:

·      Studio - 35m2

·      1 Bedroom - 50m2

·      2 Bedroom - 70m2

·      3 Bedroom - 90m2

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

·          3.6m for studio and 1 bedroom apartments

·          4m for 2 and 3 bedroom apartments

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All habitable rooms have windows that comply with the requirements of the ADG.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All bedrooms have a minimum dimension of 3m.

 

All living rooms comply, Each apartment has a width exceeding 4m.

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

Complies.

Environmental Performance

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

 

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

 

Proposed apartments have open plan layouts combining living, dining and kitchen. The maximum living room depth is less than 8m from a window.

 

Complies.

Open Space

All apartments are required to have primary balconies as follows:

 

·      Studio - 4m2

·      1 bedroom - 8m2 (minimum depth of 2m)

·      2 bedroom – 10m2 (minimum depth of 2m)

·      3+ bedroom apartments – 12m2 (minimum depth of 2.4m)

 

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

 

 

 

 

All apartments are provided with open space that exceeds minimum requirements.

 

 

 

 

 

 

All apartments have spaces which exceed minimum requirements.

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

Common Circulation Space

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

 

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

 

There is a maximum of 4 apartments sharing a circulation core.

 

The building is less than 10 storeys.

 

Complies.

 

 

 

N/A

Storage

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

·      Studio - 4m³

·      1 Bedroom - 6m³

·      2 Bedroom - 8m³

·      3 Bedroom - 10m³

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

 

Adequate storage is provided for each unit as part of the basement carpark and within the units.

 

Complies.

 

SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

A 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.

 

SEPP (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.

 

Council’s Landscape Officer has assessed the proposal and advises no objection to the removal of trees and proposed landscaping within the site subject to conditions of consent ensuring the future amount of vegetation on site that will afford a high level of residential amenity.

 

2.2       Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Randwick LEP)

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

The proposal as amended is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will compliment the envisaged character of the site and the surrounding area.

 

The following Clauses of RLEP 2012 apply to the proposal:

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

0.9:1.

0.93:1 (reduced down from 1.03:1 as calculated by the assessment officer – applicant nominated 0.94:1 which excluded the required inclusion of horizontal lobby areas.)

Yes

Height of Building (Maximum)

A different standard applies to each of the properties at No. 1 and 3 Marcel Avenue: 12m max. Height applies to 1 Marcel Avenue & a 9.5m max. Height applies to 3 Marcel Avenue.

Note: The 0.9:1 FSR maximum standard applies to both.

See image in executive summary report:

 

Front: b/w 10.22m and 10.75m

Rear: 11.85m and 12.05m

 

Constraints of the site: sloping site (approximately 7% gradient);

A minimum ground level is required due to existing overland flow conditions;

 

No see key issues section of this report.

Earthworks

See Cl.6.2 of RLEP

Excavation depth is more than 1m therefore the potential for adverse impacts requires consideration.

Conditioned to protect neighbouring land and structures.

 

Clause 4.6 Exception to Development Standard

 

Request to vary development standards - Clause 4.3 - Height of buildings

 

The proposal contravenes the development standard for the maximum height of buildings contained in clause 4.3(2) of RLEP 2012. Clause 4.3 of the LEP nominates that the height of a building is not to exceed the maximum height on the Height of Buildings Map. As shown below, the maximum building height as shown on the map is 12m for the site known as No. 1 Marcel Avenue and 9.5m for the site known as No. 3 Marcel Avenue.

 

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

Maximum Height of Buildings

Development Standard

12m & 9.5m

Proposed Building height

Between 10.22m and 10.75m at the front and 11.85m and 12.05m at the rear.

Excess above RLEP Standard

26.7% for the south eastern corner of the development (subject to development standard of 9.5m

0.3% variation (subject to 12m standard)

 

The two following images below show that the areas where the maximum height of the building standard is exceeded from the existing ground level where the most pronounced exceedance occurs at the rear where the development exceeds the 9.5m maximum by 26.7%.  It is noted that this exceedance occurs along the rear and side elevation facing 5 Marcel Avenue.

 

The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012. 

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

In the Wehbe case Justice Preston said the most commonly invoked way to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary is to demonstrate that the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard. The objectives of the maximum Height of Buildings standard are set out in clause 4.3 (1) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

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

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

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

 

The applicant’s written justification for the departure from the standard is detailed below:

 

 Officer’s assessment of the Clause 4.6 exception: There are a number of tests as to the acceptability of the breach and one of those is whether the proposal meets the objectives of the height standard in Randwick LEP 2012.  In this regard:

 

·      The building scale and built form reflects the predominant character of buildings in the surrounding streetscape most notable those developments that are the subject of the 12m height standard and in the immediate locality; Examples of these developments which have part four part five storey scales are located across the opposite side of Marcel Avenue and along Carrington Road. A recent example is the Residential flat building at No. 97 Carrington Road, where the three storey part of the development faces the street and as the land drops down to the rear it rises to a part five storey building.

 

·      The increased south eastern side setbacks at the upper two levels (02 & 03) is greater than 4m minimum side setbacks required under the RDCP and the 6m minimum setback control in the Apartment Design Guide covered by SEPP 65. The increased setbacks provides greater spatial separation transitioning down in scale to the lower 0.75:1 density and 9.5m height standard applying to south eastern part of the amalgamated site at No. 3 Marcel Avenue and properties further along Marcel Avenue to the south east.

 

·     The floor space ratio (FSR) is reduced down to a near compliant 0.93:1 FSR across both properties under the RLEP 2012; The distribution of floor area across the site fits in with the future streetscape character as envisaged by the building envelope and building design controls incorporated in both the LEP 2012 & DCP 2013 for medium density development. In this respect from street level, the development presents as three storey building with a reduced footprint at the south-eastern side of the top two levels (02 & 03) which is consistent with the part two part three storey scale of built form envisaged in the Randwick DCP for medium density residential development that is subject to the 9.5m maximum height of buildings standard in the Randwick LEP.

 

·     In terms of planning arguments, it is considered that a lowered development made to meet the standard requires a full level to be removed which would result in an abrupt drop in built form across the amalgamated site rather than a gradual transition to the south east. This outcome would be incongruous with the scale and built form of existing and envisaged built form of development in the area as well as resulting in a development that is well below the permitted FSR.

 

·     Generous south-eastern side setbacks greater than ameliorate the visual bulk and scale as viewed from neighbouring properties from the south eastern side at No. 5 Marcel Avenue. The extent of variation to the external wall height and overall building height associated with the four storey elevations at the rear will be consistent with other developments within the immediate area merely responding to the sites lower land level.

 

·      The planning principle in Project Venture Developments Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council is used as a reference in determining the compatibility of the proposal against the character of the local area particularly given that the height controls vary between the subject site and the lower standard that applies to the adjoining site to the east at No. 5 Marcel venue and beyond.  In the Project Venture matter it was accepted that buildings can exist together in harmony without having the same density, scale and appearance.

 

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

The portion of the breach has been carefully designed with greater setbacks from the south-eastern side boundary presenting a smaller bulk and scale moving towards the lower height standards applicable to properties moving south-east ward. The reduced massing along this side also minimises adverse impacts such as visual amenity and overshadowing on the neighbouring properties thus satisfying the key planning objectives for the R3 zone and medium density residential development.

 

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

 

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

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the Height of Buildings standard which are:

 

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

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

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

 

The objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (Zone R3 – Medium Density Residential) are:

 

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

The proposed development contains housing that will service the needs of the community.

 

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

The proposed development provides a mix of apartment types.

 

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

Not applicable.

 

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

The street contains a mix of multi storey residential flat buildings, multi-unit housing and dwellings with sizes varying between single storeys up to four storeys. The predominant scale along this side of Marcel Avenue contains single dwellings. Notwithstanding, the site is unique in that it is located at the junction between the higher density medium density zone and the lower medium density zone that is those properties south east of the site subject to a lower height standards. The objective is satisfied by providing a greater side setbacks at the south-eastern side recognising the lower scale of both existing and likely future character development envisaged by the standards applicable to these properties south-east of the site along Marcel Avenue.

 

•    To protect the amenity of residents.

The amenity of residents is considered to have been suitably protected having particular regard to solar access, privacy, visual amenity and views.

 

•    To encourage housing affordability.

No affordable housing is provided as defined under the SEPP Affordable Rental Housing 2009. Notwithstanding, the proposed development provides a mix of apartments catering to differing levels of affordability.

 

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

Not applicable.

 

The amended proposed development is considered consistent with the objectives that are relevant because the amended built form serves to maintain the desirable attributes of the existing and desired future character of the residential area it is sympathetic to the existing and future built environment envisaged by the standards and will not result in unreasonable amenity impacts on the streetscape. The amended proposal now more appropriately minimises environmental impacts upon neighbouring properties. The proposed.

 

The amended development is considered to be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the standard and the relevant objectives for development within Zone R3 – Medium Density Residential.

 

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

Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for development that contravenes a development standard? If so:

 

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

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

 

Comments:

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

 

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

 

The amended proposal and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical standard will not be necessary, in this case, for maintaining the medium density housing forms, where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development.

 

Request to vary development standards - Clause 4.4 – Floor space ratio

The proposal contravenes the development standard for the maximum height of buildings contained in clause 4.4 of Randwick LEP 2012. Clause 4.4 of the LEP nominates that the floor space ratio is not to exceed the maximum on the floor space ratio Map. As shown below, the maximum floor space ratio as shown on the map is 0.9:1 for both properties.

 

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

Maximum FSR

Development Standard

0.9:1

Proposed Building height

0.93:1

Excess above RLEP Standard

3.3% variation (33.3sqm over the 909.9sqm permissible)

 

The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012. 

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

(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

 

The concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure must also be obtained for development that contravenes a development standard. However, pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 18–003 (dated 21 February 2018) the concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Environment under clause 4.6(3) & (4) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed in certain cases.

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

The applicant has provided the following arguments (addressing both the objectives of the standard and the R3 medium density zone) in support of the Clause 4.6 exception:

 

Officer’s assessment of the Clause 4.6 exception

The exception sought to the standard is minor. Notwithstanding, the main considerations are whether the additional floor area across the whole of the site satisfies the key objectives of the FSR standard and the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

 

These objectives are assessed as follows:

 

R3 Zone: Medium Density Residential objectives

The key objectives of the R3 zone are listed as follows:

 

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

 

Provided. The five apartments provides for the housing needs of the community within the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

 

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

 

The proposed development provides a good mix of housing. The size and open layout of the proposed dwellings have a high level of amenity, functionality and flexibility and will provide for the housing needs of the community within the wider area.

                                           

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

 

The surrounding precinct comprises mainly single dwellings (that are not heritage items or within a heritage conservation area) with some newer medium density development and therefore the area is undergoing transition. Within the visual catchment of the site, there are buildings of various architectural styles, eras and built forms. The part two part three storey contemporary built form provides a sense of depth and openness as viewed from both the neighbouring properties, and within the streetscape.

 

The proposed built form is an appropriate redevelopment of the subject site. The floor area is distributed appropriately in response to the sloping nature of the site and that of the surrounding area. In fact, the 150sqm of living space at ground level at the rear of the site which does appreciably contribute to the inordinate scale at the front is substantially greater than the 31sqm of non-compliant floor area. The amended scheme which locates the larger elements at the north western end of the site minimises the scale of the development as viewed from the streetscape.

 

The proposed development will contribute to the desirable contemporary elements of the existing and future streetscape character.

 

•      To protect the amenity of residents.

 

The amenity of residents having regard to privacy, solar access, visual amenity and views are considered to be suitably maintained and the proposed density of the development will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on the future occupants or neighbouring residents.

 

•      To encourage housing affordability.

 

The degree of affordability is largely dictated by the valuable location of the site and it is considered that the proposed development provides good housing choice.

 

Floor space ratio objectives

The key objectives of the FSR standard are listed as follows:

 

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

 

The Randwick DCP generally envisages for a 0.9:1 FSR a part three part four storey medium density built form with habitable roof level contained within the top most level. The proposed development from street level provides a three storey scale although it does have a semi-protruding ground level where the land is at its highest. From the rear, the development has a four storey scale, however this scale is not intrusive given the largely compliant rear setbacks combined with the larger separation of buildings at the rear at No. 10 Ritchard Avenue and No. 97 Carrington Road.

 

The proposed size and scale is consistent with other medium density developments particularly those fronting Carrington Road where the number of storeys rises moving over lower land levels at the rear with the exception of underdeveloped properties and older medium density housing stock.

 

Compliance with the relevant controls relating to site coverage, landscaped open spaces, front setbacks, side and rear setback controls in the Randwick DCP including the articulation provided by balcony depths and a mixture of materials, inclusive of amendments made in the course of assessment of the application are fundamental in justifying that the proposed developments FSR as satisfying this objective.

 

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

 

The proposed development contains well-articulated elements supported by good distribution of floor area, setbacks and massing along all elevations. Dwellings have cross ventilation and access to daylight reducing reliance on artificial means of heating, lighting and ventilation.

 

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

 

The proposed development does not detract from contributory buildings in a conservation area or any heritage items.

 

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

 

The amenity of neighbouring properties are considered to have been reasonably protected having regard to the development’s visual bulk and visual and acoustic privacy measures. The proposal does not cause unreasonable loss of views, and does not result in any unreasonable levels of overshadowing to neighbouring properties. 

 

Overall, with respect to the R3 medium density zone objectives and the floor space ratio standard, it is considered that the amendments made to the application and supporting material have appropriately justified that the strict compliance with the floor space ratio development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

Therefore, it is considered that the Clause 4.6 exception to the development standard can be supported as a good planning outcome.

 

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

As discussed above, the proposal achieves satisfactory compliance with the planning objectives for the locality. The applicant’s written request highlights the merits of the proposal both in terms of its articulation and amenity afforded for future occupants. It is also important to consider that the amendments made by the applicant to the application have minimised impacts on neighbouring properties whilst maintaining a high level of amenity for the units and neighbouring properties. 

 

Overall, it is considered that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

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

Based on the above assessment, the proposed development is consistent with the aims of the RLEP 2012 and the objectives of the standard and the objectives of the R3 zone in that the floor space provided achieves good amenity within the units both in terms of natural light and ventilation, and will present well within the streetscape character. The proposed development does not result in any unacceptable and unreasonable impact on the amenity of residents.

 

Overall, given the above assessment, the proposed development is in the public interest because it is an orderly use of the site.

 

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

Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for development that contravenes a development standard? If so:

 

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

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

 

Comments:

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

 

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

 

The amended proposal and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical standard will not be necessary, in this case, for maintaining the medium density housing forms, where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development.

 

Overall, the proposed development as amended will be suitable for the site, and the applicant’s written justification for contravening the floor space ratio standard is considered to be well founded and therefore supportable.

 

3.        Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013

 

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

 

The relevant provisions of the DCP are addressed below.

 

The provisions of the DCP are addressed below.

 

B6 Recycling and Waste Management

 

DCP Clause

Control

Proposal

Compliance

On-Going Operation

 

 

 

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

Level 01 – street level

Complies.

 

(v)   Locate the waste storage facilities to minimise odour and acoustic impacts on the habitable rooms of the proposed development, adjoining and neighbouring properties.

 

(vi)  Screen the waste storage facilities through fencing and/or landscaping where possible to minimise visual impacts on neighbouring properties and the public domain.

 

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

 

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

 

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

Condition to comply.

 

B7

Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access

3.

Parking & Service Delivery Requirements

 

Car parking requirements:

1space per 2 studios

1 space per 1-bedroom unit (over 40m2)

1.2 spaces per 2-bedroom unit

1.5 spaces per 3- or more bedroom unit

1 visitor space per 4 dwellings

Complies, see also Development Engineering referral comments.

 

C2

Medium Density Residential

 

2

Site Planning

 

2.1

Site Layout Options

Site layout and location of buildings must be based on a detailed site analysis and have regard to the site planning guidelines for:

·      Two block / courtyard example

·      T-shape example

·      U-shape example

·      Conventional example

 Conventional

Complies.

 

2.2

Landscaped open space and deep soil area

 

2.2.1

Landscaped open space

 

 

A minimum of 50% of the site area is to be landscaped open space.

51%

Complies.

 

2.2.2

Deep soil area

 

 

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

32%

Complies

 

 

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

Complies.

 

 

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

Complies.

 

 

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

Complies.

 

 

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

Complies.

 

2.3

Private and communal open space

 

2.3.1

Private open space

 

 

Private open space is to be:

(i)    Directly accessible from the living area of the dwelling.

 

(ii)   Open to a northerly aspect where possible so as to maximise solar access.

 

(iii)  Be designed to provide adequate privacy for residents and where possible can also contribute to passive surveillance of common areas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For residential flat buildings:

(vi)  Each dwelling has access to an area of private open space in the form of a courtyard, balcony, deck or roof garden, accessible from with the dwelling.

 

(vii) Private open space for apartments has a minimum area of 8m2 and a minimum dimension of 2m.

 

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.

 

Complies.

 

 

3

Building Envelope

 

3.1

Floor space ratio

 

 

0.9:1

0.93

See Clause 4.6 exception.

 

3.2

Building height

 

 

9.5m and 12m

 

See Clause 4.6 exception.

 

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.

SEPP 65 provisions override DCP control.

 

3.4

Setbacks

 

3.4.1

Front setback

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

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

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

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

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

 

The front setback is 6.8m greater than the 6m minimum required for low density single dwellings located south east of the site and it is also generally consistent with the existing front setbacks of dwellings along this side of Marcel Avenue.

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.4.2

Side setback

 

 

Residential flat building

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

-     >20m≤site frontage width: 4m

 

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

- Create articulations to the building facades.

- Reserve open space areas and provide opportunities for landscaping.

- Provide building separation.

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

Additional side setbacks to the south eastern side boundary are provided.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NA.

 

3.4.3

Rear setback

 

 

For residential flat buildings, provide a minimum rear setback of 15% (between 6.4m) of allotment depth or 5m, whichever is the greater.

Complies – see key issues section

 

4

Building Design

 

4.1

Building façade

 

 

(i)       Buildings must be designed to address all street frontages.

 

(ii)      Buildings must be oriented so that the front wall alignments are parallel with the street property boundary or the street layout.

 

(iii)     Articulate facades to reflect the function of the building, present a human scale, and contribute to the proportions and visual character of the street.

 

(iv)     Avoid massive or continuous unrelieved blank walls. This may be achieved by dividing building elevations into sections, bays or modules of not more than 10m in length, and stagger the wall planes.

 

(vi)     Conceal building services and pipes within the balcony slabs.

 

 

 

Skewed frontage

 

 

 

 

Three storeys with a reduced footprint at the upper level.

 

 

 

Articulated through balconies, glazing and mix of materials.

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

Follows the line of other buildings in Marcel.

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conditioned

 

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.

Contemporary flat roof including skylights to add daylight. Façade and materials compliments contemporary form and scale.

 

The roof form is flat, contains a reduced footprint from the levels below and skylights provide additional daylight.

 

Proposal is consistent with the modern roof notably those fronting Carrington Road.

 

Stepped in elements along the lobby areas break up the building to an extent. The balconies at different levels provide depth from the outer envelope breaking and providing separation of massing from neighbouring properties at all elevations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lift overrun is adequately setback behind the front and south eastern side of the building.

 

 

 

 

 

NA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NA

 

4.4

External wall height and ceiling height

 

 

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

10.02m and 10.27m

Does not comply see key issues section of report.

 

 

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

Complies.

 

4.5

Pedestrian Entry

 

 

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

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.

-    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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accommodated within the front fence adjacent to the pedestrian entrance.

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Complies.

 

4.7

Apartment layout

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

Complies.

 

4.8

Balconies

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ground level rear apartments (G.02 & G.01) provide ample open space comprising timber deck and deep soil areas for private open space.

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

4.9

Colours, materials and finishes

 

 

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

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

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

-    Changes of colours and surface texture

-    Inclusion of lightweight materials to contrast with solid masonry surfaces

-    The use of natural stones is encouraged.

(v)   Avoid the following materials or treatment:

-     Reflective wall cladding, panels and tiles and roof sheeting

-     High reflective or mirror glass

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

-     Large expanses of rendered masonry

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

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

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

Materials and colours are compliment the contemporary design of the development.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Site modification is greater than 1m, however this is not inordinate when considered in the context of medium density development.

 

The western side is generally clear of obstructing the overland flow. The eastern side terraces down to the rear relative to existing ground level as shown in the section plans.

 

The development responds to the site conditions.

Suitable conditions are included to support neighbour’s land.

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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).

 

Basement are located on the south eastern side boundary. The ground level walls are located on and setback 4m from the north western side boundary.

 

The proposed height and location of retaining walls are considered to have responded appropriately to the natural land form having regard to the constraints such as its steep slope, site width, and absence of any significant adverse visual impact.

 

 

 

Does not comply however the proposed development responds appropriately with the slope of the site and the relocated overland flow path whilst also accommodating appropriate levels of parking within the site.

 

Complies

 

 

 

5

Amenity

 

5.1

Solar access and overshadowing

 

 

Solar access for proposed development

 

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

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

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

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

ADG Provisions requires two hours sand supersede the RDCP requirements.

See ADG table and key issues section of this report.

 

 

 

Solar access for surrounding development

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

ADG Provisions supersede the RDCP requirements. ADG provisions require 50% for two hours

 

 

 

 

 

 

ADG provisions limit the impact to no more than 20% reduction.

 

See ADG table.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

5.2

Natural ventilation and energy efficiency

 

 

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

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

(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.

(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.

(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.

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

All habitable rooms have a window.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.3

Visual privacy

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

(iii)  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

Windows are suitably located and dimensioned. It is noted that the survey and details of windows has been used as a reference point and not the relevant floor plans which may show incorrect window location at No. 5 Marcel Avenue.  Conditions are imposed requiring additional treatment for several side facing windows.

 

Balconies are mostly oriented to the front and rear except for a level 02 & 03 balconies running along the full length of the south eastern side of the building. Suitable conditions are included limiting the depth of these side balconies to 1.5m in depth to minimise overlooking and potential noise impacts.

 

Suitable conditions are included requiring treatment to south eastern side and north western side windows and balconies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conditioned.

 

5.4

Acoustic privacy

 

 

 

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

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

Subject of standard and non-standard conditions.

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

5.5

View sharing

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

The only key views impacted by the proposed development would be sideways views and given the high level of compliance with the relevant site coverage provisions in the RDCP and suitability of the development it is considered that views lost as a result of the development will not be inordinate to that which would be expected of development in the medium density zone.

Complies.

 

5.6

Safety and security

 

 

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

Complies.

 

 

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

Complies.

 

 

(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.

Complies.

 

 

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

Complies.

 

 

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

Complies.

 

 

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

Complies.

 

 

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

Condition.

 

 

(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.

Complies.

 

 

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

Conditioned.

 

 

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

Conditioned

 

6.1

Location

 

 

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

NA

 

 

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

Complies.

 

 

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

See development engineering comments relating to the car lift.

 

 

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

NA

 

 

(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)     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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

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.

Complies.

 

 

(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.

Complies.

 

 

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

·      Provide natural ventilation.

·      Use landscaping to soften or screen any car park enclosing walls.

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

 

 

 

Located below ground level.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

7

Fencing and Ancillary Development

 

7.1

Fencing

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

7.2

Front Fencing

 

 

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

Complies.

 

 

(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.

Does not comply – conditioned to comply.

 

 

(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.

See comment above.

 

 

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

- Front fence for sites facing arterial roads.

       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.

Marcel Avenue is not an arterial road.

 

 

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

Conditioned

 

 

(vii) Gates must not open over public land.

Conditioned

 

 

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

Conditioned.

 

7.3

Side and Rear Fencing

 

 

a)      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).

The RL levels along the side boundary setbacks are generally acceptable and will not result in any significantly high walls along the side boundaries.

 

Adequate capacity to provide for reasonable side fencing.

 

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)      3-bedroom apartments – 10m3

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.7

Laundry facilities

 

 

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

Not required a communal clothes line is conditioned to be provided in the rear yard.

 

 

(ii)      Provide internal laundry for each dwelling unit.

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.

AC units proposed to be located at ground level. Suitable noise conditions are included.

Complies.

 

 

4.         Referral Comments

 

Design Excellence Panel (DEP)

The following comments were provided by the DEP having regard to SEPP 65:

 

PANEL COMMENTS

This DA submission proposes construction of a part 3, part 4 storey residential flat building that steps down with the topography from Marcel Avenue to the rear of the property.

 

Panel members are familiar with the site and the surrounding areaThe architect for this project is ESS Lifestyle Pty Ltd, architects registered in NSW.

 

The proposal is for the demolition of two existing houses, and the construction of a new 4 storey apartment building, containing 12 apartments and two levels of parking, providing 18 car spaces, accessed via a car lift.

 

  CONTEXT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD CONTEXT

This development site is in a dense residential neighbourhood, with a mix of large single-family houses and mid-century apartment buildings, along with several new apartment developments along the nearby Carrington Road.  Typical building heights range from one to three stories, with a relatively consistent built fabric of brick, expressed verandahs and pitched roofs across both houses and apartment blocks.  Marcel Avenue is densely lined with mature trees, and the steep slope to the rear of the site is densely wooded.

 

     SCALE AND BUILT FORM

The site currently features two height controls (9.5m and 12m), which the proposal partly exceeds. The proposal also fails to comply with the front setback and FSR controls, however, there is an argument for a variation in the front setback given the setback of neighbouring properties.  The panel feels that minor adjustments to the built form of the proposal will allow these matters to be successfully addressed. The proposal adds a very large footprint across what were two single-family residence, which creates a consolidated building with long narrow spaces around the boundaries of the site. The opportunity to create contained internalised amenity spaces within the site are lost by this built form approach, however, the there are opportunities to create a larger amenity space at the rear of the property.

 

The front setback to the southeast boundary should respond to the general building alignment along Marcel Street, as represented by the houses at numbers 5 and 7b.  To this end, the applicant should draw numbers 5 and no 7b, including garages, accurately to support the proposed setback in the proposal.

 

Planner comment: The scheme shows the location of buildings at No. 5 and No. 7 Marcel Avenue. A comparison of survey details shows that the proposed front setback will be generally similar to the front setback of other development along this side of Marcel Avenue and the largely part two part three storey façade at the front will fit into the bulk and scale of likely future development along Marcel Avenue.

 

DENSITY

The proposal features 12 dwellings, most of which are two-bedroom units, which is supported by the panel given the site currently features two houses.  The FSR control is slightly exceeded, however, should an excellent design outcome be achieved this slight variation could be overlooked.

 

Planning comment: The scheme has been amended to contain a greater mix of dwellings. The FSR is exceeded however it is reduced by the amended scheme which sets back the upper two levels further from the south eastern side boundary.

 

SUSTAINABILITY

The extensive flat roof should be utilised for solar panels for electricity generation as well as solar hot water.  Water collection, storage, treatment and re-use systems should be incorporated into the development.

Further considerations include:

·      The method of window operation and their fire treatment on each elevation should be indicated on the drawings, especially when windows are part of the natural ventilation of the apartments as indicated.

·      Ceiling fans for bedrooms and living areas - these should be marked on the plans.

·      Outdoor clothes drying areas should be indicated.

·      Weather protection and sun shading appropriate to orientation

·      An indication of how the stored stormwater would be used to irrigate the common areas of the site.

·      Details of insulation proposed

·      1:50 cross-section drawings that are adequate to describe the construction methods proposed.

 

Planning comment: The application is accompanied by a BASIX certificate which contains provisions for water use, energy efficiency and Thermal comfort ensuring sufficient sustainability options. A rainwater tank is provided for the purposes of irrigation.

 

LANDSCAPE

No landscape plan has been provided with the application. The deep soil areas on the side and front setbacks are shown in the section drawings as concrete slabs.  This allows no depth for the planting indicated, despite this being argued as a feature of the proposal.

 

The proposal provides no shared communal space.  Despite the apparent difficulties posed by the topography, the panel feels that an attempt should be made to allow the residents to access and enjoy the densely-planted area down the slope at the back of the building.  This need not take the form of a conventional barbecue or dining are, but rather could be a more contemplative, secluded space.  Bicycle parking for residents and visitors should be provided, ideally with weather protection.

 

Planning comment: Council landscape development officer has reviewed the proposed development including landscaping details and raises no objections subject to conditions. The amended scheme now contains an area of communal open space. Bicycle parking for residents is provided.

 

AMENITY

The main entry could be more generous, as well as more distinct spatially and tectonically in the front façade and front garden area.  The internal circulation corridors should also be more generous, and efforts made to ensure natural light and circulation spaces to all corridors.

 

Planning comment: The front entry is 2m wide and considered sufficient for the purposes of creating a distinct pedestrian entry.

 

SAFETY

No safety issues

 

HOUSING DIVERSITY AND SOCIAL INTERACTION

The proposal offers mostly two-bedroom apartments.  A stronger design vision for the rear garden space may enable improved interaction between residents.  Further thought should be given to the design of the lobby and common areas to maximise the potential for interaction.

 

Planning comment: Communal open space has been provided in the rear of the site.

 

AESTHETICS

The proposal aims for a fairly high design standard; however the architectural aesthetic relies on excellent detailing, reinforced by a high standard of materials (concrete and white painted brick).  The scale of the horizontality seems out of character in the neighbourhood and may benefit from increased vertical expression and landscaping. The refinements noted above should address the potentially monolithic form from dominating the streetscape. Weathering at slab edges will be an issue, some consideration should be given to detailing this edge to prevent dirt accumulation and staining of the façade.

 

Planning comment: a sutiable condition is included requiring the submission of material sampling to ensure high quality materials are being used with the develpoment.

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The panel is supportive of the proposal, and provided the minor amendments as noted are addressed, do not need to review the proposal again.

 

Development Engineer and Landscape Officer

The following comments were provided by Councils Development Engineer and Landscape Officer:

 

An application has been received for the demolition of all structures on site and construction of a part 3 part 4 residential flat building comprising of 12 dwellings and 2 levels of basement parking for 18 vehicles, associated site and landscaping works (variation to floor space ratio control).at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Amended Architectural Plans by ESS Architects dated December 2017;

·      Statement of Environmental Effects by ABC Planning dated July 2017;

·      Detail & Level Survey by S.J Dixon Surveyors Pty Ltd, ref 50797, dated 18/10/16;

·      Amended Flood Study by P Kozarovski dated 18th June 2018

·      Addendum to Traffic and Parking Report by Varga Planning stamped by Council 12th July 2018;

·      Arboricultural Impact Assessment by Australis Tree Management, ref 20171317.2, dated 14/07/17;

·      Landscape Plans by Amber Road, dwg’s L01-03, issue C, dated 12/07/17.

 

GENERAL COMMENTS

The engineering issues previously raised in memos have now been addressed with the submission of an amended flood study and addendum to traffic report. There are now no objections to the proposal subject to the comments and conditions provided in this report.

 

CONSOLIDATION COMMENTS

The development site comprises of two properties being lots 45 in DP 9644 and lot 3 in DP 1145159. Prior to the issuing of any occupation certificate the lots shall be consolidated into 1 lot. Furthermore the existing Council easement will need to be extinguished and recreated over the relocated Council Line. See Diversion of Council pipe Comments/

 

FLOODING COMMENTS

The subject development site is located adjacent to a localised low point/ flow path in Marcel Avenue and the Council commissioned & adopted Coogee Bay Flood Study indicates the site will be subject to significant flooding during major storm events.

 

A major flow path is evident flowing north south through the middle of the property & being approximately coincident with the Council Drainage line.

 

The proposed development is proposed to be constructed in the middle of the flow path and the applicant was asked to provide a detailed flood study to demonstrate how the overland flow path was to be managed/diverted so that it would not result in overland flow being directed onto neighbouring properties or increase flood levels.

A ‘flood study’ prepared by P Kozarovski was submitted in response however it did not contain sufficient information to undertake an assessment and additional information was requested. Of specific concern was the narrowing and diversion of the flow path to the western side of the property with associated impacts on neighbouring properties and the downstream impacts of such a diversion, Additional information has now been submitted and satisfactorily demonstrates that the development will not increase flood levels in neighbouring properties. There will be excavation adjacent to the western boundary which will lower flood levels in this location and avoid impacting on the neighbouring properties fronting Carrington Road. Of special note to Development Engineering;

 

·      The western side entrance to the ground floor dwellings is indicated as RL 59.50 AHD with the top water level for the 1% AEP (1 in 100yr) flood at this location being determined in the flood study as RL 59.25 AHD with an associated depth of 250mm. The western ground floor entrance therefore meets the minimum freeboard requirement of twice the depth of flow (being 0.5m above adjacent ground level) as required by Sec 5.3, Part B8 of Council’s DCP. 

 

·      The floor level of the units closest to Marcel Avenue on Level 1 is RL 62.50 being well above the flood level of RL 60.74 as indicate on the flood study at this location.

 

·      The vehicle entrance to the car lift is indicated as RL 61.75 AHD being 270mm above the 1% AEP flood level at the front of the property RL 61.48. This is slightly under the minimum 300mm freeboard requirement as required by Sec 5.3 Part B8 of Council’s DCP. An automatic flood barrier is proposed however if the entrance level is raised 30mm RL 61.78 this will not be required. A suitable condition has been included in this report.

 

Planning comment: This is able to be accommodated within the existing clearance

 

DIVERSION OF COUNCIL DRAINAGE PIPE COMMENTS

There is an existing 600mm diameter Council drainage pipe flowing north to south through the development site. The Council pipe is in conflict with the proposed development and the applicant proposes to redirect the pipeline around the western edge of the development site. This was not initially supported by Development Engineering as no assessment on what impact this would have on the hydraulic performance of the Council drainage line was submitted. As there was potential for significant head loss that may have resulted in a future pit surcharging, additional information was subsequently requested for selected storm events.

 

The additional information indicates the line will be able to satisfactorily perform hydraulically with no significant impact. Some surcharging is expected for the 1 in 100 yr storm event but this would be expected with the existing design capacity of the Council line. Council’s Drainage Engineer has also inspected the plans and hydraulic calculations for the diversion and found them to be satisfactory.

 

The existing Council drainage easement within the site will need to be extinguished and re-created over the relocated Council drainage line.

 

SITE DRAINAGE COMMENTS

On site stormwater detention is required for this development.

 

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

 

The stormwater must be discharged (by gravity) either:

i.      Directly to the kerb and gutter in front of the subject site in Marcel Avenue; or

ii.       Directly into Council’s underground drainage system located within the site  via one of the new junction pits; or

 

CAR LIFT COMMENTS

Development Engineering is not generally supportive of mechanical devices to access off-street parking as they can discourage car owners from parking off-street and can significantly increase future costs for occupants for on-going maintenance. In consideration of the site’s constraints, the use of a car lift was considered acceptable in this instance provided a number of pre-conditions were able to be satisfied. These conditions have been fulfilled by the amended/additional information submitted in the addendum to the traffic report/plans and include;

 

·      A waiting bay has been provided prior to entering the car lift. The waiting bay allows a vehicle to exit the car-lift without the need for a vehicle in the waiting bay to reverse out of the site.

·      The default position for the car lift will be set at street level and a traffic light management system installed

·      The car lift will comply with Australian Standard 1735. (This has also been conditioned)

·      Manufacturer’s specifications of the car lift (including waiting times) have been provided. Queuing calculations have also been submitted that demonstrate that the probability of two vehicles attempting to use the car lift at the same time is very low.

 

The additional information and amended traffic report are acceptable and there no longer any further objections to the proposed car lift.

 

PARKING PROVISION COMMENTS

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

·      1 space per 1 bedroom unit

·      1.5 spaces per 3 bedroom unit

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

 

The amended plans indicate the development will be for 11 units comprising of 2 x 1 bedroom, 7 x 2 bedroom and 2 x 3 bedroom units

 

Parking required under DCP       = (2 x 1.0) + (7 X 1.2) + (2 X 1.5) + 11/4 (visitor)

                                                    = 2 + 8.4 + 3.0 + 2.75

                                                    = 16.15

                                                    = say 16 spaces (including 3 visitor spaces)

 

Parking Proposed                        = 18 spaces (3 visitor spaces provided on B1)

 

The parking provision is therefore satisfactory. It is also noted that one of the existing vehicle crossings will be removed and returned to standard kerb and gutter thereby creating an additional on-street car space as well.

 

Motorbike Parking

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

 

Motorbike Parking Required   = 0.05 x 16

                                               = 0.8

                                                = say 1 space

 

Motorbike Parking proposed  = 1 space on basement level 1 (complies)

                                              

Bicycle Parking

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

 

Bicycle Parking Required       = 11/2 + 11/10

                                               = 5.5 + 1.1

                                               = 6.6

                                               = say 7 spaces

 

Bicycle Parking proposed       = 9 spaces (complies)

 

WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMENTS

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

 

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

 

Comments on the number of Waste Bins

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

 

i.e. Garbage/recycling Bins Required = 11/2

                                             = 5.5 = say 6 bins

 

There are no specific requirements for green waste in Part B6 of the DCP  however as some landscape areas are proposed it would normally be recommended that a minimum of  2 x 240L bins also be provided for green waste. The submitted MP does indicate however that green waste will be collected privately, hence they are not required in this instance

 

Total Number of BINS required = 6 (normal) + 6 (recycling)

                                               = 12 x 240L BINS

        

The bin storage room is located on Level 1 but only indicates 10 x 240L bins. A condition has therefore been included for it to accommodate 12 x 240L bins in accordance with the requirements of Part B6 of the DCP.

 

UNDERGROUNDING OF SITE POWER COMMENTS

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

 

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

 

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

        

CONSOLIDATION COMMENTS

The development site comprises of two properties being lots 45 in DP 9644 and lot 3 in DP 1145159. Prior to the issuing of any occupation certificate the lots shall be consolidated into 1 lot. Furthermore the existing Council easement will need to be extinguished and recreated over the relocated Council Line.

 

Tree Management Comments

On the Marcel Avenue verge, there is from west to east, in front of no.1, a 4-5m tall Glochidion ferdinandii (Cheese Tree, Tree 1) in line with the western site boundary, and just to the east of the existing vehicle crossing for 89-91 Carrington Road, then a slightly smaller Callistemon citrinus (Bottlebrush, T2) to its east, near the western edge of the existing crossing for 1 Marcel Avenue.

 

Both are mature, endemic species to the LGA, appear in good health and condition, and are also protected by the DCP, and as the new vehicle entry is sited well away to their east, outside of both of their SRZ & TPZ’s, no direct impacts should result; however, protection measures still need to be imposed in order to prevent secondary impacts such as damage from trucks, deliveries, stockpiling of materials and similar, with relevant conditions and a bond provided.

 

The row of mature Bottlebrush’s beyond the western site boundary, adjacent 89-91 Carrington Road, will not be affected given their physical distance from the site and all works, so conditions are not required.

 

Further south, in front of 3 Marcel Avenue, just south of the existing power pole, there is a semi-mature, 3-4m tall Ceratopetalum gummiferum (Coachwood, T3), then a slightly larger, 5m tall Glochidion ferdinandii (Cheese Tree, T4), which has been suppressed by a larger, more dominant tree to its south, with both being endemic to the LGA and covered by the DCP.

 

However, the new vehicle crossing/basement entry is shown for this same area, in direct conflict with both trees, and while the loss of native public trees is never the desired outcome for Council, neither are significant in anyway, so a re-design to accommodate their retention is not warranted, particularly as this would still result in the removal of other public trees nearby anyway, so approval has been granted for their removal, wholly at the applicant’s cost, with any loss of amenity to be minimal due to the presence and quantity of other surrounding public trees nearby.

 

Still on the verge, beyond the eastern site boundary, to the east of the existing crossing for no.3, in front of 5 Marcel Avenue, there is a large and mature, 18m x 20m Ficus microcarpa var. ‘Hillii’ (Hills Weeping Fig, T5), of good health and condition that is covered by the DCP.

 

Along with others of the same size and species to its east and north, it is recognized as a significant feature of the streetscape, with its northern aspect overhanging slightly into the northeast corner of the subject site, with existing concrete driveways for no.3 & no.5, as well as a public footpath and masonry front fences being just to its west.

 

Both the Level 01 Plan (dwg A224) and Arborist Report show that excavations for the entry ramp will be performed 10.6m from the centre of its trunk at its closest point (front property boundary), with the northeast corner of both the basement and building, Levels Ground 02 (dwg A2201), Ground (dwg A2203) and Level 1 (dwg  ) to be 14m away.

 

Despite these generous setbacks, due to the sheer size of the tree, these works will still result in a 10.6% encroachment of its TPZ, which falls just into the ‘major’ category in AS4970-2009, so regardless of its physical distance away, as well as the presence of structures that are unfavourable to root growth, the well-known resilience of this species means that roots may still be encountered in the area of the works, and as such, relevant protection measures regarding the treatment of any roots have been provided, along with those that allow minimal clearance pruning of its western aspect, but only by Council, and wholly at the applicant’s cost.

 

The inspection of 12 October 2018 confirmed that there is no significant vegetation within either of the two properties, including the small Magnolia in the southwest corner of no.1, and the Dracaena in the southeast corner of no.3, so can all be removed and replaced with the new landscape treatment as shown, as this will increase both the amount of plant material and quality of private open space at both sites.

 

The closely planted row of seven, 8m tall Cupressocyparis leylandii ‘Leighton’s Green’ (Leylands Cypress, T7-13) that are located beyond the southwest/rear boundary of no.3, wholly on the adjoining private property at 10 Ritchard Avenue, will not be affected, as despite being hard up against this common boundary, they are growing at a lower ground level than the subject site, with the existing dividing masonry wall/fence in this location to also have acted as a physical barrier to prevent any root growth being able to enter the development site at all, and as the southwest/rear basement wall is offset some 5 metres from the rear boundary, no impacts are anticipated, so conditions are not needed.

 

Similarly, while the crowns of the established Eucalypts beyond the rear boundary of no.1, wholly within the adjoining private property at 97 Carrington Road, can be seen from Marcel Avenue, they all are sited at substantial distance from all works that no impact will result, with the same also applying to the mature, 13m tall Liquidambar styraciflua (Liquidambar, T6) that is beyond the southeast corner of no.3, wholly on 5 Marcel Avenue.

 

Landscape Comments

The assessing officer has requested that any planting and associated landscape treatment in the western side setback not impede the overland flow path in this same area, with the a review of the plan showing that a combination of turf and ground covers will be used, along with both native and exotic feature trees, with a 2m tall hedge along the western boundary, with a condition dealing with this aspect included in the report. 

 

Heritage Planner

 

The following comments were provided by Councils Heritage Planner

 

The Site

The site is occupied by two somewhat modified early twentieth century single storey cottages.  To the east of the site are a group of largely intact early twentieth century dwellings, several with upper level additions.  To the west of the site are the rear of two dwellings which front Carrington Road.  Immediately to the north east of the site is an archaeological site comprising the western end of Marcel Avenue and Moira Crescent which formed the original entrance driveway and turning circle to Bishopscourt. 

 

Proposal

The application proposes a new residential flat building over two levels of basement car parking, accessed via a car lift.  Due to the fall of the site, the development comprises 3 storeys to Carrington Road and four stories to the rear. 

 

Submission

The application has been accompanied by a Statement of Environmental Effects which includes a section addressing Heritage Conservation.  The SEE includes a map which identifies the archaeological site and notes that “the recessed nature of the basement would ensure that there are no impacts to the archaeological item below Marcel Avenue.” 

 

Controls

Clause 5.10(2)(c) of Randwick LEP 2012 requires development consent for disturbing or excavation and archaeological site while knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect, that the disturbance or excavation will or is likely to result in a relic being discovered, exposed, moved, damaged or destroyed.  For development on an archaeological site, Clause 5.10(7) of the LEP requires notification to the Heritage Council and consideration of their response. 

 

In relation to Archaeological Sites, clause 1.6 of the heritage section of Randwick DCP 2013 allows Council to request and archaeological assessment to confirm the likelihood and potential significance of relics on the site and recommend appropriate action. 

 

Comments

The former Bishopscourt property was bounded by Carrington, Clovelly Road, Alison Road and Mount Street.  Bishopscourt residence was completed in 1859 and comprised a two storey stone structure with a slate roof.  Situated on the flat ground near the present Moira Crescent, it had a carriage drive, along the line of the line of Marcel Avenue from Power Street (later Carrington Road).  The former Bishopscourt (sited on what is now nos.23 – 29 Moira Crescent), was destroyed by fire in 1924. 

 

A Preliminary Archaeological and Landscape Assessment for the Bishopscourt conservation area was carried out by Godden Mackay Logan Heritage Consultants in March 2006.  The Assessment notes that the line of the original carriageway has been retained in Marcel Avenue, an asphalt surface with concrete kerbs.  The Assessment notes that it is possible that the road base seals the pre-existing driveway surface.  The Assessment notes that road works involving ground disturbance on the western end of Marcel Avenue and on Moira Crescent have the potential to expose original road levels, even at shallow depth (possibly immediately under the existing road surface).  Such works by Council roads maintenance teams or utility authorities would require a permit under Section 140 of the Heritage Act, or a more detailed archaeological assessment. 

 

The proposed development will involve considerable excavation on site to construct the two levels of basement car parking.  There will be no access ramp excavation as the basement will be accessed via a car lift.  Excavation on site will not impact on the archaeological site which comprises the roadway.  An on-site driveway access and a footpath crossing and kerb layback will also be required in the area between the site and the roadway, which will impact on the existing concrete kerb.  A consent condition should be included in relation to historical archaeological in the unlikely event that remains or deposits are exposed. 

 

Recommendation

The following conditions should be included in any consent:

 

·    In the unlikely event that historical archaeological remains or deposits are exposed during the works, including construction of the footpath crossing and kerb layback, all work should cease while an evaluation of their potential extent and significance is undertaken and the NSW Heritage Office notified under the requirements of the Heritage Act.  Historical archaeological evidence would relate to the original entrance driveway to the 1859 Bishopscourt residence which follows the line of the western end of Marcel Avenue.

 

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

B.      That the RLPP, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 4.16 and 4.17 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 459/2017 for demolition of all structures on site and construction of a part 3 part 4 residential flat building comprising of 12 dwellings and 2 levels of basement parking for 18 vehicles, associated site and landscaping works, at No. No. 1-3 Marcel Avenue, subject to the development consent conditions attached to this report, for the following reasons:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Reduced floor plate and increased setbacks at Level 02 and Level 03.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Development Consent Conditions 1-3 Marcel Avenue, Coogee (DA/459/2017)

 

 

 

 


Development Consent Conditions 1-3 Marcel Avenue, Coogee (DA/459/2017)

Attachment 1

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Randwick Local Planning Panel    14 March 2019

 

 

Development Application Report No. D6/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                  330 Anzac Parade, Kensington (DA/442/2018)

 

Folder No:                     DA/442/2018

Author:                          Alexandra Marks, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

 

Proposal:                      Installation of Photovoltaic (Solar) Panels on the roof of the Botany Street Parking Station at the University of New South Wales

Ward:                            West Ward

Applicant:                     University of New South Wales

Owner:                          University of New South Wales

Summary

Recommendation:         Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=15e59635-3a66-43eb-b867-29c2bef924c9&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 


 

Executive summary

 

The application is referred to the RLPP as the development contravenes the development standard for building height by more than 10%.

 

Council is in receipt of a Development Application (DA) for the installation of photovoltaic (solar) panels above Level 6A of the Botany Street Parking Station at the University of New South Wales (UNSW).  The proposal involves energy efficient development that will service UNSW for the purposes to reduce environmental impacts associated with an educational establishment. 

 

The land is zoned SP2 Infrastructure – Educational Establishment under the RLEP 2012 and the proposed development is permissible.  The majority of the UNSW Kensington Campus is not subject to a maximum height limit as per the RLEP 2012 however, the perimeter of the campus, which includes part of the Botany Street Parking Station, has a maximum height limit of 14m, across a width of 30m from the Oval Lane (southern) boundary.  The distance of the parking station to the southern boundary is between 24.883m and 29.176m, meaning that 204mm – 5.117m of the parking station is subject to the 14m building height standard.

 

The proposed height is 19.5m, which exceeds the Height of Buildings development standard by 5.5m.  A Clause 4.6 Request to vary a development standard has been submitted by the Applicant to justify the height exceedance and demonstrate that the strict compliance is unreasonable and unnecessary in this case.  In summary, the exception has been considered with respect to the provisions of Clause 4.6 and is accepted on the grounds that:

 

§  The size and scale of the existing parking station from the public domain remains similar to what currently exists and will not impact upon the existing streetscape or adjoining neighbours considering the works are wholly contained within the existing building envelope and are setback between 24.883 and 29.176m from Oval Lane.

 

§  The amenity of residents in the vicinity and the broader context of the area will not be adversely impacted by the additional height from the Solar Panel structure.  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.

 

The site is within the Kensington Town Centre, as such, Part E2 – Randwick Education and Specialized Health Centre of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP 2013) applies.  The proposal satisfies the relevant controls of the RDCP 2013 and is consistent with the overall objectives for the Education and Health Specialized Centre. 

 

Notwithstanding the departure from the building height standard under the RLEP 2012, the proposal is generally consistent with the planning controls for this precinct and will positively contribute to the university, with particular consideration to sustainability.

 

This application is a Crown DA and therefore, draft conditions of consent were sent to the Applicant for their response and agreement.  All of the conditions were reviewed thoroughly by the Applicant, who provided their agreement.  Refer to Crown Review of Conditions of Consent within the Key Issues section of this report.

 

Proposal            

 

This DA seeks approval for the installation of photovoltaic (solar) panels above the northern portion (at Level 6A) of the Botany Street Parking Station at UNSW.  The details of the proposal are as follows:

 

§  Construction of a steel support structure to a height of between 3.9m and 5.5m above Level 6A of the Botany Street Parking Station;

§  Installation of PV Panels to the top of the support structure; and

§  Connection of power generation into the existing UNSW controlled electricity network.

 

As the Solar Panels are located on the roof of the car park, the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012) Height of Buildings development standard is requested to be varied through the use of Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards of the RLEP 2012 at the abovementioned site.   In addition, the application has also been referred to the Sydney Airport Corporation Limited (SACL) on 30 July 2018 for their comment/ concurrence.

 

Site Description and Locality

 

The UNSW campus is located within the main boundaries, being Anzac Parade (to the west), High Street (to the north), Botany Street (to the east) and Barker Street and Oval Lane (to the south).  UNSW also includes development to the west of Anzac Parade, being NIDA, the University Regiment and New College Post Graduate Village.

 

Figure 1 | UNSW Kensington Campus including subject area

Source: Ethos Urban SEE

 

The works that are proposed as part of this application are located on the northern portion of the Botany Street Parking Station, located in the south-eastern corner of the campus.  Figure 2 and Figure 3 below, extracted from the Applicant’s SEE, are aerial images of the site, with the proposed solar panel structure location highlighted, as well as the location of the temporary construction compound, which will be used to store materials and a mobile crane for lifting.

 

The Botany Street Parking Station is labelled as Building H25 (shown in Figure 3) below, which is accessed via Gate 11 on Botany Street.  The subject site currently comprises a six storey rectangular parking station for the staff, students and visitors to the UNSW campus.

 

Surrounding the area subject to this application are other UNSW buildings, to the north, east and west; with low density residential development to the south of the site.  Adjoining Building H25 to the north, is an at-grade car park (shown in Figure 2). 


 

Figure 2 | UNSW Kensington Campus including subject area

Source: Ethos Urban SEE

 

Figure 3 | UNSW Kensington Campus Map including building identification number

Source: Ethos Urban SEE

 

Submissions

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the RDCP 2013 between 8 August 2018 and 22 August 2018.  As a result of the notification process, no submissions were received.

 

Key Issues

 

Building Height

The height controls adjoining Oval Lane, consist of a maximum height of 14m (for a 30m width) under the RLEP 2012.  The proposal includes the addition of a roof structure on Level 6A of the Botany Street car park to support the implementation of Solar Panels.  The roof, which is located within the 30m width from Oval Lane exceeds the 14m height limit section shown on the height map in Figure 4 below.

 

Figure 4 | Height Controls Map RLEP

Source: Ethos Urban

 

The height controls from Oval Lane, consist of a maximum height of 14m (for a 30m width) under the RLEP 2012 and a maximum of 24m under the RDCP 2013 for the internal portion.

 

The proposed PV panels located on a roof structure that will be above Level 6A of the Botany Street Parking Station will result in a maximum height of 19.5m.  This maximum height is taken from the existing ground level.  The lift overrun structure that currently exists on Level 6A, has a height between 16m and 18m and therefore, the proposed PV panels are of similar height.  The extent of the departure is shown in the following diagrams:

 

Figure 5 | East elevation showing extent of proposed structure in relation to the Oval Lane

Source: Budden Nangle Michael & Hudson Architects


 

Figure 6 | The proposed structure in comparison to existing built form (West elevation)

Source: Budden Nangle Michael & Hudson Architects

 

Pursuant to Clause 4.3 of the RLEP 2012, the height of buildings shall not exceed 14m for a portion of the proposed structure on the site.  A maximum height of 19.5m is proposed.

 

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Height

Development Standard

14m

Proposal

19.5m

Excess Above the Standard

5.5m (39.3%)

 

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 size and scale of the existing parking station from the public domain remains similar to what currently exists and will not impact upon the existing streetscape or adjoining neighbours considering the works are wholly contained within the existing building envelope and are setback between 24.883 and 29.176m from Oval Lane.

§  The amenity of residents in the vicinity and the broader context of the area will not be adversely impacted by the additional height from the Solar Panel structure.  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.

 

Sydney Airport

Due to the height of the proposed solar panel structure at the site being 76.63m AHD, which infringes the conical surface by 1.63m, the application was referred to the Sydney Airport Corporation Limited (SACL) on 30 July 2018 for their comment/ concurrence.  The comments and conditions are provided under Section 4 Referrals of this report.

 

SACL received the application and sent it to the Department on 24 August 2018 for their notice of determination.  Under Regulation (1AB) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 (the Regulations), the Secretary is required to make a decision within 28 days of receiving the application.  Due to delays from the Department, a decision was not made within the required timeframe and therefore, the DA was originally a deemed refusal. 

 

Notwithstanding, the Secretary received and accepted the required information after the 28 days and in accordance with Clause14 of the Regulations, the Secretary approved the controlled activity for the intrusion of solar array structure at 330 Anzac Parade, Kensington (the Site), subject to conditions.  The conditions have been included in the recommendations section of this report.

 

Solar Access and Overshadowing

The height of the proposed roof structure ranges from 3.9m to 5.5m above Level 6A of the Botany Street Parking Station.  The proposed roof structure is located on the northern portion of the multi-storey parking station.  Therefore, the overshadowing to the neighbouring properties will be similar to what currently exists, as the additional height of the roof structure falls mainly on Level 6 of the Botany Street Parking Station. 

 

Notwithstanding, the applicant has demonstrated that suitable levels of solar access will be retained to the neighbouring properties and the development itself between the hours of 8am and 4pm during the winter solstice.

 

Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2015 (S94A Plan)

The Applicant disputed to pay the Section 7.12 Contributions, as required, by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, (EP&A Act) for developments with a construction cost of more than $100,000.

 

No formal submission to Council was provided however, the Applicant has informally requested that the Section 94A contributions of $15,246.80 (based on the construction cost of $1,524,681.00) to be waived.  The Applicant states that UNSW is a not-for-profit organisation however, the Botany Street Parking Station incurs a cost per vehicle using this car park.  Notwithstanding, Clause 13 Exemptions to the levy of the S94A plan demonstrates the types of developments and circumstances that may be eligible for an exemption to the s94A contribution fees and given that the development reduces the energy consumption of a building, Council has accepted that the development be exempt from the Contributions Levy.  Refer to extract below of sub-clause is 13.1, particularly 13.4.1, which states:

 

Refer to Crown Review of Conditions below for the discussions regarding Condition 7 for Section 7.12 Contributions.

 

Crown Review of Conditions

This application is a Crown DA and therefore, draft conditions of consent were sent to the Applicant for their response and agreement.  All of the conditions were reviewed thoroughly by the Applicant, who provided their agreement of each condition.  This was then reviewed by the Manager of Development Assessment to finalize the conditions.  Two conditions that were questioned by the Applicant included:

 


 

Condition 3:

 

The Proponent must advise Airservices Australia at least three business days prior to the controlled activity commencing by emailing <ifp@airservicesaustralia.com> and quoting YSSY-CA-102.

 

Condition 4:

 

On completion of the solar array structure, the Proponent must provide the airfield design manager with a written report from a certified surveyor on the finished height of the solar array.

 

The reasoning behind these two conditions, which was explained to the Applicant, via an email dated 2 February 2019, included:

 

“Any development that encroaches into the airspace is to be a controlled activity and therefore, this is why Sydney Airport are required to be notified three business days prior to commencement.  Condition 5 is also required in order to confirm, via a registered surveyor, that the finished height of the solar array is as what was approved and not any higher.”

 

In addition to these two conditions, the Applicant disputed Condition 7, which relates to the Section 7.12 Contributions required, in accordance with the EP&A Act  

 

Condition 7:

 

Section 7.12 Development Contributions

In accordance with Council’s Development Contributions Plan effective from 21 April 2015, based on the development cost of $1,524,681, the following applicable monetary levy must be paid to Council: $15,246.80.

 

The levy must be paid in cash, bank cheque or by credit card prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development.  The development is subject to an index to reflect quarterly variations in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from the date of Council’s determination to the date of payment. Please contact Council on telephone 9093 6999 or 1300 722 542 for the indexed contribution amount prior to payment.

 

To calculate the indexed levy, the following formula must be used:

 

IDC = ODC x CP2/CP1

 

Where:

IDC = the indexed development cost

ODC = the original development cost determined by the Council

CP2 = the Consumer Price Index, All Groups, Sydney, as published by the ABS in  respect of the quarter ending immediately prior to the date of payment

CP1 = the Consumer Price Index, All Groups, Sydney as published by the ABS in respect of the quarter ending immediately prior to the date of imposition of the condition requiring payment of the levy.

 

Council’s Development Contribution Plans may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick or at www.randwick.nsw.gov.au.

 

This condition, relating to Section 7.12 contributions, has been disputed by the Applicant.  UNSW does not agree with Council’s response of 4 February 2019 being:

 

The levies collected from the applicable DAs would be used to fund the schedule of works identified in Council’s Section 94A Development Contribution Plan 2015, which includes the Randwick Education and Health Strategic Centre. In addition, we don’t have any specific account to cater for the public facilities within the Randwick health and education precinct so it is not possible to amend the condition as suggested.

 

The Applicant responded to Council stating:

 

The Randwick Health and Education Precinct is the same general area as the ‘Specialised Centre/ Randwick Education and Health Strategic Centre’ as listed in the Schedule of Works in Council's Section 94A Development Contributions Plan.  Furthermore, in excess of $1.5 million has been contributed by UNSW to this area via planning approvals over the past 5 years (see attached summary).  If UNSW is to contribute to public realm works and community services within the Randwick LGA it is considered appropriate that the monies are expended in the vicinity of the University and Hospitals where the greatest impact on Council's infrastructure and services is brought about by UNSW students and staff.  Therefore, UNSW contributions should be expended in the high impact/ high growth Randwick Strategic Centre/ Randwick Health and Education Precinct as defined by the Greater Sydney Commission and endorsed by Council and other key stakeholders in the Randwick Collaboration Area Place Strategy.

 

Notwithstanding the above, Council's imposition of development contributions in this instance is in contravention of the Ministerial Direction issued on 6 December 2006 (see attached) and sub-clause 13.1.4 of Council's s94A Development Contributions Plan.  As was pointed out in the Statement of Environmental Effects accompanying the Development Application, the proposed PV panels will generate an average of 592 mwh per annum.  The surplus 256 mwh per annum not required by the parking station will be fed back into the campus electricity grid to be used by other UNSW buildings, thereby reducing consumption of conventionally generated electricity within the local grid.

 

Clause 13 Exemptions to the levy of the S94A plan (refer to Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2015 (S94A Plan) above) demonstrates that the proposed development is eligible for an exemption to the s94A contribution fees given that the development reduces the energy consumption of a building.  Council has accepted that the development be exempt from the Contributions Levy.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:           Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

That the application to install photovoltaic (solar) panels above Level 6A of Botany Street Parking Station at the University of New South Wales (UNSW) be approved (subject to conditions) for the following reasons:

 

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

 

§  The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the SP2 Infrastructure Educational Establishment zone in that the proposed activity and built form will provide for the ongoing viability of the centre whilst integrating energy efficient development that will service UNSW for the purposes to reduce environmental impacts associated with the educational establishment in a suitable manner that does not adversely affect the amenity of the local residents and adjoining development.

 

§  The requirements of Clause 4.6 have been met and that the Height of Buildings in Clause 4.3 of RLEP 2012 can be varied.

 

§  The scale and design of the proposal is considered to be suitable for the location and is compatible with the desired future character and operation of the locality.

 

§  The energy efficient development that will service UNSW for the purposes to reduce environmental impacts associated with an educational establishment will establish a positive precedent in the area.

 

§  The proposed development will make a positive contribution to UNSW.

 


 

Detailed Assessment

1.       Section 4.15 matters for consideration

 

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

 

Section 4.15 ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

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

See below.

 

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

Nil.

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

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

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.  Refer to Executive Summary of this report.

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

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

 

The proposed development is consistent with the dominant character in the locality.

 

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

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

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

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

No submissions were received.

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

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

 

2.       Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

2.2     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012)

The site is zoned SP2 Infrastructure Educational Establishment under the RLEP 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent.  The objectives of the zone are:

§  To provide for infrastructure and related uses.

§  To prevent development that is not compatible with or that may detract from the provision of infrastructure.

§  To facilitate development that will not adversely affect the amenity of nearby and adjoining development.

§  To protect and provide for land used for community purposes.

The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will provide for the ongoing viability of the centre whilst integrating energy efficient development that will service UNSW for the purposes to reduce environmental impacts associated with the educational establishment in a suitable manner that does not adversely affect the amenity of the local residents and adjoining development.

 

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

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Height of Building (Maximum)

Partially within the 30m wide zone subject to a maximum 14m building height

19.5m

No – Refer to Clause 4.6 assessment under Section 2.2.2 of this report.

 

2.2.1  Clause 5.10 Heritage Conservation

There is one building within the UNSW site that makes up part of the Old Tote and Figtree Theatre Heritage Conservation Area (C2 HCA), in accordance with the RLEP 2012.  The subject proposal is not within the vicinity of the C2 HCA and therefore, will not be adversely affected. 

 

2.2.2  Clause 4.6 Request to vary development standard

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

 

Height

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Height

Development Standard

14m

Proposal

19.5m

Excess Above the Standard

5.5m (39.3%)

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

In the Wehbe case, Justice Preston said the most commonly invoked way to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary is to demonstrate that the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard.  The objectives of the height standard are set out in clause 4.3 (1) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Officer’s assessment of the Clause 4.6 exception

 

It is considered that the proposal to install photovoltaic (solar) panels on the proposed roof structure above Level 6A of the Botany Street Parking Station at UNSW meets the objectives of the height of buildings standard and the SP2 Special Infrastructure – Educational Establishment zone.  Strict compliance with the maximum is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case for the following reasons:

 

§  The proposed development responds appropriately to the nature of the site and characteristic topography of the surrounding area along this side of Botany Street and parallel to Oval Lane. 

 

§  The height of the proposed roof structure ranges from 3.9m to 5.5m above Level 6A.  Due to the location of the proposed structure, there will be a negligible amount of additional overshadowing that falls on Kennedy Street at 9:00am and does not additionally impact the neighbours to the south  The proposed roof structure is located on the northern portion of the multi-storey parking station.  Therefore, the overshadowing to the neighbouring properties will be similar to what currently exists, as the additional height of the roof structure falls mainly on Level 6 of the Botany Street Parking Station.  Notwithstanding, the applicant has demonstrated that suitable levels of solar access will be retained to the neighbouring properties and the development itself between the hours of 8am and 4pm during the winter solstice.

 

§  The proposed solar panel structure is contained within the existing floor plate of Level 6A and will not extend past the existing building boundaries. The structure is consistent with the existing envelope and satisfies the relevant RLEP 2012 and RDCP 2013 provisions for height, as well as sustainability and buildings, respectively.

 

§  The setback from the southern boundary greatly exceeds the minimum RDCP 2013 setback controls and the location of the section that exceeds the RLEP 2012 height of buildings control does not adversely impact the residential neighbours’ visual amenity and solar access.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The objectives of the height standard are as follows:

 

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

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

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


 

Assessment:

 

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

 

The proposed photovoltaic (solar) panel structure results in an end development of a size and scale compatible with the existing multi-storey parking station and the desired future character of the locality, in terms of sustainability, as envisaged under Council’s precinct and energy efficiency controls. 

 

The justification provided in the applicant’s written request are considered acceptable in conjunction with the assessment of the proposed structure, including the height variation.  It is to be expected that some resultant variation to the height of the building occurs where a development is located on a sloping site, as well as being constructed on a site that already exceeds the maximum height limit.  The variation sought is limited to only small parts of the development such as the southernmost section of the proposed roof structure on Level 6A of the Botany Street Parking Station.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The analysis contained within the plans of proposal and the SEE indicates the development will not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views.

 

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the height standard.

 

The objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (SP2 Special Infrastructure Educational Establishment) are:

 

•        To provide for infrastructure and related uses.

•        To prevent development that is not compatible with or that may detract from the provision of infrastructure.

•      To facilitate development that will not adversely affect the amenity of nearby and adjoining development.

•      To protect and provide for land used for community purposes.

 

It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives that are relevant because it provides important additional educational infrastructure and is sympathetic to the existing residential environment to the south and built form to the north, east and west and will not have any unacceptable impacts on the amenity of residents.

 

The proposed development is considered to be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the standard and the relevant objectives for development within Zone SP2 Special Infrastructure Educational Establishment.

 

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

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

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

 

Comments:

Pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 18–003 (dated 21 February 2018) the concurrence of the Director- General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed to the granting of development consent to the development that contravenes the development standard for the maximum allowable height of buildings in clause 4.3 of RLEP 2012.

 

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

 

The proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning.  However, strict adherence to the numerical standard will be unnecessary in this case for maintaining the special educational infrastructure forms envisaged under the RLEP 2012 for the site and locality.

 

3.       Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013

 

The RDCP 2013 provisions are structured into two components: objectives and controls.  The objectives provide the framework for assessment under each requirement and outline key outcomes that a development is expected to achieve. The controls contain both numerical standards and qualitative provisions.  Any proposed variations from the controls may be considered only where the applicant successfully demonstrates that an alternative solution could result in a more desirable planning and urban design outcome.

 

The relevant provisions of the RDCP 2013 are addressed below.

 

3.1     Part B3: Ecological Sustainable Development

The relevant objectives of B3 Ecologically Sustainable Development, under Section 3 Energy and Water Efficiency include:

 

§  To promote energy and water efficiency in the design and operation of buildings.

§  To minimize greenhouse gas emissions.

 

The proposed Solar Panels seek to reduce energy consumption; reduce greenhouse gas emissions; save on energy costs; help achieve the University’s aspiration to be a leader in sustainability; and to ensure security in the University’s power supply.  Therefore, the proposal satisfies the aims and objectives of Section 3 of Part B3 of the RDCP 2013.

 

Part B3 Compliance Table

DCP Clause

Control

Proposal

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA/ Conditioned)

3.2

Non-residential development

 

 

 

(ii)   On-site renewable energy systems are to be installed where practical and effectively integrated to complement the overall building design

The proposed solar panel structure will be integrated to complement the existing multi-storey parking station and will to incur minimal visual impact on the surrounding area.

Yes

 


 

3.2     Part E2: Randwick Education and Health Specialised Centre

The relevant objectives of E2 Randwick Education and Health Specialised Centre for Environmental Sustainability include:

 

§  Incorporate sustainable design techniques wherever possible into the design and infrastructure of the public domain,

§  Explore opportunities to showcase sustainable/ experimental options in partnership with UNSW.

 

3.3     Part E2, Section 4: UNSW Kensington

 

4.1.1  Objectives

The aims of Section 4 UNSW Kensington are to provide planning and design objectives and provisions, which will optimise:

 

§  The physical, social, educational and environmental quality of the UNSW Kensington Campus.

§  The role and environmental ‘fit’ of the campus within its Randwick City context and its compatibility with the evolving character of adjoining lands

§  The Campus Experience

 

The proposed solar panels seek to reduce energy consumption; reduce greenhouse gas emissions; save on energy costs; and to help achieve the University’s aspiration to be a leader in sustainability.  Therefore, the proposal satisfies the aims and objectives of Section 4.

 

4.1.3  Key Design Features of Campus 2020

The SEE states that the proposal is consistent with the key design features of the RDCP 2013, consistent with the defined building alignments and setbacks and the promotion of well designed, whilst function, building elements.

 

Refer to the RDCP 2013 Building Envelope objectives and controls within the RDCP 2013 below. 

 

4.2     Campus Design Principles and Provisions

 

This RDCP 2013 is applicable to the subject site by virtue of its location within the UNSW Campus.  The RDCP 2013 contains a range of and campus design principles, performance criteria and provisions designed to shape the campus experience.  The proposal will satisfy the relevant design principles as follows:

 

§  Sustainability

§  Landscape:

§  Buildings

§  Retail and services

§  Transport.

 

4.2.1  Sustainability

The following Section 4.2.1 Sustainability includes the following objectives that are to be adhered to:

§  Ensure that sustainability is a fundamental driver of, and explicit within, all work which shapes the campus, its physical form, activities and functions, particularly planning and design activities.

§  Ensure that sustainability is a fundamental aspect of the objectives and provisions within the other principles which make up the Campus Experience

§  Ensure that the campus is a showcase for sustainability innovation, with interaction between the research and teaching functions of the University and campus capital works design, delivery and management practices

 

The SEE, submitted by Ethos Urban, has provided the following comments regarding the proposal and it’s compliance with the objectives and the relevant energy, pollution control and planning and design controls. 

 

 

Assessor’s Comments:

 

The proposal is consistent with the objectives contained within Part E2, Section 4 UNSW Kensington and Sub-section 4.2.1 Sustainability of the RDCP 2013.  The proposed development incorporates sustainable design techniques into the design and infrastructure, being the Botany Street Parking Station, in the form of a roof containing PV Solar Panels that will provide for the ongoing viability of the UNSW Campus whilst integrating energy efficient development that will service UNSW for the purposes to reduce environmental impacts associated with the educational establishment in a suitable manner that does not adversely affect the amenity of the local residents and adjoining development.

 

The energy efficient development that will service UNSW for the purposes to reduce environmental impacts associated with an educational establishment will establish a positive precedent in the area and explores opportunities to showcase sustainable/ experimental options in partnership with UNSW.  The proposed development will make a positive contribution to the UNSW.

 

4.2.5  Landscape

 

The existing landscaping will suitably buffer and soften the development along the Oval Lane street frontage.

 

4.2.6  Buildings

 

The relevant objective, in terms of sustainability, that relates to the Botany Street Parking Station as a building within the UNSW campus includes:

 

3.       Optimise design quality of buildings through:

§  Alignments, heights and scale which contribute to the overall campus built form and public domain pattern.

§  Heights that:

o    Create campus edge conditions compatible with the desired future adjoining built form

o    Relate to the scale, use and optimal amenity of campus public domain

o    Relate to the desired sense of place for the campus

§  Orientation which facilitates passive solar design

§  Footprints/bulk which relate to their function, internal amenity, efficiency and optimal energy performance

§  “Safety by design” principles

§  Transparent and activated facades, especially on the ground floor, and

§  Visible through routes.

 

As stated within the SEE, the proposal optimises sustainability by taking advantage of an underutilized area above level 6A of the Botany Street Parking Station for PV Panels, whilst balancing consideration of building height and design and its impact on amenity of surrounding land uses.  The design of the proposal is minimalistic and accords with the figures contain the within the RDCP 2013 relating to building height and form.

 


 

Assessor’s Comments:

The proposal, whilst exceeding the RLEP 2012 height of buildings development standard, satisfies the RLEP 2012 and RDCP 2013 building envelope controls.

 

The height of the proposed roof structure ranges from 3.9m to 5.5m above Level 6A of the Botany Street Parking Station. Due to the minor increase in height, there is a negligible amount of additional overshadowing that falls on Kennedy Street at 9:00am and does not additionally impact the neighbours to the south. 

 

The proposed roof structure is located on the northern portion of the multi-storey parking station.  Therefore, the overshadowing to the neighbouring properties will be similar to what currently exists, as the additional height of the roof structure falls mainly on Level 6 of the Botany Street Parking Station. 

 

Notwithstanding, the applicant has demonstrated that suitable levels of solar access will be retained to the neighbouring properties and the development itself between the hours of 8am and 4pm during the winter solstice.

 

The proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives and controls for this section of the RDCP 2013.

Part E2 Compliance Table

DCP Clause

Control

Proposal

Compliance (Yes/No/NA/ Conditioned)

E2

UNSW Kensington

2.9

Sustainable design

 

 

 

Maximise the opportunities for sustainable development, such as renewable energy use, energy saving features and water sensitive urban design through innovative design.

The proposal would provide renewal energy for the building.

Yes

4.1

Building envelope controls

v)

Heights are defined as wall heights allowing for appropriately articulated upper levels and roof forms. Areas above the wall height may include plant and equipment only, which is not to occupy more than 50% of the building footprint.

The maximum height of the proposed roof structure is 19.5m.

Satisfactory, refer to Clause 4.6 assessment under Section 2.2 of this report.

v)

Areas above the wall height may include plant and equipment only, which is not to occupy more than 50% of the building footprint

There will be no additional floor space created and the proposed structure will take up 50% of the Botany Street Parking Station building footprint.

Yes

xii)

Service access to buildings is to be appropriately located in relation to access needs and include required loading docks sited and designed to optimise the aesthetics of ground floor levels and safe and comfortable pedestrian movement.

The Botany Street Parking Station currently exists with the access needs already implemented into the building.

Yes

xiii)

Buildings and structures to house infrastructure, plant and campus services are to be in accordance with any Campus Infrastructure and Services Strategy and located adjacent to but not within gathering and connective spaces, be integrated with other buildings and comply with the design quality provisions of the DCP

The Botany Street Parking Station currently exists and the proposed solar panels will be located on top of the proposed roof structure above Level 6A. 

Satisfactory, the proposed development will be integrated into the existing multi-storey building.

xvi)

All DAs for buildings greater than 15.24m Above Existing Ground Height (AEGH) are to be referred to Sydney Airports Corporation Ltd for approval, as required by the Civil Aviation (Buildings Control) Regulations

The proposal will result in a maximum building height of 19.5m and was referred to Sydney Airport.

Satisfactory, subject to conditions.  Refer to Section 4 Referral of this report.

xvii)

Minimum setbacks of 6m from the street alignment are to be provided for buildings adjoining a residential precinct, to preserve solar access and privacy to residential properties adjoining the campus.

The structure is setback 24.883m and 29.176m.

Satisfactory

xix)

Solar access to living areas and principal landscaped spaces of adjoining residential development is not to be reduced to less than 3 hours per day throughout the year. If 3 hours per day is not currently achieved, new development must not reduce this further.

Due to the minor increase in height by 3.9m to 5.5m, there is a negligible amount of additional overshadowing that falls on Kennedy Street at 9:00am and does not additionally impact the neighbours to the south.

Satisfactory

 

4          Referral Comments

 

SACL received the application and sent it to the Secretary of Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities (the Department) on 24 August 2018 for their notice of determination.  Under Regulation (1AB) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 (the Regulations), the Secretary is required to make a decision within 28 days of receiving the application.  Due to delays from the Department, a decision was not made within the required timeframe and therefore, the DA was originally a deemed refusal.  Notwithstanding, the Secretary received and accepted the required information after the 28 days and in accordance with Regulation 14 of the Regulations, the Secretary approved the controlled activity for the intrusion of solar array structure at 330 Anzac Parade, Kensington (the Site), subject to conditions.

 

Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sydney Airport

 

 


 

 

Recommendation

 

A.      That the Randwick Local Planning Panel 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 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.  The concurrence of the Director of the Department of Planning & Environment may be assumed.

 

B.      That the RLPP grants development consent under Sections 4.16 and 4.17 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/442/2018 for the installation of Photovoltaic (Solar) Panels on the roof of the Botany Street Parking Station at the University of New South Wales at No. 330 Anzac Parade, Kensington, subject to the development consent conditions attached to the report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Dev Consent conditions DA/442/2018- 330 Anzac Parade, Kensington

 

 

 

 


Dev Consent conditions DA/442/2018- 330 Anzac Parade, Kensington

Attachment 1

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Randwick Local Planning Panel    14 March 2019

 

 

Development Application Report No. D7/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                  6 Fraser Street, Randwick (DA/557/2017/B)

 

Folder No:                     DA/557/2017/B

Author:                          Plandev Pty Ltd, Thomas Mithen     

 

 

Proposal:                      Modification of approved development by minor internal alterations including enlarged kitchen to lot 2, relocate laundries to basement to lot 2 and 3, external alterations to reconfigure roof over kitchen of lot 2, new window seat to bedroom of lot 2 at attic level. Original consent: Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling and erection of 2 attached dwellings with Torrens Title subdivision.

Ward:                            North Ward

Applicant:                     Mrs P M Jacobs

Owner:                          Mrs P M Jacobs & Mr V Jacobs

Summary

Recommendation:         Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=9d46fc3e-020e-4e2c-b81f-fd675f558ac7&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan


 

Reason for referral

 

This application is referred to the Randwick Local Planning Panel (RLPP) as the Applicant is related to an employee of Council.

 

Details of Current Approval

 

DA557/2017 was approved on 16 February 2018 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling and erection of two attached dwellings with Torrens Title subdivision.

 

The approved development was modified on 30 August 2018 by amending the wording of Condition 59 requiring a positive covenant and restriction on title in relation to the provision of on-site detention prior to the issue of a subdivision certificate.   

 

Proposal

 

The proposed modification seeks approval for minor internal alterations to the approved dwellings on lots 2 and 3, including:

·      enlarged kitchen for the dwelling on lot 2;

·      relocation of the laundry to the basement for the dwelling on both lots 2 and 3;

·      new windows at the southern elevation and the internal garage wall at the basement level to the dwelling on lot 2;

·      external alterations to reconfigure the roof over the kitchen of the dwelling on lot 2; and

·      new window seat to the attic level bedroom of the dwelling on lot 2.

 

Site Description and Locality

 

The site has dual frontages to Fraser Street to the south (a cul-de-sac) and to St Marks Lane to the north (a no through road). The total site comprises three lots. The existing dwelling is located on lot 1. Two 4 storey attached dwellings have been approved on lots 2 and 3.

 

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

 

1.         Substantially the Same Development

The proposed modifications are not considered to result in a development that will fundamentally alter the originally approved development.

 

2.         Consultation with Other Approval Bodies or Public Authorities:

The development is not integrated development or development where the concurrence of another public authority is required.

 

3.         Notification and Consideration of Submissions:

No notification was required due to the minor nature of the proposal

 


 

Key Issues

 

Floorspace

A maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.9:1 applies to the site under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP 2012). The approved development has an FSR of 0.81:1. The basement includes car parking, plant room and non-habitable foundation space and therefore was excluded from the calculation of gross floor area (GFA) in the originally approved application. The proposed modification includes relocation of the laundries for both dwellings on lots 2 and 3 from ground level to the basement.

 

The proposed basement plan submitted with the modification application retains the ‘foundation space’ and ‘plant room,’ behind the garages. However, the subject space is now conducive for habitable purposes due to the removal of internal walls, resulting in a more accessible space and particularly given the location of the laundry areas and the new window for the dwelling on lot 2. It is therefore recommended the space behind the garages is restricted to non-habitable purposes. A condition to this effect is included in the recommended modified consent.

 

Streetscape

The proposed bedroom window seat at the attic level for the dwelling on lot 2 will be setback 8 m from the boundary to St Marks Lane. The proposed ‘pop-out’ window design will not alter the extent of glazing and there will be no dicernible visual change to the overall design of the building within the streetscape.  

 

Internal Amenity

The proposed replacement of the internal courtyard for the approved dwelling on lot 2 creates a larger open plan kitchen at ground level. The void above will be retained to maintain light penetration to the central part of the dwelling.

 

The relocation of the laundry cupboards to the basement opens the internal connection between the study and living area of both dwellings on lots 2 and 3, providing better cross ventilation and light penetration and amenity for the future occupants.

 

Impacts to adjoining properties

The proposed changes are largely internal and will not result in any significant change to the approved building envelope. There will be no adverse additional impacts in terms of privacy or overshadowing to the adjoining properties, including the existing dwelling retained on lot 1. 

 

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.

 

Standard conditions of consent requiring the continued compliance of the development with the SEPP: BASIX were included in the original determination. The proposed modification does not change the approved BASIX commitments.

 

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

 

The application was not required to be publicly notified.

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 not result in significant adverse environmental impacts upon the amenity and character of the locality.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the RLPP, as the consent authority, grant development consent under Section 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA557/2017 for minor alterations at No. 6 Fraser Street, Randwick in the following manner:

 

·             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, except where amended by Council in red and/or by other conditions of this consent:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Dwg DA-01 Rev B

30 Axis

8 August 2017

Dwg DA-02 Rev B

30 Axis

8 August 2017

Dwg DA-03 Rev B

30 Axis

8 August 2017

Dwg DA-04 Rev B

30 Axis

8 August 2017

Dwg DA-05 Rev C

30 Axis

3 July 2017

Dwg DA-06 Rev B

30 Axis

8 August 2017

Dwg DA-07 Rev C

30 Axis

3 July 2017

Dwg DA-08 Rev C

30 Axis

3 July 2017

Dwg DA-09 Rev C

30 Axis

3 July 2017

Dwg DA-11 Rev B

30 Axis

8 August 2017

Dwg DA-12 Rev B

30 Axis

8 August 2017

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

Multi Dwelling

851317M

5 September 2017

 

EXCEPT where amended by:

·      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

Dwg DA-01 Revision D

30 Axis

15 January 2019

Dwg DA-02 Revision D

30 Axis

15 January 2019

Dwg DA-03 Revision D

30 Axis

15 January 2019

Dwg DA-04 Revision D

30 Axis

15 January 2019

Dwg DA-05 Revision D

30 Axis

15 January 2019

Dwg DA-06 Revision D

30 Axis

15 January 2019

Dwg DA-07 Revision D

30 Axis

15 January 2019

Dwg DA-08 Revision D

30 Axis

15 January 2019

Dwg DA-09 Revision D

30 Axis

15 January 2019

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

Multi Dwelling

851317M

5 September 2017

 

·             New Condition 71 to be added:

71.       The ‘plant room’ and ‘foundation space’ behind the garages at the basement level of the dwellings on lots 2 and 3 shown on Drawing No. DA-02 Revision D dated 15 January 2019, prepared by 30 axis, shall not be adapted or used for any habitable purpose without approval by Council.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Randwick Local Planning Panel    14 March 2019

 

 

Development Application Report No. D8/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                  11 Raglan Street, Malabar (DA/500/2018)

 

Folder No:                     DA/500/2018

Author:                          Alexandra Marks, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

 

Proposal:                      Alterations and additions to existing attached dual occupancy and legitimise unauthorised building works and use

Ward:                            South Ward

Applicant:                     Mr J Spiteri

Owner:                          Mr R D Schumak

Summary

Recommendation:         Approval

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan


 

Executive summary

 

The application is referred to the Randwick Local Planning Panel (RLPP) as the development contravenes the floor space ratio development standard by more than 10%.

 

Council is in receipt of a Development Application (DA) for alterations and additions to an existing attached dual occupancy, as well as to legitimise unauthorised building works at No. 11 and No. 11A Raglan Street, Malabar (the Site).  The site contains a two storey, plus semi-basement level, attached dual occupancy, where the two dwellings are located one on top of the other. 

 

The land is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012) and the existing attached dual occupancy development is permissible.  The property is subject to a maximum building height of 9.5m and a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.5:1.  The sub-floor, which was constructed initially for storage, is proposed to be converted into a rumpus room with previously approved bathroom and laundry.

 

Based on the alterations and additions that are a part of this application (some of which have been constructed and is unauthorised), the Gross Floor Area (GFA) will be increased by an additional 11.16m² (0.02:1) to the existing, approved GFA 269.3m² (0.75:1).  This brings the overall GFA to 0.77:1 (280.46m²), which exceeds the RLEP 2012 development standard by 100.61m² or 0.27:1.  This application proposes a 55.9% variation to the current RLEP 2012 FSR controls for dual occupancies. 

 

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards has been requested to vary a development standard, which has been submitted by the Applicant to justify the FSR exceedance and demonstrate that the strict compliance is unreasonable and unnecessary in this case.  In summary, the exception has been considered with respect to the provisions of Clause 4.6 and is accepted on the grounds that:

 

§  The size and scale of the development remains similar to what currently exists and will not impact upon the existing streetscape or adjoining neighbours considering the works are wholly contained within the existing building envelope and provide compliant setbacks from the building line to the adjoining neighbours to the north-east and south-west.

 

§  The amenity of residents in the vicinity and the broader context of the area will not be adversely impacted by legitimising the unauthorised works.  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.

 

Notwithstanding the departure from the FSR standard under the RLEP 2012, the proposal is generally consistent with the planning controls for this locality and is within keeping with the desired future character of the area.

 

Proposal

 

This DA seeks approval for alterations and additions to an existing attached dual occupancy.  The attached dual occupancy proposes to legitimise unauthorised works as part of this application.  Currently, ‘Dwelling 1’ is two storeys, across the Semi-Basement Level and Ground Floor Level, with ‘Dwelling 2’ on Level 1.  As also stated within the Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE), the proposal includes the following:

 

Semi-Basement Level

§  Use of approved storage area behind the garage as rumpus including associated bar facilities.

§  Reconstruction of the existing staircase.

§  Conversion of the approved rear patio (under the approved first/ ground floor addition) to a bedroom including new rear extension (approximately 1.15m) and window openings on the south-western elevation.

 

Ground Floor Level

§  Addition of a new balcony with glass balustrade to the front of the building.

§  Provision of a new bathroom adjacent to the living area.

§  New extension (approximately 1.15m) to the rear of the approved lounge room.

§  New patio to the rear of the lounge room with direct access to the rear yard area.

 

First Floor

§  Addition of a new balcony with glass balustrade and associated roof on the front façade of the building.

§  Provision of a new WC adjacent to the rear balcony.

§  New extension (approximately 1.15m) to the rear balcony.

 

It is noted that retrospective approval for works already undertaken without consent cannot be granted however, approval maybe granted for the use of those works.

 

Site Description and Locality

 

The site is located on the south-eastern side of Raglan Street and has an approximate north-west to south-east orientation.  The site is generally flat with a slight fall in topography by 830mm from the rear (RL39.11) to the street (RL38.28).  The site has a frontage width of 8.94m and a depth of 40.235m.  The site area is 359.7m², in accordance with the Survey Plan, prepared by Ballenden Surveyors, dated 14 June 2018. 

 

The site contains a two storey, plus semi-basement level, attached dual occupancy.  The configuration is not the common side by side layout nor are they in the configuration where one dwelling is fronting the street and one dwelling is fronting the rear boundary/ lane.  The existing dual occupancy includes one, one storey dwelling above a two storey dwelling.  The common wall is between the ceilling of the Ground level and the floor of Level 1.  This shall be required to be fire rated and Council’s Building Sureyor has assessed the current situation and has requested a a BCA report be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.  Due to the unauthorised works having been carried out within the semi-basement; a 6 month timeframe to submit the documentation for the Construction Certificate is required.

 

The locality is predominantly low density residential development comprising mostly of dual occpancies, single and two storey dwellings, some of which have secondary dwellings.

Photo 1 | No. 11 and No. 11A Raglan Street front façade

Photo 2 | No. 9 – No. 13 Raglan Street (south-western side of Raglan Street)

Photo 2 | No. 13 – No. 19 Raglan Street (south-western side of Raglan Street)

Photo 3 | No. 4 – No. 10 Raglan Street (north-eastern side of Raglan Street)

Photo 4 | No. 10 and No. 12 Raglan Street front façades (north-eastern side of Raglan Street)

 

Photo 5 | No. 14, No. 16 and No. 18 Raglan Street front façades (north-eastern side of Raglan Street)

 

Photo 6 | No. 19 – No. 21 Raglan Street (south-western side of Raglan Street)

Photo 7 | No. 1 – No. 5 Raglan Street (south-western side of Raglan Street)

 

Relevant history

 

DA/91/1992

This application was approved on 28 April 1992 for the construction of a two storey, attached dual occupancy.  The approved GFA was 204.4m², which equates to an FSR of 0.568:1.  This exceeds the FSR control, prescribed for this site at the time of approval, by 0.068:1 (24.55m²). 

 

In addition, the external stairs were approved to the rear of the attached dual occupancy.

 

DA/371/1997

The DA lodged on 14 July 1997 was for minor alterations and addition to the rear of the development, as well as a basement level bathroom and laundry.  An additional 20m² in GFA proposed in this DA ,was approved. 

 

The description, as part of this DA, states Existing on site is an attached two storey dual occupancy development.  The following points demonstrate what alterations and additions were proposed to an existing attached dual occupancy (approved on 28 April 1992):

§  Basement Level – New bathroom, laundry and stairway to the ground floor, associated patio and stairs.

§  Ground Floor – Extension to the dining area to create a lounge room, two walk-in wardrobes and a deck at the rear.

§  First Floor – Deck adjacent to the lounge area and associated stairs.

 

The delegated report for this DA discussed, in detail, that the variation to the development standard is acceptable due to the maximum FSR for dwelling houses being 0.75:1, compared to dual occupancy FSR control of 0.5:1.  As the attached dual occupancy is one dwelling on top of another, the built form looks similar to a two storey, plus basement, dwelling house.

 

This was approved on 23 August 1997.  Various conditions were imposed on the consent to restrict the use of the basement level storage to not be utilised for habitable purposes. 

 

BA/374/1997

The most recent application for 11-11A Raglan Street was approved in 1997 and the building envelope has remained mainly consistent to what was submitted and approved under BA/374/1997.  A minor extension of 1.15m across three levels of the built form has been constructed between 1997 and 2018 without approval.  This report includes a detailed assessment of the unauthorised works from Council’s Assessing officer and Building Surveyor. 

 

In addition, the external stairs were relocated from the rear to the north-eastern side of the site, as part of BA/374/1997, with a 900mm setback to the north-eastern boundary. 

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development between 22 August 2018 and 5 September 2018, in accordance with the RDCP 2013.  The following submission was received as a result of the notification process:

 

§  No. 39 Austral Street, Malabar

 

Issue

Comment

Visual Privacy

Visual privacy concerns from the rear deck located at Level 1.  1.8m high privacy screens are proposed to mitigate privacy concerns to the adjoining neighbour’s, to the north-east and south-west, of the subject property however, the rear of the balcony does not have a privacy screen proposed and may overlook the neighbour’s adjoining the site to the rear.

A 1.8m privacy screen to the rear will cause unnecessary bulk and massing to the building.

The setback from the rear balcony on Level 1 to the rear boundary is 8.9m and complies with the RDCP 2013 8m rear setback control.

The potential privacy impacts are considered to be minor and are considered acceptable.

 

Key Issues

 

Unauthorised works

The subject application seeks approval for unauthorised internal and external works of the semi-basement level, ground floor and first floor.  The works have generally been constructed to the framework stage until the DA was lodged and include the following:

§  The rooms have been reconfigured internally.

§  Two balconies fronting Raglan Street have been constructed, one for each dwelling.

§  An extension to the rear of the development has been built, as per DA/371/1997 however, an additional 1.15m has been added to the length, which is unauthorised.

§  The approved patio (at ground floor) above the semi-basement level has been built, enclosing and converting this area into a bedroom, adding approximately 19.1m² to the current GFA.

§  The rear balcony at the first floor has been constructed over the existing living/ dining areas on the ground floor with an additional 6.2m² extension constructed without Council approval. 

§  This DA is proposing to convert the existing ‘storage’ area within the semi-basement level into a ‘rumpus’ room with the addition of a bar. 

§  The construction of a rear patio is proposed with direct access, via stairs, to the rear yard.  The patio proposes to be constructed as an extension to the ground floor elevated above the Natural Ground Level (NGL) by 1.3m – 1.5m.

 

Semi-basement

The semi-basement level has an existing, approved bathroom and laundry.  The corresponding ‘storage’ area is proposing to be converted into a ‘rumpus’ room with a bar proposed.  External stairs are also proposed to gain direct access to the rear yard.  The Applicant has stated that these stairs are proposed to allow the approved laundry within the semi-basement level to have direct access to the rear yard.

 

In addition, the conversion of the sub-floor under the ground floor patio into a bedroom, within the semi basement level, is proposed however, the bar within the ‘rumpus’ room is not supported and shall be deleted. 

 

A site inspection of the premises was undertaken and has confirmed the extent of the unauthorised works as shown on the most recent plans.  Council’s Building Surveyor has requested various items be satisfied including, but not limited to, the common wall between ‘Dwelling 1’ and ‘Dwelling 2’ shall be fire rated.  Council’s Building Sureyor has assessed the current situation and a BCA report shall be submitted prior to the issue of the CC.  Due to the works having been carried out; a 6 month timeframe to submit the documentation for the CC is imposed.

 

Photo 8 | The existing ground floor patio (internal) that has been extended and enclosed

Photo 9 | The existing ground floor patio (external) that has been extended and enclosed

 

Photo 10 | The existing semi-basement, with an approved laundry and bathroom, that has been converted into an unauthorised bedroom

Photo 11 | The unauthorised enclosed patio converted to a bedroom within the semi-basement level

 

Photo 12 and 13 | External access to semi-basement that has been removed due to unauthorisation

 

Floor Space Ratio

The initial DA for the construction of the attached dual occupancies was subject to a 0.5:1 FSR however, was approved on 28 April 1992 with a 0.568:1 FSR.  In 1997, a DA was lodged for alterations and additions (DA/371/1997), which increased the GFA by an additional 20m² to an FSR of 0.75:1.  The Assessing officer at the time justified the breach in FSR, stating that by having the dual occupancies laid out with one on top of the other, the building would be of a similar form as a two storey dwelling with semi-basement parking.  The additional GFA was considered negligible.  

 

Based on the alterations and additions that are part of this application (some of which have been constructed and are unauthorised), the SEE states that the GFA will be increased by an additional 11.16m² (0.02:1) to the approved GFA.  This brings the overall GFA to 0.77:1 (280.46m²), which exceeds the RLEP 2012 development standard by 100.61m² or 0.27:1.  This application proposes a 55.9% variation to the current RLEP 2012 FSR controls for dual occupancies. 

 

The exceedance of FSR, as part of this DA, is due to the unauthorised extension to the rear of the built form and the conversion of the sub-floor under the ground floor patio to form a bedroom (See Photo 10 and Photo 11 above). 

 

An objection under Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012 has been submitted as part of this DA and is outlined and assessed under Section 2.2.1 Clause 4.6 Request to vary development standard of this report.  The non-compliance, with the FSR control, in this case is considered to be acceptable for the following reasons:

 

1.       The proposal is predominantly within the currently approved building envelope, apart from a minor 1.15m in length at the rear, and will not significantly increase the bulk or scale of the development.

2.       The proposal will not adversely impact upon the amenity of the surrounding neighbour’s in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy or overshadowing.

 

Council accepts that the alterations and additions are not unreasonable or unnecessary in terms of FSR, as the physical form and appearance of the existing development are not significantly altered from that approved and the objectives of the standard and the zone in which the site sits are satisfied.

 

Semi-Basement Level

 

The original application included the storage area within the semi-basement as GFA because of the encroachment of the semi-basement level above the Natural Ground Level (NGL).  The inclusion of the bedroom, as GFA, within the semi-basement level, increases the overall GFA however, the additional bulk is limited to a 1.15m extension to the rear. The applicant’s Clause 4.6 exception to the development standard is considered to be acceptable for the following reasons:

 

1.       The proposal is largely within the currently approved building envelope and will not significantly increase the bulk and scale of the development as viewed within the streetscape.

2.       The additional GFA will not significantly alter the physical form and appearance of the approved development.

3.       The proposal will not result in any adverse impacts upon the amenity of the surrounding neighbour’s in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing or views.

4.       The development will not be reducing the amenity on the site, as the proposal does not alter the parking requirements which will remain the same as approved in the original DA. 

 

The development will maintain the desirable attributes of the established residential area and will not unreasonably compromise the amenity of existing residents.  As such, it cannot be argued that this development will be substantially out of keeping with the established character of the locality and for the above reasons, will continue to satisfy the relevant objectives of the control

 

 


 

External Staircase to ‘Dwelling 2’

 

Setback – North-Eastern Side Setback

 

External stairs to the north-east of the built form were approved as part of the BA/374/1997, as shown in Figure 1.  These have since been removed due to dilapidation and a new set of external stairs, are proposed as part of this application. Refer to Photo 14 below for the existing side setback situation along the north-eastern boundary.

 

Figure 1 | BA/3741997 approved Basement Level, which shows the external stairs and the dimensions, including the setbacks

 

In accordance with Part C1, Section 3.3.2 Side Setbacks within the RDCP 2013, the minimum side setback controls for dwelling houses and dual occupancies with a frontage width of less than 9m is 900mm across all levels.  The subject property has a width of 8.94m. 

 

The proposed external stairs are setback 300mm from the side boundary and encroach the minimum 900mm side setback control in the RDCP. A condition is included to reduce the width of the staircase to the minimum to allow for a further 400mm side setback, totalling 700mm setback form the north-eastern boundary.

 

Notwithstanding the continued non-compliant side setback, this is considered acceptable as there is a 1.8m side fence above a retaining wall along the north-eastern boundary, the reduced stair width improves visual amenity, the stairs are a transient functional use that previously existed and do not lend themselves to being used for long periods of time. As a result of the conditions, the proposal does not result in any significant adverse impacts the residential neighbour’s visual amenity and acoustic privacy impacts.

 

Photo 14 | Existing north-eastern side boundary

 

Amenity

The amenity of the bedroom within the semi-basement level is a relevant matter for consideration. Converting the non-habitable semi-basement space to a habitable bedroom means that daylight access and natural ventilation needs to be considered and assessed.  With regards to daylight access, there are currently two windows along the south-western lower ground level and another two windows along the south-western façade at the lower ground level which will ensure sufficient daylight access.

 

The floor-to-ceiling heights of the semi-basement level are a minimum of 2.4m and complies with the BCA minimum floor-to-ceiling heights.  It is noted that a BCA Report is required to be submitted prior to the issue of the CC.

 

The proposed first floor balcony of ‘Dwelling 2’ is located above the lower ground, enclosed patio of ‘Dwelling 1’and will receive at least three hours of solar access on 21 June.  The landscaped rear yard will remain as existing and will be allocated to ‘Dwelling 1’.  This area receives a minimum of three hours of solar access on 21 June. 

 

Visual and Acoustic Privacy

 

Windows

It is not expected that the proposed development will result in any unreasonable adverse privacy impacts to the neighbouring properties.  The window openings along the side boundaries are considered to be appropriately setback from the neighbouring properties. 

 

There are no new window openings proposed and therefore, the existing situation is being retained and is acceptable as they are either offset from adjoining window openings or are highlight windows with minimum sill heights of 1.6m minimising overlooking impacts.  

 

Balcony

Both dwellings have private open space directly off the main living areas, which will meet the RDCP 2013 controls.

 

The location of the first floor balcony allocated to ‘Dwelling 2’ is located facing the rear of the subject site and is setback 12.8m from the rear boundary.  The proposed ground floor patio is located 1.3m above the NGL however, complies with the setback controls by providing an 8.9m setback to the rear.  All side setbacks comply.  Notwithstanding, the side boundaries of the ground floor patio proposed privacy screens to a height of 1.8m.  The proposed rear balcony areas will not cause additional visual or acoustic privacy concerns. 

 

The balconies that have been illegally built on the front façade, face Raglan Street and are forward of the neighbouring building lines.  Therefore, there will be no significant visual and acoustic privacy impacts as a result of these balconies. 

 

In conclusion, the development will satisfy the objectives of the RDCP 2013 control for visual and acoustic privacy.

 

Solar Access and Overshadowing

The alterations and additions are predominantly internal and therefore, will not create significant overshadowing to the adjoining neighbour’s.  The overshadowing will not be significantly increased as the built form exists on the site and there is only a 1.15m addition at the rear that has already been built and as part of this DA, is requesting a retrospective approval.  Notwithstanding, the additional overshadowing caused by the proposal has been demonstrated through shadow diagrams and it is evident that there will be no unreasonable overshadowing to the neighbour.

 

Refer to the Clause 4.6 section within this report that discusses the minor additional overshadowing as a result of the alterations and additions to the rear of the subject property.

 

View Sharing

There is no significant view loss issues in relation to this application.  The unauthorised balconies to the front of the dwellings are constructed with glass balustrades, which minimise the potential for view loss.  Therefore, the works are considered to be minimal and satisfy the objectives of view sharing. 

 

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 existing attached dual occupancy and legitimise unauthorised building works and use 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 RLEP 2012 and the relevant requirements of the RDCP 2013.

§  The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone in that the proposed activity and built form will provide for the housing needs of the community, whilst enhancing the aesthetic character and protecting the amenity of the local residents.

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

§  The proposal is consistent with the objectives contained within the State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

§  The scale and design of the proposal is considered to be suitable for the location and the irregularity of the Site.  The proposal is compatible with the desired future character of the locality.

§  The impacts are acceptable given the orientation of the site.

§  The proposed works are mostly contained within the envelope of the existing building.

§  External works do not add any significant bulk and massing that isn’t currently approved. 

 


 

Detailed Assessment

1.       Section 4.15 matters for consideration

 

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

 

Section 4.15 ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

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

See below.

 

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

Nil.

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

The proposal generally satisfies the objectives and controls of the RDCP 2013.  See table below.

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

The issues raised in the submission has 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)

 

SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

A satisfactory BASIX Certificate (Certificate No. A324489) 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 BASIX certificate.


 

2.2     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012)

The Site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012) and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent.  The relevant objectives of the R2 zone include:

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

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

§  To protect the amenity of residents.

§  To encourage housing affordability.

 

The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will provide for the housing needs of the community, whilst contributing to the aesthetic character and conditions have been included to further protect the amenity of the local residents.  It will maintain a low density residential form on the Site.  The proposal includes alterations and additions to an existing attached dual occupancy, where ‘Dwelling 1’ is below ‘Dwelling 2’ on the site.  Legitimising unauthorised works is also proposed as part of the DA.  

 

The alterations and additions are predominantly internal however, the two balconies and the roof extension of the subject property was illegally constructed and is a dominant front façade of Raglan Street.  Refer to the Photo 15 below.  Notwithstanding, Raglan Street does not have a consistent streetscape, as demonstrated in detail within the Site Description and Locality section of this report.   

 

Photo 15 | The unauthorised works to the front façade of the subject property viewed from Raglan Street, looking south-east

 

The topography, local context and building character of the subject property has been considered and as a result, the alterations and additions contribute to the desired future character of the area.  This has been demonstrated, in detail, throughout this report.  There are no further changes to the already built front façade however, a schedule of external materials and colours shall be submitted prior to the CC.

 

The amenity impacts have been reviewed and discussed within this report, and within the RDCP 2013 table below.  After review of the site plan and previous DA’s approved on the site, the adjoining neighbour to the north-east will not have significant additional visual amenity and acoustic impacts, with particular consideration given to the external staircase as part of this proposal.  To mitigate visual amenity and acoustic privacy measures, conditions are included as part of this application to ensure the amenity of the residents is protected.  Refer to the Key Issues section of this report. 

 

In relation to the conversion of the storage room within the semi-basement level to a ‘rumpus’ room, appropriate measures have been implemented to ensure compliance with Council’s controls.  This includes deleting the proposed bar within the semi-basement level, restricting a potential additional dwelling within the semi-basement level.  The amenity of the proposed bedroom within the semi-basement level has been assessed throughout this report and as a result, the Applicant is required to submit BCA report prior to the issue of a CC.  Refer to Key Issues section above for amenity impacts. 

 

In summary, the proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the alterations and additions enhance the aesthetic character and protects the amenity of the local residents.

 

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

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

0.5:1

0.77:1

No – Refer to Clause 4.6 within this report

Height of Building (Maximum)

9.5m

<9.5m

Yes

 

2.2.1  Clause 4.6 Request to vary development standard

The total site area is 359.7m².  The built form already exists on the site and the alterations and additions are proposed within the existing building envelope.  A portion of the works that have been completed are unauthorised.  A Building Certificate BC/18/2018 is currently under assessment for these works.  This is considered acceptable to a degree however, there are conditions that have been included to restrict the use of proposed habitable space within the semi-basement level

 

The proposal contravenes the maximum FSR development standard contained in Clause 4.4 of RLEP 2012.  The following table has been extracted from the Applicant’s SEE, which details the previous approvals and the corresponding FSR calculations:

In addition to the table, please note that the percentage of variation has been calculated as 55.9%.

 

Clause 4.6 provides a mechanism for development consent to be granted where a development contravenes a development standard.  The Clause stipulates that the consent authority must consider and be satisfied that a written request from the applicant justifies the contravention by demonstrating that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case and that there are sufficient environmental grounds to justify the contravention.  Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that the development will be in the public interest, demonstrating that it is consistent with the objectives of the standard and the zone.

 

In accordance with the requirements of Clause 4.6, the applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the standard.  The request been considered against the requirements of Clause 4.6 of the RLEP 2012, as detailed below. 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

(a)     The consent authority I 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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

Officer’s assessment of the Clause 4.6 exception

It is considered that the proposal to legitimise unauthorised works, in addition to what is proposed in this DA, meets the objectives of the FSR standard and the R2 Low Density Residential zone.  Strict compliance with the maximum is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case for the following reasons:

 

§  The proposed development responds appropriately to the nature of the site and characteristic topography of the surrounding area.  The proposal is compatible with the desired future character of the locality.

§  The proposal is within the currently approved building envelope and will not significantly increase the bulk or scale of the development.

§  The application requests to vary the FSR by 0.02:1 to what was previously approved.  The building will maintain a similar form as a two storey dwelling with semi-basement parking and the exceedance of FSR is located within the existing building envelope.  Therefore, there will be a negligible amount of additional floor space as part of this DA. 

§  The amendments include legitimising the 1.15m portion to the rear that has already been constructed.  This section of the development is requesting a retrospective approval of the use of works constructed without approval.  Approval for only the use for those works may be granted.  Notwithstanding, the alterations and additions will not significantly modify the approved building envelope.

§  The additional overshadowing as a result of the unauthorised works falls to the rear of the site and on the adjoining neighbour’s however, due to the minor increase is length of the building by 1.15m on each level, the additional overshadowing is negligible.  The overshadowing to the neighbouring properties will be similar to what currently exists:

o    On 21 June and at 8:00am, (No. 5 – No. 9 Raglan Street are overshadowed. 

o    At 12 noon, the shadows falls on the rear of No. 9 Raglan Street.

o    At 4:00pm, No. 13 Raglan Street and the rear yard of No. 4 McGowan Avenue, are impacted. 

 

Notwithstanding, the applicant has demonstrated that compliant levels of solar access will be retained to the neighbouring properties and the development itself between the hours of 8:00am and 4:00pm during the winter solstice.

§  The setback to the southern (rear) boundary greatly exceeds the minimum RDCP 2013 setback controls and therefore, the additional 1.15m that was illegally built, is located 12.8m from the rear boundary.  The proposed rear patio extends 3.8m from the existing rear building line and is 8.9m from the rear boundary, which is compliant with the setback controls under the RDCP 2013. 

§  The proposed development is suitably located from the neighbouring properties will not result in any significant adverse visual bulk and amenity, privacy or view impacts on the neighbouring properties.

 

Council accepts that the alterations and additions are not unreasonable or unnecessary in terms of FSR, as the majority of the building envelope has been approved previously.  The alterations and additions are predominantly proposed internally and will not contribute to the overall bulk and scale of the building.  Overall, the applicant’s written request has successfully demonstrated that compliance with the development standard in question is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

As discussed in the table below, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the R2 zone and is therefore, in the public interest.

 

Objective

Assessment of Proposal

R2 Low Density Residential

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

§  The proposal includes alterations and additions to two dwellings in the form of an attached dual occupancy. This relationship is becoming more common in Sydney.

§  The proposal will encourage housing affordability through the two dwellings within the existing envelope.

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

§  The existing built form is very articulated, both in form and material selection and will remain as existing externally with elements being upgraded and/ or retained, with minor internal alterations and additions.

§  The surrounding area comprises established dwellings and is therefore, not considered to be a precinct undergoing transition

§ To protect the amenity of residents.

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

§  The proposal has been designed, and conditioned where appropriate, to protect the amenity of residents.

§  The proposal is broken up into two separate elements and proposes two separate access points; one for each dwelling.  This spreading of the element assists in reducing any adverse impact on amenity when compared to a single large development, while not altering the bulk and scale of the Site.

§ To encourage housing affordability

§  The proposal will provide for the housing needs of the community.

§  The proposal will encourage housing affordability through the two dwellings within the existing envelope.

 

In this situation, strict compliance to the standard should be waived as the objectives of the RLEP 2012 are being complied with.  The proposed development and variation from the control does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning.

 

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

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

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

 

Comments:

Pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under Clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 18–003 (dated 21 February 2018) the concurrence of the Director- General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed to the granting of development consent to the development that contravenes the development standard for the maximum allowable FSR in Clause 4.4 of RLEP 2012.

 

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

 

The proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning.  However, strict adherence to the numerical standard will be unnecessary in this case, for maintaining the low density residential forms envisaged under the RLEP 2012 for the site and locality.

 

Conclusion:

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 2012 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 proposal does not significantly alter the bulk and scale of the built form and Raglan Street does not have a consistent streetscape.  Therefore, it is considered acceptable and will maintain compatibility with the desired future character of the locality.  The proposal will not result in adverse amenity impacts to adjoining properties.

§  The proposal is in accordance with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone as the development will provide for the housing needs of the community, recognises the desirable elements and eclectic nature and inconsistency of the existing streetscape and built forms.  There will not be a significant increase in bulk and massing, which will protect the amenity of residents and encourage housing affordability.

 

3.        Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013

 

The RDCP 2013 provisions are structured into two components: objectives and controls.  The objectives provide the framework for assessment under each requirement and outline key outcomes that a development is expected to achieve.  The controls contain both numerical standards and qualitative provisions.  Any proposed variations from the controls may be considered only where the applicant successfully demonstrates that an alternative solution could result in a more desirable planning and urban design outcome.

 

The relevant provisions of the RDCP 2013 are addressed in the tables below. (Note: a number of control provisions that are not related to the proposal have been deliberately omitted.)

 

4.1     Section C1: Low Density Residential

 

DCP Clause

Controls

Proposal

Compliance

 

Classification

Zoning = R2 Low Density Residential

Complies

2

Site planning

2.1

Minimum lot size and frontage

 

Minimum lot size (RLEP):

·   R2 = 400sqm

·   R3 = 325sqm

Site area = 359.7m²

Yes

 

Minimum frontage