BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Randwick Local Planning Panel

Meeting

 

 

 

Thursday 11 April 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            11 April 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, 11 April 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

D9/19          54-56 Meeks Street, Kingsford (DA/807/2017).............................................................. 1

D10/19         327 Clovelly Road, Clovelly (DA/413/2018)................................................................. 69

D11/19         149 - 155 Malabar Road, South Coogee (DA/502/2017/A).......................................... 107

D12/19         46 Adina Avenue, La Perouse (DA/622/2018)............................................................ 133

D13/19         43 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra (DA/737/2018)........................................................... 169

D14/19         29 Dolphin Street, Randwick (DA/720/2012/B)........................................................... 223

Miscellaneous Reports

Nil

 

 

 

 

Kerry Kyriacou

Director City Planning


Randwick Local Planning Panel            11 April 2019

 

 

Development Application Report No. D9/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      54-56 Meeks Street, Kingsford (DA/807/2017)

 

Folder No:                      DA/807/2017

Author:                          Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

 

Proposal:                       Alterations and additions to the existing part 2 and part 3 storey residential flat building to allow an additional 4 dwellings at the second floor, 2 additional at-grade car parking spaces, new vehicular entrance off the laneway, new bicycle parking and communal open space with BBQ.

Ward:                             West Ward

Applicant:                      Sgammotta Architects

Owner:                           Benjano Three Pty Ltd

Cost of works:                $439,171

Reason for referral:        The original development was determined by the Panel on 11 October 2018.

Recommendation

That the RLPP refuse consent under Section 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 807/2017 for alterations and additions to the existing part 2 and part 3 storey residential flat building to allow an additional 4 dwellings at the second floor, 2 additional at-grade car parking spaces, new vehicular entrance off the laneway, new bicycle parking and communal open space with BBQ (variation to height and floor space ratio controls), at No. 54-56 Meeks Street, Kingsford NSW 2032, for the following reasons:

 

1.       The proposal is not consistent with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone pursuant to the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, in that the development will not contribute to the desired future character of the area and has not adequately demonstrated that it will protect the amenity of residents.

 

2.       Adequate regard has not been given to the design quality principles as part of the State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development.

 

3.       Car parking does not comply with minimum car parking requirements specified by the State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development and the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013. The proposed entry and exit into at grade parking spaces compromises the safety of entry and exit for users of the Council Reserve opposite. The location of boulders on the verge opposite compromises the safety of vehicles exiting the at grade parking space.

 

4.       Communal open space and storage do not comply with the design criteria, objectives and design guidance as part of the Apartment Design Guide, which will result in poor residential amenity.

 

5.       The variation request pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 relating to non-compliance with Clause 4.3 height of buildings is not supported as the proposed development is not in accordance with the relevant objectives of the height of buildings development standard and the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

 

6.       The variation request pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 relating to non-compliance with Clause 4.4 floor space ratio is not supported as the proposed development is not in accordance with the relevant objectives of the floor space ratio development standard and the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

 

7.       The proposed development does not comply with controls contained in the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 with regards to provision of car parking and bicycle parking, landscaped open space, design requirements for communal open space, external wall height, maximum permitted wall lengths and provision of sun shading devices.

 

8.       The proposed development will result in adverse visual amenity impacts to surrounding properties.

 

9.       The proposed development will result in additional overshadowing of eastern and western adjoining properties as a result of the non-compliant building height and floor space ratio.

 

10.     The proposed development will set an undesirable precedent within the streetscape that is inconsistent with the desired future character of the locality.

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

1.      Executive summary

 

The Section 8.2 review application is referred to the Randwick Local Planning Panel (RLPP) as the original application was refused by the RLPP on 11 October 2018. The subject application seeks a review of the original determination based on amended plans. The amended application continues to contravene the 9.5m maximum height standard in the Randwick LEP by more than 10%.

 

The amendments to the application include replacing one of the proposed four additional units at the third storey being a 2 bedroom unit (unit 9) with a one bedroom unit reducing the floor area by around 20sqm, replace the 4 car spaces at the rear with two car parking spaces fronting Centre Lane, adding an upgraded area of communal open space with seating and BBQ facilities at the rear adjacent to the proposed 2 parking spaces, add new bicycle spaces adjacent to the eastern entrance and basement although no basement details are provided with the review application.

 

The review application was notified in accordance with Part A of the Randwick DCP and two submissions were received raising concerns with the excessive height, floor area, shortfall in parking creating additional traffic and demand for on-street parking and adverse impacts associated with the proposed development.

 

The review application continues the contravention of the height of buildings development standard (9.5m maximum) under Clause 4.3 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP) by 47.05% (measured to the underside of the basement level, or 18.63% if measured to the interpolated ground levels adjacent to the building. The proposal also contravenes the floor space ratio (FSR) development standard (0.75:1 maximum) under Clause 4.4 of the RLEP however it does so by a lesser amount being 8% (0.81:1) over the standard as opposed to the originally calculated contravention of 10.28% (0.827:1) accounting for a 20.1sqm reduction of floor area at the third storey at the rear.

 

Two requests under Clause 4.6 for exceptions to development standards have been submitted by the applicant as part of the review application. The Clause 4.6 requests are not acceptable as the proposal is not in accordance with key objectives of the Height of Buildings (HOB) and Floor Space Ratio (FSR) development standards, and nor does the proposal satisfy key objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone. The key issues are that the proposed bulk, scale and increased intensity on site will be inconsistent with the desired future character of the area and will result in additional adverse impacts upon residential amenity of neighbouring properties having regard to visual bulk, overshadowing, privacy impacts, increased demand for parking in the area and reducing safety for pedestrians accessing the playground on the opposite side of Centre Lane.

 

The review application is recommended for refusal for the reasons outlined in the body of this report.

 

2.      Site Description and Locality

 

The subject site is identified as 54-56 Meeks Street, Kingsford and is legally described as Lot 2 and Lot 3 in DP 182986, and Lot 2 DP 129559. The site is 1398m2, is regular in shape and has a 10.06m frontage to Meeks Street to the south (the principal frontage) and 10.06m frontage to Centre Lane to the north. The site rises approximately 2.5m from Meeks Street to Centre Lane.

 

The site comprises an existing part 2 (rear) and part 3 (front) storey residential flat building containing 8 dwellings with basement parking for 14 vehicles (including 2 visitor spaces), a garbage room, a storage room with bicycle racks, plant rooms and 2 internal staircases granting common access to the levels above. The site is not a heritage item, not within a heritage conservation area and nor are heritage items located within the vicinity of the subject site.

 

The adjoining property to the east is a 4 storey residential flat building located at 58 Meeks Street built circa 1960’s, and the adjoining property to the west is a 2 storey residential flat building in 2 built forms located at 52 Meeks Street. The locality comprises a mixture of older-style residential flat buildings to the east and to the south on the opposite side of Meeks Street, and 2 storey single dwellings to the west. The area contains 4 storey buildings however these are of older housing stock. The area is considered to be a transitioning precinct as part of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone subject to a density of 0.75:1 and a 9.5m maximum height standard in the RLEP as are the surrounding properties.

 

Figure 1. Subject site (left) and adjacent 4 storey RFB 58 Meeks Street (right).

 

3.      Relevant history

 

·           DA/180/2004 - Existing part 2, part 3 storey RFB comprising 8 apartments with basement parking provided off Meeks Street to the south.

Approved via delegated authority on 20 August 2004.

 

·           DA/464/2004 – Strata subdivision of the multi-unit housing development into 8 lots.

Approved via delegated authority on 9 September 2004.

 

·           DA/180/2004/A - Section 96 modification to amend Conditions 1, 5, 8 & 59, involving an addition of a second floor to dwellings 6 & 7 within the roof space including dormer windows & provision of internal stairwells to the second floor. Delete an external set of stairs, amend a typing error in Condition 5 and the fence height referred to in Condition 8 & road construction requirements for centre lane in Condition 59.

Approved via delegated authority on 2 May 2005.

 

·           DA/180/2004/B - Section 96 modification of approved development including alteration to external finishes, internal alterations, relocation of on-site detention tank to outside building, alteration to roof and guttering, addition of louvred opening to garbage room and store room, alteration to dividing walls and relocation of carpark exhaust.

Approved via delegated authority on 8 March 2010.

 

·           DA/560/2016 – Strata subdivision of the existing RFB into 8 lots.

Approved via delegated authority on 7 October 2016.

 

4.      Proposal

 

The proposal seeks under S8.2 of the Act the review of the refused development for alterations and additions to the existing part 2 and part 3 storey residential flat building including a new upper level addition to accommodate 4 new dwellings, 4 additional at-grade car parking spaces fronting Centre Lane, new vehicular entrance off the laneway, landscaping and associated site works.

 

The S8.2 review contains the following amendments:

 

·      Reduction of floor area by 20sqm by convertnig the rear dwelling (unit 9) from a 2 bedroom dwelling into a one bedroom dwellnig;

·      Adding two at grade car spaces at the rear fronting Centre Lane instead of the 4 at grade car parking spaces refused as part of the orgiinal determination;and

·      Adding 66sqm of communal open space adjacent to the proposed 2 at-grade parking spaces.

 

Specific works inclusive of the proposed s8.2 amendments include:

 

Ground Floor

·      New vehicular access and gate off Centre Lane (to the north) and provision of 2 additional on-site car parking spaces (within a part of the existing communal open space area of the site).

·      Upgraded communal open space adjacent to the proposed parking spaces with bbq, seating and landscaping

·      Privacy screens along the ground level courtyards of existing ground level dwellings at the rear and the western side boundary

 

First Floor

·      Remove central staircases to units 6 and 7 and replace with storage. The staircases access two attic bedrooms and a bathroom for each of these units at the second floor. Removal of the staircases will result in units 6 and 7 being entirely contained at the first floor and becoming 3 bedrooms units (currently 5 bedroom units).

 

Second Floor

·      Demolition of the existing attic second floor bedrooms and bathrooms for units 6 and 7 and demolition of the roof.

·      An extension of the second floor to accommodate 3 new 1 bedroom dwellings and 1 new 2 bedroom dwelling (resulting in 4 additional dwellings with 12 dwellings in total). Note: The S8.2A review amends the proposal by converting the rear Centre Lane facing unit (9) from originally proposed 2 bedroom unit into a one bedroom unit.

 

5.      Notification

 

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

 

·      4/58 Meeks Street

·      2/52 Meeks Street

 

Issue

Comment

Privacy impact

The proposed development will result in additional privacy impacts associated with the placement of windows and balconies.

 

 

 

Adverse visual impacts

The proposed encroachment above the RLEP standards for Height of Buildings (HOB) and Floor Space Ratio (FSR) will result in additional adverse impacts

 

Additional shadowing to open space areas of neighbouring properties

Acknowledged

 

Additional demand for on-street parking

Acknowledged

Unsafe location for parking directly adjacent to a playground opposite side of Centre Lane.

Acknowledged

Inconsistent with the bulk and scale of buildings west of the site.

Acknowledged

 

6.      Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

6.1.    Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

 

Section 8.2 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, enables an applicant to request a Review of a Determination of a Development Application or condition/s of Development Consent.  Council may accept amendments to the original development proposal if the proposed amendments result in substantially the same development as that originally described in the development application. Council may review the Determination, and as a consequence of the review, may confirm or change the Determination.

 

Whilst it is satisfied that the amended development is substantially the same development. The amended development continues the contravention of the development standards (i.e. building height and floor space ratio with insufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the non-compliance with the development standards, and will result in adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining residential properties.

 

6.2.    SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (ARSEPP)

 

The devlepoment has received approval for strata subdivision and theerefore not subjecct to the ARSEPP.

 


 

6.3.    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). Council’s Landscape Officer has assessed the proposal and advises no objection to the proposed landscaping within the site. It is noted however, that as a result of the proposed parking and reconfiguration of the western side of the site from a pedestrian pathway into an area of communal open space, this results in the loss of gardens along the western side adjoining the courtyards of ground level dwellings. The overall landscaped area will be reduced as a result of the proposed development and considered to be a negative outcome.

 

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 alterations and additions of a three storey residential flat building which contains more than four dwellings. The original proposal was considered by Council’s Design Review Panel and the original assessment addressed the Panel comments stating that the proposed development does not satisfy the design quality principles. In short, it is my view that the proposed development does not satisfy the principles of design quality having regard to the density of the site, the context of the desired future neighbourhood character, has an excessive density which results in adverse visual impacts and overshadowing and does not provide sufficient amenity to the future occupants of the units or for the development as a whole by virtue of the usable area communal open space area being reduced, being short of the minimum 25% required and required to service a larger number of occupants.

 

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. It is noted that Clause 30 of SEPP 65 states that if in the opinion of the consent authority, the development does not demonstrate that adequate regard has been given to the design quality principles and the objectives specified in the Apartment Design guide for the relevant design criteria it constitutes grounds for refusal.

 

The review application is assessed in the table below and variations are discussed in the table below or the Key Issues section of this report.

 


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).

 

The original application provided 61sqm of communal open space along the western side over an existing side passageway. The usability of this western side passageway as communal open space requires additional external privacy screens installed along the courtyards of two ground level dwellings. See Figures below showing the existing layout and proposed layout.

 

Notwithstanding, the review application retains 66sqm of usable communal open space at the rear adjacent to the two car parking spaces. This communal open space is upgraded with BBQ and seating facilities.

 

The review application provides a total of 127sqm of communal open space amounting to 9.1% of the site area.

 

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 – see comments at left and those within the clause 4.6 assessment.

Existing layout

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proposed layout:

 

Deep Soil Zones

Deep soil zones are to meet the following minimum requirements:

Site Area

Minimum Dimension

Deep Soil Zone (% of site area)

650m2 – 1,500m2

3m

7% (55.76m2)

 

No change to the 31% permeable treatment provided as the proposed two car parking spaces are permeable.

 

 

 

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

 

New habitable rooms and balconies as part of the proposed second floor are setback a minimum of 4.92m from the western side boundary and 5.5m from the middle two units to the eastern side.

 

East facing living room windows associated with units 9, 10 & 11 will have a line of sight to the windows opposite at No. 58 Meeks Street.

 

Adverse visual privacy impacts can be ameliorated by requiring additional privacy treatment to the windows however this may reduce the amenity to the new units.

 

Does not comply – refer to comments at left.

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 shadowing diagrams, all units’ habitable room windows will receive solar access in mid-winter. However, the balconies to the two southern units closest to Meeks Street will not receive two hours of solar access between 9am and 3pm at mid-winter.

 

Partial compliance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

All apartments (100%) are naturally cross ventilated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Bedrooms have minimum dimensions slightly less than 3m in one direction however they are offset by larger than 3m minimum dimensions in other directions and provide for a minimum area of 9sqm for each unit.

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

Partial compliance

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 with combine 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NA.

 

 

 

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.

 

Storage is provided for each unit as part of the basement carpark, however new units are not provided with compliant storage space.

.

 

Does not comply, the expectation is that the storage should comply given the units sizes meet the minimum.

 

6.4.    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

 

The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible with consent.

 

The proposal is inconsistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will present excessive bulk and scale when viewed from surrounding properties and the be inconsistent with the desired streetscape character envisaged by the standards and the zone.

 

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

 

Clause

Development Standard

Proposal

Compliance

(Yes/No)

Cl 4.4: Floor space ratio (max)

0.75:1

0.81:1

No, See Sections 7 and 7.1

Cl 4.3: Building height (max)

9.5m

13.97m measured from highest ridge in middle (RL59.97) to underside of basement level (RL46.00).

11.27m measured from front roof ridge (RL59.43) to adjacent interpolated land level (RL48.16).

No, see Sections 7 and 7.2

 

7.      Clause 4.6 exception to a development standard

 

The proposal seeks to vary the following development standards contained within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012):

 

Clause

Development Standard

Proposal

 

Proposed variation

 

Proposed variation

(%)

Clause 4.4:

Floor space ratio (max)

0.75:1

0.81:1

87.53 m2

6.26%

Clause 4.3:

Building height (max)

9.5m

·      13.97m to the underside of the basement slab

·      11.27m to interpolated adjacent ground level

4.47m

 

 

 

 

 

1.77m

47.05%

 

 

 

 

 

18.6%

 

 

 

 

 

Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012: Exception to a Development Standard relevantly states:

 

3.   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.

 

4.   Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

(a)  the consent authority is satisfied that:

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

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

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

 

In Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118, Preston CJ summarised the matters in Clause 4.6 (4) that must be addressed before consent can be granted to a development that contravenes a development standard. 

 

1.    The applicant’s written request has adequately demonstrated that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case

 

Chief Justice Preston in Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118 reinforces his previous decision In Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827 where he identified five commonly invoked ways of establishing that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. The most common is to demonstrate that the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard.

 

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

 

Chief Justice Preston in Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118 reinforces the previous decision in Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90 regarding how to determine whether ‘the applicant’s written request has adequately demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard’.

 

The grounds relied on by the applicant in their written request must be “environmental planning grounds” by their nature. Chief Justice Preston at [23] notes the adjectival phrase “environmental planning” is not defined, but would refer to grounds that relate to the subject matter, scope and purpose of the EPA Act, including the objects in s1.3 of the EPA Act.

 

Chief Justice Preston at [24] notes that there are two respects in which the written request needs to be “sufficient”.

 

1.       The written request must focus on the aspect or element of the development that contravenes the development standard, not the development as a whole (i.e. The written request must justify the contravention of the development standard, not simply promote the benefits of carrying out the development as a whole); and

 

2.       The written request must demonstrate that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. In Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90 at [31] Judge Pain confirmed that the term ‘sufficient’ did not suggest a low bar, rather on the contrary, the written report must address sufficient environmental planning grounds to satisfy the consent authority.

 

3.    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.

 

Chief Justice Preston in Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118 at [27] notes that the matter in cl 4.6(4)(a)(ii), with which the consent authority must be satisfied, is not merely that the proposed development will be in the public interest but that it will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the development standard and the objectives for development of the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.

 

It is the proposed development’s consistency with the objectives of the development standard and the objectives of the zone that make the proposed development in the public interest.

 

If the proposed development is inconsistent with either the objectives of the development standard or the objectives of the zone or both, the consent authority, cannot be satisfied that the development will be in the public interest for the purposes of cl 4.6(4)(a)(ii).

 

4.    The concurrence of the Secretary has been obtained.

 

Chief Justice Preston in Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118 at [28] notes that the other precondition in cl 4.6(4) that must be satisfied before consent can be granted is whether the concurrence of the Secretary has been obtained (cl 4.6(4)(b)). In accordance with Clause 4.6 (5), in deciding whether to grant concurrence, the Secretary must consider:

(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

 

Under clause 64 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, the Secretary has given written notice dated 21 February 2018, attached to the Planning Circular PS 18-003 issued on 21 February 2018, to each consent authority, that it may assume the Secretary’s concurrence for exceptions to development standards in respect of applications made under cl 4.6 (subject to the conditions in the table in the notice).

 

The approach to determining a clause 4.6 request as summarised by Preston CJ in Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118, has been used in the following assessment of whether the matters in Clause 4.6(4) have been satisfied for each contravention of a development standard. 

 

7.1.    Exception to the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) development standard (Cl 4.4)

 

The applicant’s written justification for the departure from the FSR standard is contained in Appendix 2.

 

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

 

The applicant’s written request seeks to justify the contravention of the FSR development standard by demonstrating that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case because the relevant objectives of the standard are still achieved.

 

The objectives of the FSR standard are set out in Clause 4.4 (1) of RLEP 2012. The applicant has addressed each of the objectives as follows:

 

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

Applicant: The proposed density sits comfortably in its existing and future surrounds noting that the street contains four storey flat buildings that both contain a greater intensity than the proposed part 2 part 3 storey scale anticipated by the controls in the RLEP and RDCP. The distribution of floor area is symmetrical contributing to the streetscape presentation. Landscaping improvement to the rear enhances the visual amenity of the streetscape along Centre Lane. The additional FSR is indiscernible and produces no additional external impacts in comparison to a fully compliant scheme.

 

Assessment Officer’s comment: Similar to the assessment carried out in the original application, the written request refers to the proposal’s compatibility with the adjoining buildings and fails to acknowledge that the surrounding area is a transitioning precinct comprising single dwellings and dual occupancies, which are capable of being redeveloped for medium density purposes that are subject to the maximum FSR of 0.75:1 as opposed to the 1960’s style flat buildings within the street and surrounding area.

 

It is acknowledged that the proposal as part of this review reduces gross floor area by approximately 20sqm, however, it still remains 80sqm more than the maximum FSR permitted under the RLEP. It is not considered that the Applicant’s argument that the minor exceedance is justified as the proposal continues to exceed the maximum floor area by around 8%, which equates to the size of large two bedroom unit or a one bedroom and studio unit.

 

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

 

Summary of applicant’s points: The applicant’s written justification provides a BASIX certificate showing that the development meets the relevant water and energy saving targets. The applicant indicates that the proposed built form is articulated and provides a desirable outcome.  

 

Assessment officer’s comment: The submission of a BASIX certificate partially addresses the requirements of this objective.

 

 

(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 development is not within a conservation area or near a heritage item so the objective detailed in Clause 1(c) is not relevant to this development.

 

(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.

 

Applicant: The applicant’s written justification indicates that this objective is satisfied by noting that:

 

·      The proposed FSR is not responsible for any adverse or unreasonable impacts on adjoining properties.

·      The bulk and scale is distributed such that there are no perceived adverse visual bulk impacts to the dwellings to the north, south or west of the subject site.

·      The mature landscaping present in all setbacks soften the appearance of the built form and provide appropriate visual and acoustic privacy for both the proposal and neighbouring development.

·      The floor area over the standard will allow for overlooking into the open space and habitable rooms of neighbouring properties opposite.

·      The proposed landscape and privacy screening increase privacy to and from Centre Lane;

·      The FSR still retains complying solar access to adjoining neighbours to the east and west.

 

 

Assessing officer’s comment:

The applicant’s written response is not supported as satisfying this objective for the following reasons:

 

·      The proposed FSR is responsible for perceived additional bulk and scale from both the neighbouring properties at No. 52 and No. 58 Meeks Street and from both street frontages at Meeks Street and Centre Lane. In combination with the exceedance of the HOB Standard, the proposed FSR will result in adverse visual impacts;

·      The proposed development will result in additional adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties as providing at grade parking spaces off Centre Lane will impede safe access to the playground opposite;

·      The proposed development results in a parking shortfall of 3 parking spaces and additional demand for on-street parking. The shortfall and additional demand for parking is a direct result of the proposed additional number and configuration of units that is above the maximum floor area envisaged by the RLEP.

·      The applicant refers to mature landscaping present in all setbacks softening the appearance of the development from the streetscape. The proposed car parking spaces and provision of communal open space reduces landscaped garden areas within the site and inappropriately locates communal open space along the eastern side of the site directly opposite ground level dwelling’s private courtyard space. The loss of garden areas and reliance on physical privacy screening for courtyards reduces the amenity of the courtyards.

·      The applicant includes shadow diagrams showing impacts from the revised development (subject of this review) and from a ‘compliant development’ that is one which complies with the 9.5m maximum overall height standard in the RLEP. At the outset, the reference to this ‘compliant development’ is not appropriately defined. In particular, no reference is made to the relevant RDCP controls such as external wall heights and setbacks which operate in conjunction with the maximum standards which dictate the maximum envelope of a development. In the absence of such information, it is not considered that the applicant has adequately demonstrated that there will be no additional adverse overshadowing impacts as required by Clause 4.6.

 

Notwithstanding, in the absence of such information, a comparison is made on the information provided that is between the existing development and the proposed development. This comparison shows additional shadowing to the following neighbouring properties:

West facing ground level and possibly first floor level windows of dwellings within No. 58 Meeks Street at 2pm and 3pm;

Centrally located grassed area of No. 58 Meeks Street;

Eastern elevation of dwellings at No. 52 Meeks Street and open space areas;

 

In conclusion, the applicant’s written request has not adequately demonstrated that compliance with the floor space ratio development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

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

 

The applicant’s written request seeks to demonstrate that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the FSR development standard as follows:

 

·      The additional FSR is not responsible for any greater environmental impacts than a proposal with a compliant FSR. Given the lack of overshadowing, view and privacy impacts, there is no sound planning justification to reduce the proposed FSR.

·      The proposal has been designed with respect to the surrounding properties, particularly in regards to privacy, solar access and visual bulk. As illustrated on the accompanying architectural plans and shadow diagrams, the additional FSR is capable of being accommodated on the site whilst retaining a compliant degree of solar access to the adjoining development to the east and west.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The statement that the additional FSR isn’t responsible for any greater impacts that a compliant FSR is not substantiated. Neither is the assertion that there is a lack of overshadowing and privacy impacts. As stated in the original assessment report, it is clear that the proposed additional floor area will result in additional overshadowing, the extent of which is unclear.

 

The proposed additional floor area at top level result in additional adverse visual amenity impacts. In particular, the additional bulk and scale in association with non-compliant RDCP controls for external wall height and setbacks and exceeding the maximum overall height standard in the RLEP results in additional adverse visual amenity impacts as viewed from both within the streetscape and from the neighbouring properties and dwellings at Nos. 52 and 58 Meeks Street.

 

In conclusion, the applicant’s written request has not adequately demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

3.    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?

 

To determine whether the proposal will be in the public interest, an assessment against the objectives of the Floor Space Ratio standard has been assessed above and R3 medium density zone is provided below:

 

Assessment against objectives of floor space ratio standard

 

For the reasons outlined in the assessment above, the development is inconsistent with the objectives of the FSR standard.

 

Assessment against objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone

 

The objectives of R3 Medium Density Residential zone are:

 

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

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

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

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

·      To protect the amenity of residents.

·      To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

Applicant:

 

The proposed alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building is  permissible in the R3 Medium Density  Residential zone and it is considered that  the proposed FSR does not generate any  inconsistency with the zone objectives.  The high-quality design outcome associated with the proposal as well as the high internal performance of the dwellings and lack of external impacts further confirms that the proposal satisfies the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone. The proposal to provide for the housing needs of the community in a medium density residential environment. The proposal encourages housing affordability through increased housing supply and diversity in a well serviced location.

 

Given that the proposal is consistent with the desired future character for the area nominated by the specific controls in the LEP and DCP, and that there are no adverse or unreasonable impacts to the broader community, it is considered that there are no public interest matters which would prevent a variation to the FSR control.

 

 

Assessing officer’s comments:

The proposed development is not considered to satisfy the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone as follows:

 

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

 

Assessment officer’s comment: The proposal provides additional housing however the additional housing is excessive by virtue of the exceedance of the FSR standard resulting in additional adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties and the desired future streetscape character.

 

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

 

Assessment officer’s comment: The proposal provides for one and two bedroom dwellings.

 

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

 

Assessment officer’s comment: 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.

 

Assessment officer’s comment: The desirable elements of the existing streetscape are dictated by the transitional character of the area whereby it is informed by the maximum standard in the RLEP and RDCP controls. The proposed FSR results in excessive bulk and scale that translates into additional adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties having regard to visual amenity and overshadowing.

 

·      To protect the amenity of residents.

 

Assessment officer’s comment: The proposed development does not suitably protect the amenity of residents.

 

·      To encourage housing affordability.

 

The proposed development does not provide for affordable housing as defined under the SEPP Affordable Rental Housing 2009.

 

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

 

Assessment officer’s comment: Not applicable

 

Having regard to the above, the proposed development is inconsistent with the desired future character of the area envisaged by the LEP and having regard to the existing and likely future development along Meeks Street. Therefore the development will not be in the public interest.

 

4.    Has the concurrence of the Secretary been obtained?

 

In assuming the concurrence of the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment the matters in Clause 4.6(5) have been considered:

 

Does contravention of the development standard raise any matter of significance for state or regional environmental planning?

 

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

 

Is there public benefit from maintaining the development standard?

 

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

 

Variation from the adherence to the floor space ratio standard will not benefit the orderly use of the site due to additional adverse impacts on residential amenity and incompatibility with the desired future character of the locality. Therefore, there is a public benefit in maintaining the development standard.

 

Conclusion

 

On the basis of the above assessment, it is considered that the requirements of Clause 4.6(4) have not been satisfied and that development the be refused for reasons relating to non-compliance with the objectives of the FSR standard and the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

 

7.2.    Exception to the Building Height development standard (Clause 4.3)

 

The applicant’s written justification for the departure from the HOB standard is contained in Appendix 2.

 

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

 

The applicant’s written request seeks to justify the contravention of the HOB development standard by demonstrating that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case because the relevant objectives of the standard are still achieved.

 

The objectives of the HOB standard are set out in Clause 4.3 (1) of RLEP 2012. The applicant has addressed each of the objectives as follows:

 

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

 

Applicant:

 

The height variation does not compromise the ability of the dwellings to achieve a size and scale of development which is compatible with the desired future of the locality. The three-storey scale of the development is consistent with the desired future character established by the controls. As outlined in Figure 3 below, the proposal is subservient to numerous four-storey residential flat buildings in this section of Meeks Street, such as 43, 51, 53 – 55, 57, 58, 61 – 63, 67 Meeks Street, and the wider locality such as 81 Middle Street, 44, 48 and 50 Kennedy Street and 98 and Botany Street. It is also considered that the height variation would be indiscernible given the subservience of the proposed height with other built form in the streetscape. Furthermore, the stepped nature of the upper level and high degree of articulation ameliorates the scale of the building in the streetscape, and results in a well-proportioned and visually pleasing streetscape presentation.

 

Assessment officer’s comment:

I concur with the original assessment of the application’s exceedance of the Height of Buildings development standard as not satisfying this objective in that the housing stock referred to in the Applicant’s attention to this objective are older housing stock and are not consistent with the bulk and scale envisaged for the majority of undeveloped properties in the area which form the basis for future desired streetscape character.

 

Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposal contains articulation with stepped-in elements it, is considered that the variation to the height of buildings standard is significant and is discernable by virtue of the associated significant exceedance of the 8m maximum external wall height control applicable to the development under the RDCP. The external wall height control operates in conjunction with the RLEP height standard and any structures above the wall height limit are intended for roof elements only. The two height controls together ensure the scale and mass of development complement the desirable streetscape character and achieve a suitable urban design outcome (Part C2 of the RDCP). The proposed wall heights exceed both the maximum wall height control and the maximum overall HOB standard in the RLEP representing excessive bulk and scale.

 

In addition, when viewed along Meeks Street footpath, the lower front gable will have a visual height of 11.32m above the footpath level which is commensurate with a four storey development and inconsistent with the desired streetscape character. The visual bulk of the development is therefore considered to detract from 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,

 

Assessment officer’s comment: The development is not within a conservation area or near a heritage item so the objective detailed in Clause 1(b) is not relevant to this development.

 

(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.

 

Applicant: The proposed height does not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views.

 

The rear upper level extension has also been recessed to minimise its visual bulk and overshadowing/privacy impacts to apartments to the east and west of the site. The height is associated with a scheme that has front, side and rear setbacks that considerably outperform the DCP setback control, whilst the extent of deep soil and overall landscaping is also compliant.

 

Due to the north-south site orientation, considerable side setbacks and surrounding development that generally orientates living areas to the front and rear boundaries, the surrounding development will continue to receive complying solar access that is substantially the same as the existing development.

 

The extent of height variation is not significant and limited to the pitched roof form. It is noted

that a flat roof design would generally be within the height control, however it is considered that whilst achieving technical compliance with the control it would result in an insensitive design and inferior streetscape outcome than the non-compliant pitched roof proposal;

 

The basement of the existing flat building is slightly protruding above the sloping level of the site which in turn exacerbates the height non-compliance, especially at the southern end of the building.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The exceedance of the height standard occurs over the whole of the development exceeding the maximum HOB standard in the RLEP between a maximum of 11.27m for the high roof ridge near the Meeks Street frontage and a height of 9.717m for the ridge near the Centre Lane frontage.

 

The Applicant’s argument that the proposed height does not result in additional adverse impacts is not well founded. In addition to exceeding the HOB standard, the proposal significantly exceeds the 8m maximum external wall height control in the RDCP, which operates in conjunction with the maximum HOB standard in controlling the bulk and scale and also minimising adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties. In particular, the external wall height along the western elevation facing No.52 Meeks Street has a varying wall height between 8.575m at the north western corner closest to Centre Lane and up to 9.68m at the south western corner closest to Meeks Street. Whilst the Applicant argues that these heights are setback further than the minimum required under the RDCP, an analysis has not been provided showing the shadowing impact of a compliant wall and side setback for the development. The Applicant only provides shadow diagrams stating a 9.5m compliant scheme with no indication of the setbacks or wall heights. Notwithstanding, as indicated in the Clause 4.6 assessment of the FSR, the proposed development will result in additional overshadowing impacts to the western and eastern neighbours.

 

Whilst it is acknowledged that the site is located over a semi-basement level on a slightly sloping site, it is not considered that this justifies the additional adverse impacts resulting from the proposed development. It is further noted that the previous modification to the development consent which allowed the dormer secondary bedrooms to units 6 & 7 had an external wall height that exceeds the maximum permitted under the RDCP.

 

The applicant’s reference to a flat roof is not relevant as it merely compares a non-complaint scheme with another non-compliant scheme. Notwithstanding, as indicated above it ignores the RDCP controls for external wall height and side setbacks in the RDCP that operate in conjunction with the HOB standard to control the bulk and scale of development. It is further considered that the proposed development will result in additional adverse visual amenity impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

 

The outlook from neighbouring properties will be in the direct line of sight of level three habitable rooms and balconies attached to dwellings at No. 58 Meeks Street and will adversely affect their outlook.

 

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that development will adversely impact the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk, overshadowing and views.

 

In conclusion, the Applicant’s written request has not adequately demonstrated that compliance with the height of buildings development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

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

 

The applicant’s written request seeks to demonstrate that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the HOB development standard as follows:

 

·      The recessed upper level reduces visual bulk and scale and maintains compatibility with the desired future character established by the applicable controls;

 

Assessment officer’s comment: The desired future character established by the applicable controls is for a 9.5m maximum building height and a reduced floor plate. Further, as noted previously the maximum external wall height control is required to operate in conjunction with the building height standard and the proposed development significantly exceeds the maximum wall height controls. Further still, the exceedance of the height standard is also associated with the exceeding the maximum floor space ratio standard applicable to the site. As such, it is not considered that the proposed development sufficiently reduces the visual bulk and scale to be compatible with the desired future character that is established by the controls applicable to the site and surrounding area.

 

·      The two-three storey scale of development is compatible and subservient to the surrounding four storey flat buildings characterizing the locality.

 

Noted.

 

·      Due to the site’s north-south orientation and recessed nature of the proposed upper level, the additional height is not associated with any unreasonable shadowing impacts above that already produced by the existing flat building and the neighbouring units will continue to receive three hours of complying solar access;

 

Assessment officer’s comment: The reasonableness of overshadowing is not considered justified. Additional overshowing associated with exceeding the maximum HOB standard is additional to that which would occur from a complaint development.

 

·      The extent of height variation is not significant and is restricted to the pitched roof of the upper level. A flat roof design would generally be within the height control; however, it is considered that whilst achieving technical compliance, a flat roof would result in an insensitive design and inferior streetscape outcome than the non-compliant pitched roof proposal;

 

Assessment officer’s comment: The extent of the height variation is not limited to the pitched roof only. The proposed external wall height at the south western part of the proposal has an external wall height of 9.68m and at the south eastern parts a wall height of 9.842m exceeding the maximum HOB standard in the RLEP. The variation to the external wall height control along exceeds the maximum HOB standard.

 

·      The orientation of the living areas of the proposed units are to the front and rear of the site, which is considered to ameliorate any additional visual privacy impacts associated with the proposal;

 

Assessment officer’s comment: Acknowledged for units 9 and 12. However units 10 and 11 are orientated to the east contain side balconies which will have an adverse impact on the visual and acoustic privacy of neighbouring properties opposite.

 

In conclusion, the Applicant’s written request has not adequately demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

3.    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?

 

To determine whether the proposal will be in the public interest, an assessment against the objectives of the HOB standard and R3 Medium Density Residential zone is provided below:

 

Assessment against objectives of floor space ratio standard

 

For the reasons outlined in the assessment above, the development is inconsistent with the objectives of the HOB standard.

 

Assessment against objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone

 

The objectives of R3 Medium Density Residential zone are:

 

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

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

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

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

·       To protect the amenity of residents.

·       To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

Applicant: The proposed height is not considered to generate any inconsistency with the achievement of the zone objectives in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone as the proposed height, bulk and scale is compatible with the streetscape and protects the amenity of surrounding residents.

 

The proposed addition of four upper level units is permissible and consistent with the intent of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone which seeks to provide for the housing needs of the community in a medium density residential environment. The proposal encourages housing affordability through increased … supply and diversity in a well serviced location.

Therefore, the proposed height variation does not generate any inconsistency with the zone objectives.

 

Assessment against objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone

 

The objectives of the R3 zone are:

 

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

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

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

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

·      To protect the amenity of residents.

·      To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: I concur with the assessment comments made in the original assessment that the proposal does not contribute to the desired future character of the area given the additional bulk proposed as a result of the non-compliance with the building height standard. In addition, the proposed development will present as a four storey scale when viewed from along the Meeks Street streetscape which will not contribute to the desired future character of the area. It is not considered that the existing four storey walk ups which to a certain extent characterises the existing streetscape opposite will be consistent with the desired future character of the area. The development is therefore inconsistent with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone. The proposed HOB does not suitably protect the amenity of residents in that the associated built form will result in additional adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties.

 

The development is inconsistent with the objectives of the floor space ratio standard and the R3 zone. Therefore the development will not be in the public interest.

 

4.    Has the concurrence of the Secretary been obtained?

 

In assuming the concurrence of the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment the matters in Clause 4.6(5) have been considered:

 

Does contravention of the development standard raise any matter of significance for state or regional environmental planning?

 

Assessment officer’s comment: The proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for state or regional environmental planning.

 

Is there public benefit from maintaining the development standard?

 

Assessment officer’s comment: Variation of the maximum building height standard will not allow for the orderly use of the site and there is a public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance.

 


 

Conclusion

 

On the basis of the above assessment, it is considered that the requirements of Clause 4.6(4) have not been satisfied and that development should not be granted for development that contravenes the building height development standard.

 

8.      Development control plans and policies

 

8.1.    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 in Appendix 3.

 

9.      Environmental 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

See discussion in sections 6 & 7 and key issues below.

 

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

Nil.

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

The proposal does not satisfy key objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (see table below). See table in Appendix 3 and the discussion in key issues below

 

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

The environmental impacts of the proposed development on the natural and built environment have been addressed in this report. The proposal will result in adverse environmental impacts on the locality and on neighbouring properties. The proposed development will detract from the desired future character of the area.

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

a.       Discussion of key issues

 

Clause 4.6 exceptions to development standards

 

– Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

The proposed development exceeds the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) development standard pursuant to Clause 4.4 of the RLEP. The proposed floor space ratio is 0.81:1, which exceeds the maximum 0.75:1 FSR standard; a variation of 8%.

 

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 does not provide well-founded planning arguments. The main focus of the applicants arguments relate to consistency with the existing four storey walk up flat buildings in the street and surrounding area. It is considered that the area is in transition by virtue of these buildings being older housing stock and the existing underdeveloped parcels of land in the area are subject to the current standards and should be adhered to in the interests of ensuring the proposed development is consistent with the desired future character of the area a key objective of the standard and the R3 Medium Density Residential zone. In addition, it is not considered that the applicant has suitably demonstrated that the proposed development will not result in additional adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties having particular regard to the visual bulk and overshadowing. Further the application results in a shortfall of on-site parking which will result in additional adverse impacts associated with the increased demand for on-street parking.

 

- Height of buildings

The proposed development exceeds the maximum height of buildings development standard of 9.5m pursuant to Clause 4.3 of the RLEP. The proposed height of the building is 13.97m to the underside of the basement slab, however it is considered that this measurement whilst technically correct does not inform appropriately provide a basis of Clause 4.6 assessment as to whether the proposed encroachment satisfies the objectives of the standard and the zone. The height measured from the adjacent and/or interpolated ground levels bears a direct relationship between the height the development as viewed from neighbouring properties and the height as it relates to the existing and desired future character of the area and therefore considered a more appropriate reference point for assessing whether the objectives of the standard are satisfied.

 

The table below identifies the maximum height of the development above adjacent ground levels.

 

Development

Adjacent ground level

Maximum height of development

Variation (m/%)

Compliance with 9.5m RLEP height standard

Towards Meeks Street (RL59.43)

RL48.16 (interpolated)

11.27m

1.77m/18.63%

Does not comply

Western elevation towards Centre Lane (RL59.332)

RL49.5025 (interpolated)

9.82m

320mm/3.36%

Does not comply

Meeks Street:

 

Front gable: RL58.85;

Ridge behind: RL59.43

Footpath RL47.53

 

 

11.32m

 

11.9m

 

 

 

1.82m/19.1%

 

2.4m/25.26%

 

 

Does not comply

 

Does not comply

 

The figures below show the height of the development above interpolated ground level.

 

Western elevation

 

Font elevation facing Meeks Street.

 

The applicant has submitted a Clause 4.6 exception to the development standard. The applicants Clause 4.6 focuses on the proposed development being consistent with the four storey walk up flat buildings in the area and therefore satisfying the objective as it relates to contributing to the existing streetscape character. This argument is noted however it is considered that referencing older housing stock is not relevant and that the area which contains several undeveloped properties is an area in transition and that it is more appropriate to address the future desired character of the locality. In this context, the HOB standard along with the FSR standard have been the subject of comprehensive consideration in the making of the current RLEP and that it is more relevant to consider whether the proposed development will satisfy the proposed height will contribute to the desired future character of the area.

 

The exceedance is significant and does not satisfy the relevant objectives of the standard for the following reasons:

 

·      The proposed development will present a scale that is more commensurate with the scale of a four storey building rather than the part two part three storey building envisaged by the standards. In addition, the proposed wall heights breaches the maximum overall height standard. The resultant outcome is that the proposed bulk and scale of the development will detract from the desired future character of the area.

 

·      The proposed development results in additional overshadowing to both neighbouring properties open spaces and side openings which is in direct contravention of the objective that requires that no additional adverse impacts occur as a result of the breach;

 

·      The proposed height of the building also results in added visual impacts on the neighbouring properties opposite namely those upper level dwellings contained within No. 58 Meeks Street.

 


 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

This area also displays setbacks of medium density developments that are more consistent with the RDCP side setback controls. As such, it is considered more appropriate to apply the RDCP side setback controls to the proposed development.

 

The RDCP applies larger setbacks as the site width increases and requires a minimum 2m side setback for the subject site which has a width of 12.19m. The proposed development has 2m minimum side setbacks and complies with the 2m minimum side setback controls in Part C2 of the RDCP.

 

Non-compliant elements such as FSR, HOB and external wall height, whilst partly a result of slightly sloping land, they are more so a consequence of inordinate bulk and scale when compared with the desired future character of the locality. Whilst the applicant seeks to rely on the scale of existing 4 storey walk up flat buildings in the area, these are older housing stock that do not align with the desired future character of the area.

 

Overall, the breaches to the HOB and FSR standards in the RLEP and non-compliance with the external wall height control in the RDCP are not an appropriate response of built form to the orientation and sloping topography in the surrounding area along Meeks Street and Centre Lane. The proposed development has a spatial setting that is incompatible with the desired future character of the area and requiring compliance with the 6m ADG control would result in a better planning outcome having regard to the desired streetscape character in the medium density residential zone.

 

·      4A – Solar and daylight access

 

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

 

The proposed development does not comply as it provides 2hrs of solar access to only 2 out of the four apartments between 9am and 3pm during the winter solstice representing 50% of the apartments within the development.

 

Whilst the ADG states that achieving the minimum design criteria, may not be possible on some sites largely due to north-south orientated site, it is not considered appropriate to apply this criteria in this instance particularly given the non-compliance with the ADG are a direct result of exceeding the FSR standard which has a key objective to ensure that development appropriately respond to environmental and energy needs.

It is not considered the subject site’s constraints and orientation preclude meeting the design criteria and the proposal will result in greater reliance on artificial lighting and heating, and results in a poorer response to environmental and energy needs.

 

The ADG also requires that neighbouring dwellings’ living areas and private open space areas retain suitable levels of solar access. The applicant submitted as part of the review shadow diagrams, however these do not clearly show the levels of solar access retained to the neighbouring dwellings opposite at No. 52 and 58 Meeks Street. As such, a thorough assessment of solar access to neighbouring properties is unable to be undertaken. Notwithstanding, the proposed development clearly results in additional adverse overshadowing impacts on the neighbouring properties therefore it cannot be demonstrated that the proposed exceedance of the development standards for HOB and FSR are being satisfied.

 

Overall, it is not considered that the applicant has suitably demonstrated that there are sufficient planning reasons for not meeting ADG controls requiring solar access to the development and to neighbouring properties between 9am and 3pm during the winter solstice.

 

Randwick Development Control Plan 2013

 

•        External wall height

 

The RDCP states that where a development is subject to a 9.5m maximum height of buildings standard, an 8m maximum external wall height control applies. The proposed external wall heights vary across the site ranging from 10.27m at the front and a maximum 10.02m at the rear taken from the underside of eaves at the southern side elevation.

 

The RDCP requires an assessment against the following objectives:

 

Objectives:

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

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

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

 

The proposed external wall heights does not satisfy the above objectives for the following reasons:

 

·      In terms of the bulk and scale of the development, the degree to which the wall height is exceeded is significant and whilst the roof form is compatible with the streetscape the roof form itself provided is not considered sufficient to alleviate concerns with visual bulk associated with the second floor additions. The proposed development contains significant massing well above that envisaged for the future streetscape character of the area and will result in additional adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties.

 

Parking – Part B7 of the RDCP

 

See Development Engineer’s referral comments in Appendix 1, which outline the reasons the proposed review cannot supported.

 

10.    Conclusion

 

That the application to carry out alterations and additions to the existing part 2 and part 3 storey residential flat building to allow an additional 4 dwellings at the second floor, 2 additional at-grade car parking spaces, new vehicular entrance off the laneway, new bicycle parking and communal open space with BBQ (variation to height and floor space ratio controls), at No. 54-56 Meeks Street, Kingsford NSW 2032 be refused for the following reasons:

 

1.   The proposal is not consistent with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone pursuant to the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, in that the development will not contribute to the desired future character of the area and has not adequately demonstrated that it will protect the amenity of residents.

2.   Adequate regard has not been given to the design quality principles as part of the State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development.

 

3.   Car parking does not comply with minimum car parking requirements specified by the State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development and the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013. The proposed entry and exit into the at grade parking spaces compromises the safety of users of the Council Reserve opposite along Centre Lane and compromises the safety when exiting the parking spaces.

 

4.   Communal open space and storage do not comply with the design criteria, objectives and design guidance as part of the Apartment Design Guide, which will result in poor residential amenity.

 

5.   The variation request pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 relating to non-compliance with Clause 4.3 height of buildings is not supported as the proposed development is not in accordance with the relevant objectives of the height of buildings development standard and the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

 

6.   The variation request pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 relating to non-compliance with Clause 4.4 floor space ratio is not supported as the proposed development is not in accordance with the relevant objectives of the floor space ratio development standard and the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

 

7.   The proposed development does not comply with controls contained in the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 with regards to provision of car parking and bicycle parking, landscaped open space, design requirements for communal open space, external wall height, maximum permitted wall lengths and provision of sun shading devices.

 

8.   The proposed development will result in adverse visual amenity impacts to surrounding properties.

 

9.   The proposed development will result in additional overshadowing of eastern and western adjoining properties as a result of the non-compliant building height and floor space ratio.

 

10.  The proposed development will set an undesirable precedent within the streetscape that is inconsistent with the desired future character of the locality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 1: Referrals

 

1.    Internal referral comments:

 

1.1.    Development Engineer

An amended application has been received for the construction of a new third level to the existing residential flat building to allow 4 dwellings, 4 at-grade car park spaces, landscaping, entry gate and associated works (variation to height and floor space ratio controls)at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Amended Architectural Plans by  Sgammotta Architects, dwg’s DA000 – 400,  rev C , dated 18/01/19;

·      Statement of Environmental Effects by ABC Planning dated December 2017.

·      Traffic & Parking Assessment by Traffic Solutions dated 25th January 2019

 

General Comments

The section 82A review is not supported and is recommended for refusal

 

Parking Comments

 

Current Situation

The existing development on the site is a two storey residential flat building comprising 8 units with 3 bedrooms or greater and 14 carspaces approved in 2010 under DA/180/2004/b.

 

Adopting the parking rates specified in Part B7 of Council’s DCP this would generate a parking demand as follows

 

Existing Parking Demand                         = 8 x 1.5 + 8/4 (visitor)

                                                              = 14 spaces (including 2 visitor spaces)

 

Existing Parking Provided                        = 14 spaces (including 2 visitor spaces)

 

The existing development fully complies with its parking obligations under the DCP.

 

Proposed Development (Amended Plans)

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

 

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

 

The proposed amended development will retain 8 units with 3 bedrooms or greater but will add a new 3rd level, with the amended plans indicating 1 x 2 bedroom + 3 x 1 bedroom units.

 

The additional parking demand will therefore increase as per following

 

Additional Parking Demand                      = (1 x 1.2) + (3 x 1) + 1 (visitor)

                                                              = 4.2 + 1.0 (visitor)

                                                              = 5.2

                                                              = say 5 spaces (including 1 visitor space)

 

(i.e. The total parking demand generated by the site will increase from 14 to 19 spaces)

 

Additional Parking provided                      = 2 spaces

 

Additional Parking Shortfall                  = 3 spaces

                                                              = or 60% of additional demand generated

                                                             

It should be noted the original application provided 4 additional spaces with a shortfall of 1 space and was acceptable to Development engineering, however the amended proposal further increases the parking shortfall by an additional 2 spaces to 3 spaces. Increasing parking shortfalls is not generally supported by Development Engineering

 

The shortfall has been acknowledged and the applicant has submitted a traffic and parking assessment report by Traffic solutions Pty Ltd in support of the deficiency. In summary the following justifications for the shortfall have been provided.

·      When assessed against the parking rates in ‘RMS’s Guide to traffic generating developments’ for high density developments (Sec 5.4.3)  the report states the total parking demand of the site (including additional units) is 16 spaces, of which the proposed development would comply (Note: see Development Engineers response below)

·      The site is in close proximity (550m) to the future light rail terminus and bus interchange at Kingsford

·      The site is in close proximity to other bus services along Anzac Parade (620m) and Rainbow Street (290m)

·      The site is in close proximity (550m) to the University of NSW

·      The site is in close proximity (550m) to  Kingsford Town centre

·      The site is in close proximity to carshare pods operated by GoGet car Share.

Assessment

Development Engineering has considered the above factors and undertaken an assessment of the parking demand and impacts. The following comments are made;

 

·      The RMS parking rates adopted in the traffic report are for high density residential flat buildings containing 20 or more dwellings (Sec 5.4.3 in RMS Guide). As the proposed development will only contain a total of 12 dwellings this is the incorrect parking rate to apply.

 

·      The correct RMS parking rate to adopt is the rate for medium density developments (sec 5.4.2 in Guide) comprising between 2 and 20 dwellings. These rates are identical to Council’s DCP with the exception of the visitor parking rate. Council’s DCP requires 1 visitor space per 4 dwellings whereas the RMS requires 1 visitor space per 5 dwellings. This would therefore only reduce the calculated additional parking demand by 1 space (to 4 spaces) if adopting RMS rates resulting in a parking shortfall of 2 spaces. Compliance with RMS rates has therefore not been obtained.

 

·      Development Engineering acknowledges that the site is well situated to reduce dependence on a motor vehicle however the degree of the shortfall (being 60% of the additional parking demand) is excessive and is not supported. The site is located within an area that is experiencing high parking pressures, highlighted by resident objections and confirmed by site inspection (see photos). At time of site inspection being 2:30pm on 25/03/2019 Meeks Street was parked to capacity between Botany Lane and Kennedy St.

 

·      It should also be noted that on-street parking is not available in Centre Lane and Meeks Street is time restricted parking.

 

·      The area is located within a residential parking scheme  (Area KF1) and Council records indicates there is currently 23 residential parking permits issued for residents in Meeks Street  thereby indicating a high demand for on-street parking by residents.

Meeks St (view west) - site on right     

 

Parking Layout Issues

·      There is a Council reserve opposite the subject site on Centre Lane that contains a children’s playground. Reversing manoeuvres for vehicles exiting the proposed easternmost carspace will likely conflict with the pedestrian entrance to the Council reserve on Centre Lane opposite. This is not supported as it may result in an increased risk to pedestrians including children accessing the playground.

 

·      There is also a rock outcrop immediately to the west of the pedestrian access and directly opposite the proposed carspaces. This may increase the risk of vehicles colliding with the raised rock outcrop during reversing manoeuvres (see photo).

Park Access & Rock Outcrop

 

The Section 82A review is not supported and is recommended for refusal


 

Appendix 2: Applicant’s written request seeking to justify the contravention of the development standards

 

 

 

Appendix 3: DCP Compliance Table

 

3.1     Randwick Comprehensive DCP

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

 

It is noted that Clause 6 of SEPP 65 refers to Parts 3 and 4 of the ADG and requires:

 

(1)  This clause applies in respect of the objectives, design criteria and design guidance set out in Parts 3 and 4 of the Apartment Design Guide for the following:

 

(a)  visual privacy,

(b)  solar and daylight access,

(c)  common circulation and spaces,

(d)  apartment size and layout,

(e)  ceiling heights,

(f)  private open space and balconies,

(g)  natural ventilation,

(h)  storage.

 

(2)  If a development control plan contains provisions that specify requirements, standards or controls in relation to a matter to which this clause applies, those provisions are of no effect.

 

(3)  This clause applies regardless of when the development control plan was made.

 

Therefore, where the RDCP provides controls in relation to (1), refer to the planning assessment against these criteria as part of the ADG assessment further above.

 

The relevant provisions of the DCP are addressed below.

 

DCP Clause

Control

Proposal

Compliance

B7

Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access

3.

Parking & Service Delivery Requirements

 

Car parking requirements:

1space per 2 studios

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

1.2 spaces per 2-bedroom unit

1.5 spaces per 3- or more bedroom unit

1 visitor space per 4 dwellings

 

Motor cycle requirements:

5% of car parking requirement

Council’s Development Engineer has assessed parking demand and advises that 19 parking spaces are required and 16 spaces are provided. The parking shortfall is not supported by Development Engineering

Does not comply. (refer to Referrals section above).

4.

Bicycles

 

Residents:

1 bike space per 2 units

Visitors:

1 per 10 units

Bicycle spaces were provided as part of the original approval in the basement and additional bicycle spaces are provided adjacent to the western entrance.

Complies.

C2

Medium Density Residential

2

Site Planning

2.2

Landscaped open space and deep soil area

2.2.1

Landscaped open space

 

A minimum of 50% of the site area (699m2) is to be landscaped open space.

The proposed 2 car park is excluded from landscaped open space in accordance with the control. As a result, landscaped open space is 48.5% (679.2m2)

Does not comply.

2.2.2

Deep soil area

 

(i)     A minimum of 25% of the site area (349m m2) should incorporate deep soil areas sufficient in size and dimensions to accommodate trees and significant planting.

The proposed car park comprises permeable paving and is therefore included as deep soil area in accordance with the control. Deep soil landscaping therefore remains unchanged, being 37.4% (523.9m2).

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.

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

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

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

Deep soil areas are provided along all site boundaries in accordance with this part.

 

 

 

 

 

The 2 car spaces are counted as deep soil area, however is not capable of comprising soft landscaping.

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 with the ADG

 

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.

 

Complies with the ADG.

2.3.2

Communal open space

 

 

 

Communal open space for residential flat building is to be:

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

(b)   Designed for passive surveillance.

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

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

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

The proposed 127sqm of communal open space is now retained towards the rear northern part of the site along with the originally proposed western side passageway.

 

The proposed increase in communal open space is supported however it is noted that the reliance on communal open space along the side passageway results in a poorer outcome relying on physical privacy screens alongside the courtyards of ground level dwellings adjacent.

Does not comply –see comment at left

3

Building Envelope

3.1

Floor space ratio

 

0.75:1 required by the LEP

0.81:1

Does not comply. Refer to detailed assessment above.

3.2

Building height

 

9.5m required by the LEP

 

13.97m

 

Does not comply. Refer to detailed assessment above.

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.

 

Complies with ADG controls.

3.4

Setbacks

3.4.1

Front setback

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

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

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

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

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

The proposed second floor is setback 9.3m from Meeks Street (measured to the front-facing balcony). The secondary front setback to Centre Lane is 13.115m (increased from the original scheme).

 

I concur with the assessment officer’s original assessment that despite the second floor setback further from the ground and first floor levels below, the extent of the additional floor area is not supported due to impacts of bulk and scale on amenity of neighbouring properties and the desired character of the area.

Therefore a much greater front and rear setback is required.

Does not comply.

3.4.2

Side setback

 

Residential flat building

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

 

-    20m and above = 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.

The site has a frontage width of 20.12m, therefore a 4m side setback is required.

 

The second floor has a minimum side boundary setback of 4.9m measured from unit 12 to the western side boundary.

 

I concur with the original assessment in that whilst articulation is provided to the side facades with variable setbacks, window treatments and changes in materials, colours and finishes. Notwithstanding, the articulation provided is not considered sufficient to alleviate concerns with visual bulk associated with the second floor additions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New windows are >3m from common boundaries.

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does not comply.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

3.4.3

Rear setback

 

For residential flat buildings, provide a minimum rear setback of 15% (10.42m) of allotment depth or 5m, whichever is the greater.

13.115m measured from the balcony of unit 9 on the second floor. I concur with the assessment provided in the original assessment in that, despite the increased second floor setback, the extent of the additional second floor is not supported due to impacts on impacts of bulk and scale on amenity of neighbouring properties and the desired character of the area as discussed throughout this report. Therefore a much greater rear setback is required.

Complies.

4

Building Design

4.1

Building façade

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Both facades address the frontages.

 

 

Both front wall alignments are parallel with the street.

 

 

Articulation is provided to the side facades with variable setbacks, window treatments and changes in materials, colours and finishes. I concur with the original assessment officer in that the articulation provided is not considered sufficient to alleviate concerns with visual bulk associated with the second floor additions.

 

The proposed second floor is provided with walls that exceed 10m in length (unit 9 and unit 12)

Complies.

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does not comply.

4.2

Roof design

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

The proposed hipped roof form integrates well with the composition of the building.

 

 

Eaves are provided that will respond to sun access.

 

 

The proposed roof pitch is similar to the adjoining RFB to the east and RFB to the west.

 

The proposed second floor is provided with articulated and distinctive roof structures. I concur with the original assessment in that Notwithstanding, the articulated roof is not considered to be sufficient to alleviate concerns with the extent of additional bulk and scale associated with the second floor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No services or equipment are shown that are readily visible from the public domain.

 

 

 

 

None proposed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

None proposed.

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

Does not comply see comment at left.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not required.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

4.3

Habitable roof space

 

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

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

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

-    Wholly contain habitable areas within the roof space.

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

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

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

Habitable roof space is not proposed – an additional storey is proposed

N/A

4.4

External wall height and ceiling height

 

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

 

The external wall height is measured at a maximum of 9.8m on the eastern and 9.68m at the western elevations towards Meeks Street, reducing to 8.84m towards Centre Lane.

Does not comply.

 

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

2.7m proposed.

Complies.

4.5

Pedestrian Entry

 

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

No changes to the existing pedestrian entrances off Meeks Street or Centre Lane is proposed.

Complies.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Provide weather protection for building entries.

 

Postal services and mailboxes

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

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

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

New building entries are not proposed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

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.

The new internal circulation to the second floor is an extension of the 2 vertical access stairs below. The lobbies are sufficiently sized considering they serve only 2 units each.

Complies.

 

(ii)       Use multiple access cores to:

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

- Articulate the building façade.

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

An extension to the 2 access cores is proposed, which is sufficient.

Complies.

 

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

A maximum of 2 units will be accessed from the extended access core to the second floor.

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.

Complies with ADG controls.

 

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

Complies with ADG controls.

 

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

Complies with ADG controls.

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.

 

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

Complies with ADG controls.

4.9

Colours, materials and finishes

 

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

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

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

-    Changes of colours and surface texture

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

-    The use of natural stones is encouraged.

(v)       Avoid the following materials or treatment:

-     Reflective wall cladding, panels and tiles and roof sheeting

-     High reflective or mirror glass

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

-     Large expanses of rendered masonry

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

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

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

A satisfactory colours, materials and finishes schedule was submitted with the DA. The second storey is proposed to comprise timber weatherboards. Council’s DEP advised that the proposed materials are appropriate and will result in a “light weight” appearance to the addition whist complementing the existing building. I concur with the original assessment in that notwithstanding, the colours and materials are not considered to alleviate concerns with the bulk and scale 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.

Minimal earthworks is proposed for the new car park (<1m).

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).

 

No retaining walls are proposed.

 

 

Complies.

5

Amenity

5.1

Solar access and overshadowing

 

Solar access for proposed development

 

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

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

See ADG controls.

 

(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.

No single aspect apartments are proposed.

Complies.

 

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

N/A

N/A

 

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.

It is not clear whether the living rooms of neighbouring properties will receive compliant levels of solar access.

Additional overshadowing will occur – refer to Key Issues section relating to ADG.

5.2

Natural ventilation and energy efficiency

 

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

All new habitable rooms are provided with natural daylight via windows.

Complies.

 

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

No sun shading devises are proposed to the western elevation.

Does not comply.

 

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

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

Complies.

 

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

All new habitable rooms are capable of natural ventilation.

Complies.

 

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

All new apartments (100%) are cross-ventilated.

Complies.

 

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

All new kitchens (100%) have access to natural ventilation.

Complies.

 

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

N/A

N/A

5.3

Visual privacy

 

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

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

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

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

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

-     Translucent glazing

-     Fixed timber or metal slats

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

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

East facing living room windows associated with units 9, 10 & 11 will have direct line of sight to the windows in No. 58 Meeks Street.

 

Adverse visual privacy impacts can be ameliorate by requiring additional privacy treatment to the windows however this may reduce the capacity for suitable amenity to be provided to the units having regard to natural ventilation and BCA compliance.

Does not comply with the ADG, see comments at left.

5.4

Acoustic privacy

 

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

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

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

-    Double glazing

-    Operable screened balconies

-    Walls to courtyards

-    Sealing of entry doors

 

Acoustic privacy will be achieved within the apartments due to separation of quiet areas from noisy areas.

 

Screening is provided to balconies however these screens will not mitigate acoustic impacts to neighbouring properties. Adverse acoustic impacts are directly attributed to the location of balconies and associated with the excessive FSR and therefore will result in unreasonable additional adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties.

Partial compliance.

5.5

View sharing

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

No significant views have been identified. Notwithstanding, outlook from the neighbouring dwellings in No. 58 Meeks street will be obstructed by the proposed development.

Complies –see comment at left

5.6

Safety and security

 

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

Access of Centre Lane for car parking will compromise safety of users of the park opposite, further there is a large bolder located at the front of the park which will potentially reduce safety of drivers existing the car parking spaces onto Centre Lane.

Does not comply see

 

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

Direct, secure access is provided.

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.

All new apartments are provided with secured POS areas and openable habitable room windows that cannot be accessed from common areas.

Complies.

 

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

No obstruction to lines of sight is proposed.

Complies.

 

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

A security gate to the new ground level car park is proposed.

Complies.

 

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

No changes to the existing visitor entries is proposed.

N/A

 

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

Adequate lighting could be provided via a condition of consent, notwithstanding refusal is recommended.

N/A

 

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

Casual surveillance can be achieved from living rooms and private open spaces.

Complies.

 

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

External lighting could be provided via a condition of consent, notwithstanding refusal is recommended.

N/A

 

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

External lighting could be provided via a condition of consent, notwithstanding refusal is recommended.

N/A

6.1

Location

 

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

A car park is proposed with access off the laneway.

Complies.

 

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

The driveway length is minimised as much as possible.

Complies.

 

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

>1m with landscaping either side. Notwithstanding, the loss of communal open space and the reduced opportunity for landscaping is not supported. 

Does not comply with the objective of the control.

 

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

The car parking entry is setback <1m from the lane boundary.

Does not comply.

 

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

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

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

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

The proposed additional car parking is proposed on grade and the site is not flood affected.

Does not comply.

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.

Vehicles will not be able to enter and exit the site in a forward direction.

Does not comply – see Development Engineers comments.

 

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

(a)     Provide natural ventilation. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On grade car parking is proposed.

N/A

7

Fencing and Ancillary Development

7.1

Fencing

 

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

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

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

-    Steel post and chain wire

-    Barbed wire or other dangerous materials

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

New fencing adjacent to the laneway is proposed to match existing.

Complies.

7.6

Storage

 

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

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

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

(a)       Studio apartments – 6m3

(a)       1-bedroom apartments – 6m3

(b)      2-bedroom apartments – 8m3

(c)       3 plus bedroom apartments – 10m3

The new central 1 bedroom units are provided with 1.64m3 storage, the 2 bedroom unit is provided with 7.1m3 storage, unit 9 is provided with 2.73m3 of storage.

Does not comply.

7.7

Laundry facilities

 

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

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

Complies.

 

(ii)       Provide internal laundry for each dwelling unit.

Each new apartment is provided with an internal laundry.

Complies.

 

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

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

Complies.

7.8

Air conditioning units:

 

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

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

Air conditioning units are not shown on the submitted drawings. A condition would ensure compliance, however refusal is recommended.

N/A

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Randwick Local Planning Panel            11 April 2019

 

 

Development Application Report No. D10/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      327 Clovelly Road, Clovelly (DA/413/2018)

 

Folder No:                      DA/413/2018

Author:                          Willana Urban, Pty Ltd     

 

 

Proposal:                       Alterations and additions to existing dwelling including new upper level.

Ward:                             North Ward

Applicant:                      Cape Cod Australia Pty Ltd

Owner:                           Mr W Angkhawut & Mrs W Chalothorn

Cost of works:                $640,000.00

Reason for referral:        Conflict of Interest & Clause 4.6 variation to the building height standard

Recommendation

A.      That the RLPP is satisfied that the matters detailed in clause 4.6(4) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 have been adequately addressed 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 grant consent under Sections 4.16 and 4.17 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/413/2018 for Alterations and additions to existing dwelling including new upper level, at No. 327 Clovelly Road, Clovelly subject to the development consent conditions attached to this report.

 


 

 

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=53b6fe96-94c9-4bc7-b853-63c357c51643&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Executive summary

 

The application is referred to the Randwick Local Planning Panel (RLPP) by the General Manager as the subject property is owned by the relative of a council employee.

 

1.0        Site Description and Locality

 

327 Clovelly Road, legally identified as Lot A in DP 24203, has a frontage to Clovelly Road of 7m. The western and eastern side boundaries each have a length of 31m. The rear boundary is 7m in length and the total site area is 190m2. Located on the site is a two storey building that comprises of a restaurant at lower ground level and a dwelling behind (at ground level) and above (first floor level). The site slopes from north (rear) to south (front) from RL 49.70 to RL 46.15.

 

The building on site is attached to the neighbouring building to the east, 329 Clovelly Road. The building on site is part of an attached series of 5 similar buildings along Clovelly Road, to the east (see photos below). These buildings share the same roof line. To the west, there is a pedestrian access laneway between the site and the neighbouring built form at 325 Clovelly Road, Clovelly. To the north (rear), there is a small laneway approximately 2.5m in width. It appears that some neighbouring properties utilise the laneway for vehicular access and egress from garages that face the laneway.

 

The subject site and row of shops to the east and west are in the Neighbourhood Centre zone (Zone B1) and have shop top housing or dwelling houses above or behind. The surrounding sites to the north and south are zoned R3 Medium Density Residential and contain a mix of predominantly residential flat buildings and some single dwellings.

 


 

2.0        Relevant History

 

DA/396/2015 was approved on 22 September 2015 for alterations and additions to the existing shop top housing including upper level addition, new rear carport with roller door and new under awning sign.

 

DA/396/2015/A was approved on 09 February 2016 for a Section 96 modification of approved development by increase in the size of the second floor deck, installation of a mechanical exhaust system, internal alterations to the first floor bathroom and removal of two ground floor windows.

 

Photo 1: The site from Clovelly Road with subject building in red outline.

 

 

Photo 2: The attached series of buildings to the immediate east of the subject site.

 

Photo 3: Neighbouring built forms to the east along Clovelly Road

Photo 4: Residential Flat Buildings on the opposite side (southern) of Clovelly Road to the subject site.

 

3.0        The Proposed Development

 

The proposal seeks consent for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house on site. A level by level breakdown of the proposal is provided as follows:

 

Lower Ground Level

 

·      Install new fire rated door and jamb to match existing opening at western elevation.

 

Ground Floor

 

·      Retain Bedroom 1 & 2 and remove flooring and floor joists.

·      New flooring proposed at bedroom 1 & 2 and construct new ceilings.

·      Demolish ceiling at Bed 2 and adjacent hall.

·      Demolish existing ground floor at rear including walls, floors and ceiling.

·      New stairs to upper level.

·      New bathroom and new open plan kitchen/living area.

 

First Floor Addition

 

·      New stairwell to lower level.

·      3 x bedrooms, 1 with north-facing balcony.

·      New bathroom.

·      New skylights in roof.

 

4.0        Notification/Advertising

 

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:

 

·      325 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

Issue

Comment

Odour nuisances emanating from premises (existing restaurant at ground level)

This DA proposes alterations and additions to the existing dwelling only, which is located above the existing restaurant at ground level. The restaurant does therefore not make part of this DA.

5.0        Key Issues

 

Ceiling heights

Clause 2.3(iii) of Part D6 of Randwick DCP states that the minimum floor to ceiling height for ground floor level is 3.3m and 2.7m for upper floor level. The proposed additions are non-compliant, with a 3m ground level floor to ceiling height and an upper level floor to ceiling height ranging from 2.43m at the front of the building and 2.73m (compliant) at the rear of the building.

 

The non-compliance is considered satisfactory in this instance given the following:

 

·      The proposal complies with BCA floor to ceiling height minimum requirements.

·      The proposal meets the objective of the control (Clause 2.3(iv)) that seeks to achieve a consistent built street edge height.

·      The proposal demonstrates a responsive design to the existing structure on site, which is already non-compliant in terms of floor to ceiling height.

·      The proposed floor to ceiling heights are consistent with existing floor to ceiling heights within the building.

·      The proposal is in keeping with the character of the street.

·      Where the proposed floor to ceiling heights are at their most reduced (front of structure, upper level), a bedroom and stairwell are proposed. These elements are not considered to be a main living area. In addition, both the stairwell and the bedroom 3 incorporate windows to allow for natural light and ventilation.

 

Building Height – Clause 4.6 exception to development standard

 

The maximum building height on the site is 9.5m. The proposal has been assessed to have a height of 10.37m at its tallest point which represents a 9.15% variation to the development standard. A full assessment of the proposed variation is provided in the detailed assessment section of this report. The variation is supported and a brief summary of the reasons are as follows:

 

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

·      The proposed additions at the front towards the Clovelly Road frontage are setback behind the front parapet. This results in a development that does not dominate the existing streetscape and will be subservient to the existing streetscape character and the desired future character of the locality.

·      The proposed development is located over the existing building footprint towards the rear and is compatible with the scale of the neighbouring developments.

·      Overall, the bulk scale and height of the additions and relationship of built form with adjoining developments are considered acceptable. The non-compliant heights of the development does not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views.

·      The proposal 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. 

 

5.1       Randwick City Council Development Contributions Plan.

 

A suitable condition is included requiring the payment of a development contribution in accordance with the requirements of Council’s plan.

 

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 undertake alterations and additions to existing dwelling including new upper level 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 proposed development satisfies the matters for consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

·      The proposal complies with the majority of the relevant assessment criteria and will not result in any adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

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

·      The environmental impacts are acceptable.

 

 

 


 

Detailed Environmental Assessment

 

6.0        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 DCP 2013. See table above.

 

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

7.0       Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

The following statutory Environmental Planning Instruments apply in the assessment of the proposed development:

 

·      State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index BASIX) 2004.

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

·      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

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

A BASIX assessment is a mandatory component of the development approval process under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) Regulation 2004 and State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

 

The applicant has submitted a BASIX certificate (Certificate Number A321785). The plans have been checked with regard to this certificate and they are generally consistent with the requirements indicated for DA stage. Conditions of consent requiring the continued compliance of the development with the SEPP: BASIX have been included.

 

7.2       Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

The site is zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent. The proposed development is classified as a dwelling house and is permissible in the zone. The zoning objectives are addressed in the Council executive summary report in the exception to the height of buildings development standard. In general it is considered that the proposed development will satisfy the relevant objectives for the B1 zone.

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)

1:1

0.99:1.

Yes

Height of Building (Maximum)

9.5m

10.37m at tallest point

No, variation supported see below.

 

8.0       Clause 4.6 Exception to Development Standard

 

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

 

Height

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

 

Building Height

Development Standard

9.5m

Proposal

10.37m at its tallest point

Excess above RLEP Standard

9.15%

 

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

 

With regards to the concurrence of the Secretary, pursuant to the notification of assumed concurrence under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 18–003 (dated 21 Feb 2018) the concurrence of the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed in certain cases. In relation to the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3) there are various ways that may be invoked to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary as discussed in the case of in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827. Although the Wehbe case was decided in relation to State Environmental Planning Policy No 1— Development Standards (“SEPP 1”) and not clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012, it does assist in identifying the ways in which compliance with a development standard may be considered unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. In Wehbe, Justice Preston said the most commonly invoked way to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary is to demonstrate that the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard. Another way, is to establish that the development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council’s own actions in granting consents departing from the standard and hence compliance with the standard.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

     

Officer’s assessment of the Clause 4.6 exception

 

The applicant has provided well-founded arguments that the maximum standard for the height of the building should not be strictly applied. It is considered that the proposal meets the objectives of the standard and strict compliance with the maximum height standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case for the following reasons:

 

·      The non-compliance is a small section relative to the existing development on site and the departure is minor such that the end development will be indiscernible from a development of compliant height from the Clovelly Road frontage. The following image shows the extent of the height breach, which is limited to the existing roof line at Clovelly Road frontage. The mechanical ventilation shaft will not be visible from Clovelly Road due to the existing building blocking its view.

 Image: The 9.5m height line is indicated in red on the plans. Alterations and additions are coloured while existing building is black & white. Note the existing roof line exceeds the height limit. The height variation is circled in black.

 

·      The proposed additions at the front towards the Clovelly Road frontage are setback behind the front parapet. This results in a development that does not dominate the existing streetscape and will be subservient to the existing streetscape character and the desired future character of the locality.

·      The proposed development is located over the existing building footprint towards the rear and is compatible with the scale of the neighbouring developments.

·      Overall, the bulk scale and height of the additions and relationship of built form with adjoining developments are considered acceptable. The non-compliant heights of the development does not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views.

·      The proposed development is consistent with the objectives because it’s built form is sympathetic to the existing commercial and residential environment in terms of massing and built form.

·      The overshadowing impact of the proposed additions is considered minor as there will be little or no impact on adjoining living room windows or private open spaces.

·      The location, size and materials used for the proposal’s western elevation will allow for solar access to internal spaces while ensuring no visual privacy impacts between properties. 

 

In conclusion, 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 applicant’s written request highlights the merits of the proposal and shows that the it 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. 

Overall, 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 standard detailed above. The objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (Zone B1 – Neighbourhood Centre) are:

 

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

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

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

 

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 B1 - Neighbourhood Centre.

 

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.

 

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

 

9.0       Policy Controls

 

The following policy controls apply in the assessment of the proposed development and are elaborated upon in the section below:

 

·      Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013

·      Randwick City Council Development Contributions Plan.

 

9.1       Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 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 in the tables below:

 

9.1.1       Section Neighbourhood Centres General Controls D6

The subject site is listed as being subject to the controls in part D6 neighbourhood centres in the RDCP 2013.

 

DCP Clause

Controls

Proposal

Compliance

 

Classification

Zoning =  B1

Permissible

2

Site planning

 

 

 

Lot size and frontage

 

 

190sqm 7m frontage width

2.1

Building envelope

2.2

Floor space ratio LEP 2012 = 1:1

Proposed FSR = 0.99:1

Yes

2.3

Building heights

 

 

 

Maximum overall height LEP 2012 = 9.5m

Proposed = 10.37m

See Clause 4.6 exception

 

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

 

The rear of the site is approximately 3.5m higher than the front of the site. This results in a majority two storey development and partial three storeys.

 

In this case, the partial third storey is satisfactory as it is setback from the street, behind the existing building façade which presents as a two storey development. The proposed development does not change the two storey appearance of the building when viewed from the public domain.

 

The proposed additions maintain the existing building height. The additions are setback from the street, behind the front parapet. This results in a development that does not dominate the existing streetscape and will be subservient to the existing streetscape character and the desired future character of the locality.

 

The existing building retains its two storey appearance to Clovelly Road.

 

Yes

 

 

 

Minimum floor to ceiling heights:

 

Ground floor level 3.3m

Levels above 2.7m

 

Alternatively demonstrate the suitability of an alternative number of storeys and/or floor to ceiling heights having regard to:

- existing predominant storeys and/or floor to ceiling heights within the centre

- Character of the street.

Ground Level – 3m

First Floor – 2.43m – 2.73m

No, see key issues section

 

 

 

2.4

Setbacks

2.4.1

Front setbacks

i) Development fronting a primary road above 9.5m requires a 2m setback

 

 

 

No change to existing

No change

 

2.4.2

Rear setbacks

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

No change to existing 8.925m

No change

 

2.4.3

Side setbacks:

Setbacks for alterations and additions to dwelling in B1 zones, redevelopment must address the residential sections of the DCP.

 

 

 

The proposal has a nil eastern side boundary setback which is as existing.

 

The proposed additions have a western boundary setback that achieves a 900mm.

 

 

Yes

3

Building design

3.1

General - facades

 

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

The existing façade to Clovelly Street remains unchanged.

No change.

 

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

The residential entry and commercial entries are separate from each other.

Yes

3.2

Roof forms

 

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

 

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

(eg. Corner sites).

 

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

 

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

 

The existing, traditional roof form at the front of the building is to be retained.

 

The proposed low-pitched skillion roof form does not result in unsatisfactory bulk or overshadowing on neighbouring properties as shown in the submitted Shadow Diagrams

 

The proposed roof design is considered satisfactory and relatable to the surrounding roof forms.

Yes

 

3.4

Colours, Materials and Finishes

 

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

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

iii) The following materials are  considered incompatible:

· Large wall tiles;

· Rough textured render and/or bagged finish;

· Curtain walls; and

· Highly reflective or mirror glass.

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

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

The Applicant submitted an external finishes & colour guide which is considered satisfactory.

 

Brick walls, aluminium window frames, Zincalume fascias and gutters and Timber privacy screens are considered durable and high quality materials.

 

The proposed colour scheme incorporates cream, off white and brown colour tones which are not anticipated to cause light reflectivity impacts.

Yes

5

Amenity

5.1

Solar access and overshadowing

 

Solar access

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

iv) Ensure that building layouts facilitate good solar access to both internal and external living spaces (e.g. Ideally locate living areas to the north and east, and service areas to the south and west of the development).

The subject site benefits from a north-south orientation. Windows are proposed along the rear elevation and western elevation and will maximise solar penetration to the proposed additional spaces.

 

Proposed living area faces north.

 

Neighbouring buildings will still receive adequate solar access.

 

The majority of the proposed overshadowing falls across Clovelly Road.

 

 

Yes

5.2

Acoustic and Visual Privacy

 

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

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

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

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

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

The proposed internal areas are appropriately located within the site relative to neighbouring properties.

 

Council’s Environmental Health & Building Officer has recommended conditions of consent to any approval which have been incorporated into the conditions.

Yes, subject to conditions.

 

10.0    Technical advice: Internal and external referrals

 

10.1      Heritage Officer

 

Height, scale and setbacks

The proposal involves a varied building height with a maximum height of 10.37m at its tallest point and seeks a clause 4.6 variation to the height limit of 9.5m for the site. The proposed works involve the creation of an additional residential level. The additions have been designed to sit behind the existing roof ridgeline, and therefore setback substantially from the hipped roof building line. The additions would comprise a flat roof form and neutral colours and materials which would sit comfortably within the streetscape and not visually compete with the terracotta roof of the subject building or detract from the aesthetically significant facades and face brickwork on the heritage item to the north. The additions, being set to the rear of the building would also retain the original features of the front façade including the casement bay window and gabled end.

 

It is noted that the information contained within the DA refers to a previous approval for development of upper levels additions on the site (DA/396/2015). While the general outline of the previous approval bares resemblance to the current proposal, the previous design involved a scale and form which included a greater setback from the northern boundary at the upper level, and sat a greater distance below the ridge line than the current proposal.

 

Notwithstanding this, the proposal continues to allow for the original hipped roof to be interpreted from Clovelly Road. As discussed below, the proposal is not considered to detract from significant view lines to the adjacent item. Its current setback to the western boundary will be retained and the proposal will be able to conserve the buildings visual relationship to its adjoining neighbours as well as conserve the setting of the neighbouring heritage item.

 

Views to and from heritage item

Views to the adjacent heritage item are predominantly appreciated the main street frontages of Arden Street and Clovelly Road, and significant views are experienced from the opposite side of Clovelly Road, from further west along Clovelly Road looking east, as well as from Arden Street to the south, looking north.

The proposal has been designed to sit behind the roof ridge line, and although it rises marginally above the ridge in height, its design comprises a flat roof, and will be setback from the main front building line and will only be partially visible from the primary frontage on Clovelly Road. An exhaust stack is proposed to extend above the roof line.

 

As mentioned, the works would be partially visible from the opposite side of Clovelly Road and not visible from views towards the heritage item from further west along Clovelly Road looking east. The proposal would be partially visible from views looking north from Arden Street, however its contemporary flat roof design would not visually detract from the decorative upper level facades and parapets of the adjacent item. Views towards the site from the opposite side of Arden Street from the immediate west, would also be unaffected.

 

It is worth noting that the adjoining building to the east of the subject site (no.329 Clovelly Road) comprises a large front dormer which occupies a large portion of the existing roof plane. As such, the original roof form of the attached terraces has been partially compromised and the proposed works being setback behind the ridge line would not result in any significant additional loss of character to the building and streetscape.

 

Colours and materials

Proposed colours and materials are outlined with the specification drawings and ‘External finishes and colours guide’ prepared by Cape Cod and received by Council 12 July 2018. The colours and finishes for the proposed extension and additions to the rear include a range of neutral tones including ‘off- white’ to wall claddings, as well as the rendered painted finishes to the walls, aluminium ‘anodic natural matt’ to windows, creams and beige tones to other elements. The colours would be neutral and would be visually cohesive with the adjacent heritage item and not detract from its prominent decorative façade and its red face brick. A condition is included to ensure that the colours and finishes are in accordance with the information submitted.

 

10.2      Development Engineer and Landscape Officer

 

Undergrounding of power lines to site

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

 

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

 

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

 

Landscape Comments

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

 

10.3      Environmental Health Officer

 

Comments

Odour concerns

Residents are located directly above a restaurant and in adjacent properties. One submission have been received with regards to odours emanating from the restaurant.

 

A review of Council’s computer database Pathway CRM and HPRM System indicates that no complaints in relation to odours have been received for the food premises. However, should complaints be received in the future, Council may request for an odour impact assessment to be provided to confirm that there is no odour nuisances emanating from the premises.

 

Appropriate conditions in relation to environmental amenity have been included in this referral to ensure the premises comply with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations

 

Noise concerns

Residents are located directly above a restaurant and in adjacent properties. No submission have been received with regards to noise.

 

An acoustic assessment prepared by Noise and Sounds Services (report no. nss 22374- Final) dated December 2015 concludes that noise emission from the proposed restaurant will comply with the noise criteria with the implementation of the recommendation detailed in section 7 of the acoustic report.

 

In order to assess the existing and potential noise sources and emissions from the proposed development, and potential impact upon the amenity of the locality, an Acoustic Report prepared by a suitably qualified consultant should be provided and approved by Council prior to the occupational certificate being issued for the development.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Conditions of consent - 327 Clovelly Rd, Clovelly DA/413/2018

 

 

 

 


Conditions of consent - 327 Clovelly Rd, Clovelly DA/413/2018

Attachment 1

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Randwick Local Planning Panel            11 April 2019

 

 

Development Application Report No. D11/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      149 - 155 Malabar Road, South Coogee (DA/502/2017/A)

 

Folder No:                      DA/502/2017/A

Author:                          Chahrazad Rahe, Senior Assessment Planner     

 

 

Proposal:                       Modification of approved development to change the 1 bedroom                                       dwelling to a 2 bedroom dwelling at level 2, change the 3 bedroom                                      dwelling to a 4 bedroom dwelling at level 3, alteration to some                                       windows, deletion of level 3 north terrace, alter solar panels, delete                                       planter on rear level 3 balcony and associated works.

Ward:                             East Ward

Applicant:                      Morrison and Smith Pty Ltd

Owner:                           Janmar Units Pty Ltd

Cost of works:                Nil

Reason for referral:        The subject application is referred to the Randwick Local Planning Panel                                       (RLPP) as the original application was considered at the former                                       Randwick Development Assessment Panel (RDAP) meeting on 22                                       March 2018 due to the following:

 

                                          -  The development is subject to SEPP 65;

                                          -  The development contravenes the development standard for         

                                              building height by more than 10%; and

                                          -  13 unique submissions by way of objection were received.

 

Recommendation

That the RLPP, as the consent authority, approve the application made under Section 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Consent No. 502/2017 to change the 1 bedroom dwelling to a 2 bedroom dwelling at level 2, change the 3 bedroom dwelling to a 4 bedroom dwelling at level 3, alteration to some windows, deletion of level 3 north terrace, alter solar panels, delete planter on rear level 3 balcony and at No. 149-155 Malabar Road, South Coogee, in the following manner:

·            Amend Conditions Nos. 1 & 2a to read:  

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans and supporting documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s approved stamp:

 

Plan

Drawn/prepared by

Dated

DA00, Cover Sheet and Context Plan (Rev D)

Edifice Design

03.04.18

DA01, Site Analysis (Rev B)

Edifice Design

12.12.17

DA02, Basement Level (Rev B)

Edifice Design

12.12.17

DA03, Ground/Podium Level (Rev D)

Edifice Design

03.04.18

DA04, Level 1 (Rev D)

Edifice Design

03.04.18

DA05, Level 2 (Rev D)

Edifice Design

03.04.18

DA06, Level 3 (Rev D)

Edifice Design

03.04.18

DA07, Site and Roof Plan (Rev C)

Edifice Design

03.04.18

DA08, North and West Elevation (Rev D)

Edifice Design

03.04.18

DA09, East and South Elevation (Rev D)

Edifice Design

03.04.18

DA10, Section A-a Section B-B (Rev D)

Edifice Design

03.04.18

DA11 External Colours Materials and Finishes (Rev C)

Edifice Design

12.12.17

Landscape Plan –L01, L02 (Rev A)

Zenith

9.12.17

Drainage Plans Rev E Sheets STW001-502

LP Consulting Pty Ltd

6.12.17

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

 

842457M_02

14 December 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/prepared by

Dated

DA02, Basement Level (Rev C)

Edifice Design

24/10/2018

DA03, Ground/Podium Level (Rev D)

Edifice Design

24/10/2018

DA04, Level 1 (Rev D)

Edifice Design

24/10/2018

DA05, Level 2 (Rev F)

Edifice Design

05/03/2019

DA06, Level 3 (Rev F)

Edifice Design

05/03/2019

DA07, Site and Roof Plan (Rev D)

Edifice Design

05/03/2019

DA08, North and West Elevation (Rev F)

Edifice Design

05/03/2019

DA09, East and South Elevation (Rev F)

Edifice Design

05/03/2019

DA10, Section A-a Section B-B (Rev E)

Edifice Design

05/03/2019

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

 

842457M_02

14 December 2017

 

2 a.    Planter boxes having a minimum width of 900mm and a minimum height of 600mm shall be installed along the northern, eastern and southern outer perimeter of the main roof terrace area.  The roof terrace area directly to the north adjacent to the master bedroom and living area shall be non-trafficable. The balustrades directly to this area shall be deleted and the doors directly to this area shall be fixed to ensure no access to this area.  The recessed roof terrace area to the south eastern end can remain without planter boxes. The plans including associated landscaped plan shall be amended to reflect the above details and also include details of the proposed vegetation to be installed in the planter boxes.

 


 

 



http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.png?guid=4a68a8a1-5b72-4a78-999d-2f972808a081&contentType=image%2Fpng

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

1.      Executive summary

 

The subject application is referred to the Randwick Local Planning Panel (RLPP) as the original application was considered at the former Randwick Development Assessment Panel (RDAP) meeting on 22 March 2018 due to the following:

 

·      The development is subject to SEPP 65.

·      The development contravenes the development standard for building height by more than 10%.

·      13 unique submissions by way of objection were received.

 

At the meeting the Panel determined that part of the breezeway constituted as gross floor area as defined under the RLEP 2012 and therefore, should be included in the FSR calculations. As a result, it was resolved the application be deferred to enable the applicant to either:

 

·      Amend the development to reduce the FSR to comply with the standard; or

·      Submit a request to vary FSR development standard under Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012.

 

The application was amended by reducing the gross floor areas equivalent to that of the breezeways on level 2 and the upper most level of the development.  The amended development was compliant with the FSR development standard under the RLEP 2012.

 

The amended development was considered by the RDAP on 10 May 2018 and consent was granted for demolition of existing structures, construction of part 3, part 4 storey residential flat building containing 16 dwellings, basement parking for 22 car spaces, landscaping and associated works.   The non-compliant building height was endorsed under the consent.

 

The proposal seeks development consent to modify the approved development by increasing the FSR by changing the dwelling on level 2 from a 1 bedroom to a 2 bedroom apartment and on level 3 from a 3 bedroom to a 4 bedroom apartment, alterations to some windows, deletion of level 3 north terrace, alter solar panels, delete planter on rear level 3 balcony and associated works.

 

The key issues associated with the proposal relate to the additional FSR and deletion of Condition 2a which requires planter boxes to be provided along the entire perimeter of the roof terrace area.

 

The additional gross floor area is supported as it was considered to provide additional amenity for two of the apartments whilst still be compatible with the bulk and scale of the surrounding built environment within the streetscape.

 

The amended proposal remains largely consistent with the original approved development and will not result in any unreasonable additional impact upon the environmental amenity of the neighbouring residents and the character of the streetscape. 

 

It is recommended that Condition 2a be retained with amendments to suite the current submitted design to ensure privacy levels are maintained to neighbouring properties. 

The proposal is recommended for approval subject to non-standard condition that require planter boxes to be provided along the northern, eastern and southern outer perimeter of the main roof terrace area.

 

2.       Site Description and Locality

 

T The subject site is known as 149-155 Malabar Road, south Coogee and is legally described as Lot A in DP 323530 & Lots 1 & 2 in DP 1124785. The site is located on the eastern side of Malabar Road between Napper Street and Bedford Place.  The site has an area of approximately 1463.08m², is irregular in shape and has a 28.015m frontage width to Malabar Road, a 50.29m frontage depth to laneway/reserve forming the northern boundary, a rear eastern boundary width of 36.735m. 

 

The site falls away from Malabar Road to the rear eastern boundary by approximately 4m over the entire depth of the property and has a slight cross fall from north to south in the rear portion of the property.

 

The site is currently occupied by a part 2 and part 3 storey brick residential flat building with tile roof containing six units, semi-basement car parking and a rear hardstand area. A landscaped area wraps around the rear of the properties at No. 153 and 155 Malabar Road and contains a number of existing trees. 

 

Adjoining the site to the north across the laneway/reserve is No.’s 147 Malabar Road which contains a two storey dwelling house and rear yard of dwelling houses fronting Napper Street.  To the east, the site is bound by a part 2 & part 3 storey residential flat building at No. 10 Garie Place and 3 storey residential flat building above ground level parking. To the south is No.153 Malabar Road which contains a single storey semi-detached dwelling, and No.159 Malabar Road which contains a part 2 and part 3 storey residential flat building.

 

The locality is predominately occupied by a general mixture of low to medium density residential development of one to two storey detached and semi-detached dwelling houses, 2 to 3 storey residential flat buildings and a number of retail/commercial uses including bottle shop and service station.

 

Photo 1: North western corner of subject site off Malabar Road and Laneway

 

3.   Details of Current Approval & Relevant history

 

The original development application DA/502/2017 was granted on 10 May 2018 by the Randwick Development Assessment Panel (RDAP) for demolition of existing structures, construction of part 3, part 4 storey residential flat building containing 16 dwellings, basement parking for 22 cars, landscaping and associated works (with a variation to height control which was endorsed under the consent).

 

The following history has been provided by the applicant:

 

Prior to the determination above the following provides a brief summary of preceding events in relation to the proposed development on the subject site:

 

6 March 2017 Pre-DA 18/2017 Lodged for the demolition of existing buildings, and construction of a part 3 and part 4 storey, residential flat building, containing 6 x 1 bedroom, 10 x 2 bedroom and 2 x 3-bedroom units, above a semi basement parking garage for 23 vehicles, with associated landscaping.

 

3 April 2017 Pre-DA 18/2017 Considered by the Randwick/Waverley Design Review

Panel (DRP), recommending significant changes to the design including a perimeter block approach to the corner site.

 

1 June 2017 Pre-DA Meeting held with Council officers.

 

9 June 2017 Formal Pre-DA advice received.

 

15 August 2017 DA 502/2017 Lodged for the demolition of existing buildings, and construction of a part 3 and part 4 storey, residential flat building, containing 6 x 1 bedroom, 10 x 2 bedroom and 2 x 3-bedroom units, above a semi basement parking garage for 23 vehicles, with associated landscaping.

 

16 August 2017 Referral to external consultant.

 

5 September 2017 Application considered by the Randwick/Waverley Design Excellence

Panel and generally supported by the panel as consistent with the Pre-DA advice.

 

12 March 2018 Application assessed, and report prepared by external consultant.

 

22 March 2018 Officers report to RDAP with recommendation for the granting of a conditional consent.

 

Deferred from the above meeting and modifications carried out to the scheme recommended by officers for approval as RDAP (now RLPP) regarded breezeways as included in GFA.

 

10 May 2018 Consent granted for demolition of existing structures, construction of part 3, part 4 storey residential flat building containing 16 dwellings, basement parking for 22 cars, landscaping and associated works (variation to height control) by the Randwick

Development Assessment Panel.

 

4.       Proposal

 

The proposal involves modifications to Consent 502/2017 for demolition of existing structures, construction of part 3, part 4 storey residential flat building containing 16 dwellings, basement parking for 22 cars, landscaping and associated works (variation to height control).

 

The modifications as originally proposed, included:

 

Level 2

·    Additions to Unit 204 to contain 2 bedrooms in lieu of the approved 1-bedroom layout under Consent 502/2017.

·    Minor window modifications as detailed on the Architectural drawings which accompany the application.

 

Level 3

·    Deletion of the north facing terrace area adjacent to living areas of unit 301, endorsed under Consent 502/2017.

·    Additions to Unit 301 to provide a modified 4-bedroom layout in lieu of the reduced 3-bedroom unit layout endorsed under Consent 502/2017.

·    Provision of a modest west facing terrace to address the Malabar Road frontage of the uppermost level.

·    Modified window openings as detailed on the Architectural plans which accompany the application.

·    A siting of the solar panels further north, above the proposed increased Level 2 Floor plan layout.

·    A deletion of the planter boxes to the perimeter of the rear terrace area required by condition 2a of consent 502/2017.

 

Following a meeting with Council officers on 26 February, 2019, further modifications were submitted, reducing the GFA on level 3. In response, Council officers advised of further reduction requirements including:

 

·    On level 2, increase the setback by 500mm (to 5m) from the northern boundary by reducing the depth of the living area; and

·    On level 3, increase the setback by 300mm (to 7m) from the northern boundary by reducing the width of the living area.

 

As a result of further requirements of Council officers, the final proposed modifications comprise:

 

Level 2:

·    Additions to Unit 204 to contain 2 bedrooms in lieu of the approved 1-bedroom layout under Consent 502/2017.

·    Window modifications as detailed on the architectural drawings which accompany the application.

·    An increased setback to the Unit 204 500mm to the balcony alignment, further recessing the building from the northern boundary beyond that endorsed under consent 502/2017.

 

Level 3

·    Additions to Unit 301 to provide a modified 4-bedroom layout in lieu of the reduced 3-bedroom unit layout endorsed under Consent 502/2017.

·    A reduction in the size of the north facing terrace area adjacent to living areas of unit 301, from that endorsed under Consent 502/2017.

·    Modified window openings as detailed on the architectural plans which accompany the application.

·    A siting of the solar panels further north, above the proposed increased Level 2 Floor/roof plan layout.

·    A deletion of the planter boxes to the perimeter of the rear terrace area required by condition 2a of consent 502/2017.

The assessment is based on these amended plans received by Council on 8 March 2019.

 

5.       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.

 

An assessment against the above criteria is provided below:

 

1.   Substantially the same development

 

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

 

The proposed modifications do not involve any significant changes to the approved built form, height, scale or use of the site nor will it affect any important, material or essential aspect of the originally approved development. The application is considered to be substantially the same development as originally approved as the proposed modifications will not fundamentally alter the essence of the originally approved development and as such, it can be assessed under Section 4.55 of the Act.

 

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.

 

6.       Notification

 

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:

 

·      Executive Committee of the Owners Corporation - 8 Garie Place, South Coogee

·      4/8 Garie Place, South Coogee

 

Issue

Comment

The proposed increase in the number of bedrooms in the development and the consequent increase in the floor space ration will have an adverse impact on the amenity of residents in relation to parking and bulk and scale of development.

 

Refer to Key Issues below under Clause 4.4 – Floor Space Ratio which addresses this concern.

 

 

Concerns regarding the treatment of the large tree on the eastern boundary of the proposed development.  The tree acts as a significant visual screen and is removal will have a significant loss of privacy, quite enjoyment and amenity to the residents of 8 Garie Place.

 

The executive Committee seeks reconsideration of any approval from the Panel for removal of the large tree given that report in the original application incorrectly stated that the tree was dead and in fact that the tree is still in good health.

Council’s landscape officer has provided the following comment:  2 mature Willow Myrtles on the eastern boundary (T18 & T20) were noted as having a presence in the area, providing amenity, screening & privacy for both occupants and neighbours.

 

However, both have short/reduced life-spans due to major structural defects in their trunks. In fact, the cables & bracing that have been set up on T20 are the only way it has even been able to remain upright in the ground.

 

They’re not suitable for retention, irrespective of these works, and are seen to pose a threat to person and property as they continue to decline.  

 

They’re also in direct conflict with all aspects & levels of the works, and would only be placed under further stress if their retention was attempted & then works performed close to either of them. This same advice was provided for the pre-DA.

 

7.       Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

7.1.    State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPS)

 

SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

Pursuant to Clause 4 of SEPP 65, the modifications made to the approved RFB is not defined as being substantial redevelopment and therefore, the modifications made within this application are not required to be referred back to the Design Excellence Panel.

 

The proposed amendments will continue to be consistent with the objectives contained within SEPP 65 and Apartment Design Guide in relation to context and neighbourhood character, built form and scale, density, sustainability, landscape, amenity, safety, housing diversity and social interaction and aesthetics.  The development allows for adequate setbacks to the front, side and rear boundaries and will continue to be of bulk and scale that is consistent with surrounding built environment within the streetscape.

 

The additional area will provide extra amenity for the approved units at numbers 204 and 301 without result in any unreasonable amenity impact on surrounding properties in terms of visual bulk, privacy and overshadowing.

 

Apartment Design Guide (ADG)

An assessment has been carried out in accordance with Part 3: Siting the Development and Part 4: Designing the Building of the Apartment Design Guide against the design criteria requirements. Any non-compliance to the design criteria includes a merit based assessment as per the design guidance of the Apartment Design Guide.

 

The relevant provisions of the ADG are addressed in the table below. (Note: a number of design criteria that are not related to the proposal have been deliberately omitted.)

 

Clause

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

Part 3: Siting the Development

3B-1

Orientation

 

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

The units in question are oriented to Malabar Road and the lane way to the north.  There are no changes made to the approved pedestrian entry which is located off Malabar Road and vehicle access which is accessed from the lane way.

Yes

 

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

There are no changes made to the orientation of the approved units. Rear units continue to be oriented to the north.

Yes

 

Where the street frontage is to the north or south, overshadowing to the south should be minimised and buildings behind the street frontage should be oriented to the east and west

The additional built form is orientated towards the northern boundary which minimises overshadowing to the south.

Yes

3B-2

Orientation

 

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

Solar access requirements will be achieved for the development (81% achieved) above the 70% minimum requirement.

Yes

 

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

Adjoining neighbours receive three hours of solar access.

 

 

Where an adjoining property does not currently receive the required hours of solar access, the proposed building ensures solar access to neighbouring  properties is not reduced by more than 20%.

Adjoining neighbours receive three hours of solar access.

Yes

 

If the proposal will significantly reduce the solar access of neighbours, building separation should be increased beyond minimums contained in section 3F Visual privacy.

Solar access remains satisfactory.

N/A

 

Overshadowing should be minimised to the south or down hill by increased upper level setbacks.

The upper level additions are orientated to the northern boundary.  There are no changes made to the approved building envelope along the southern boundary. 

Yes

 

A minimum of 4 hours of solar access should be retained to solar collectors on neighbouring buildings.

A minimum of four hours to the roof of 159 Malabar Road is retained.

 

Yes

3F-1

Visual Privacy

 

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

 

Up to 12m (4 storeys) – Habitable rooms and balconies = 6m, non-habitable rooms = 3m

The amendments made on the upper most level is setback a minimum distance of 7m from the laneway and on level 2 is setback 5m from the laneway at the edge of the balcony.

Yes - Refer to discussion of key issues below for assessment.

 

3J-1

Bicycle and Car Parking

 

The minimum car parking requirement for residents and visitors is set out in the Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, or the car parking requirement prescribed by the relevant council, whichever is less.

 

The car parking needs for a development must be provided off street

Shortfall of one car spaces.

 

No – Refer to discussion of key issues below and Development Engineer comments.

Part 4: Designing the Building

4A

Solar and Daylight Access

 

Living rooms and private open spaces of at least 70% of apartments in a building receive a minimum of 2 hours direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm at mid

winter in the Sydney Metropolitan Area and in the Newcastle and Wollongong local government areas

81% (13/16) of the apartments will continue to receive direct solar access in the living room for two hours during the winter solstice. All balconies receive two hours solar access.

Yes

 

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

0 apartments receive no direct sunlight.

Yes

4B

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

All apartments will continue to have cross ventilation.

Yes

4D

Apartment Size and 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

Unit 204 = 2 bedroom  -

76.79m2

 

Unit 301 = 4 bedroom -126.87m2

 

Yes

 

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

All habitable rooms comprise of a window opening for the purposes of light and will not have an area less than 10% of the floor area of the room. For the purposes of ventilation all apartments have multiple aspects.

Yes

 

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

 

Yes

 

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

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

Yes

 

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

Bedrooms will achieve minimum area requirements in 9m2 and the master bedrooms are over 10m2.

Yes

 

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

All bedrooms have a minimum dimension of 3m.

Yes

4E

Apartment Size and Layout

 

All apartments are required to have primary balconies as follows:

Studio apartments 4m2

1 bedroom apartments 8m2 2m dim.

2 bedroom apartments 10m2 2m dim.

3+ bedroom apartments 12m2 2.4m dim.

 

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

Apartment 204 which is a 2 bedroom dwelling = 11m2

 

Apartment 301 which is a 4 bedroom dwelling = is greater than 12m and has a dimension greater than 2.4m.

Yes

4F

Common Circulation and Spaces

 

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

The core provides entry to a maximum of 5 apartments.

Yes

4G

Storage

 

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

 

Studio apartments 4m3

1 bedroom apartments 6m3

2 bedroom apartments 8m3

3+ bedroom apartments 10m3

 

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

The development includes compliant storage within each apartment and basement.

Yes

 

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.

 

7.2.    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

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

 

The 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 in that the proposed activity and built form will continue to provide for the housing needs of the community whilst enhancing the aesthetic character and protecting the amenity of the local residents.

 

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

 

Description

Council Standard

Approved

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

0.9:1

0.9:1

0.943:1

No. Refer to Clause 4.4 – Floor Space Ratio below.

Height of Building (Maximum)

12m

13.488m

 

The original development was approved with a minor departure to the maximum building height.

The proposed modifications will not alter the approved maximum building height of 13.488m.

Variation was supported in the original application.

 

8.       Development control plans and policies

 

8.1.    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 in Appendix 2.

 

9.       Environmental 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

See discussion in sections 7 and key issues below.

 

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

Nil.

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

The proposal generally satisfies the objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. See table in Appendix 2 and the discussion in key issues 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 modified development will continue to be 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 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 issues raised in the submissions have been addressed in this report.

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

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

 

9.1.    Discussion of key issues

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

Clause 4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

The maximum FSR for any form of residential accommodation permitted on the land is 0.9:1 under RLEP 2012 which equates to a GFA of 1316.77m².  The subject site has an area of 1463.08m².

 

The current approved FSR on the site is 0.906:1 (or GFA of 1325.9m²).

 

The amended application originally proposed an increase to the GFA on the site of 99.22m² which resulted in an FSR of approximately 0.97:1 (or GFA of 1425.9m²).  This was considered to be excessive and it was advised by Council to reduce the FSR of the building by increasing the front & northern side setbacks on the upper most levels in order to reduce its predominance from the street and laneway.

 

The plans where amended reducing the FSR as suggested above and the additional GFA proposed is now 21.14m² at level 2 and 31.88m² at level 3.  This equates to total gross floor area of 53.52m² resulting an increase in the FSR of 0.943:1 (or GFA of 1379.49m²) which is 4.76% above the allowable maximum standard and that endorsed under the original consent.

 

A formal Clause 4.6 variation is not strictly applicable for Section 4.55 modification.  The relevant judgments (originating with North Sydney Council v Michael Standley & Associates Pty Ltd [1998] NSWSC 163) say that section 4.55 is a ‘free-standing provision’, meaning that “a modification application may be approved notwithstanding the development would be in breach of an applicable development standard were it the subject of an original development application”. Therefore, a section 4.55 modification application can be approved even though it would contravene a development standard.   Section 4.55 (3) still requires the consent authority to take into consideration the matters referred to in Section 4.15, which in turn include the provision of any environmental planning instrument. Notwithstanding, an assessment is carried out below to demonstrate consistency with Clause 4.6 provision.

 

The proposal seeks to vary the following development standard contained within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012):

 

Clause

Development Standard

Proposal

 

Proposed variation

 

Proposed variation

(%)

Cl 4.4:

Floor space ratio (maximum)

GFA of 1316.77m². 

Current approved FSR on the site is 0.9:1.

 

Proposed FSR of 0.943:1 (or GFA of 1379.49m²)

62.72m2

4.76%

 

 

Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012: Exception to a Development Standard relevantly states:

 

3.   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.

 

4.   Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

(a)  the consent authority is satisfied that:

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

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

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

 

In Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118, Preston CJ summarised the matters in Clause 4.6 (4) that must be addressed before consent can be granted to a development that contravenes a development standard. 

 

1.    The applicant’s written request has adequately demonstrated that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case

 

Chief Justice Preston in Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118 reinforces his previous decision In Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827 where he identified five commonly invoked ways of establishing that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. The most common is to demonstrate that the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard.

 

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

 

Chief Justice Preston in Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118 reinforces the previous decision in Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90 regarding how to determine whether ‘the applicant’s written request has adequately demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard’.

 

The grounds relied on by the applicant in their written request must be “environmental planning grounds” by their nature. Chief Justice Preston at [23] notes the adjectival phrase “environmental planning” is not defined, but would refer to grounds that relate to the subject matter, scope and purpose of the EPA Act, including the objects in s1.3 of the EPA Act.

 

Chief Justice Preston at [24] notes that there here are two respects in which the written request needs to be “sufficient”.

 

1.       The written request must focus on the aspect or element of the development that contravenes the development standard, not the development as a whole (i.e. The written request must justify the contravention of the development standard, not simply promote the benefits of carrying out the development as a whole); and

 

2.       The written request must demonstrate that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. In Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90 at [31] Judge Pain confirmed that the term ‘sufficient’ did not suggest a low bar, rather on the contrary, the written report must address sufficient environmental planning grounds to satisfy the consent authority.

 

3.       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.

 

Chief Justice Preston in Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118 at [27] notes that the matter in cl 4.6(4)(a)(ii), with which the consent authority must be satisfied, is not merely that the proposed development will be in the public interest but that it will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the development standard and the objectives for development of the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.

 

It is the proposed development’s consistency with the objectives of the development standard and the objectives of the zone that make the proposed development in the public interest.

 

If the proposed development is inconsistent with either the objectives of the development standard or the objectives of the zone or both, the consent authority, cannot be satisfied that the development will be in the public interest for the purposes of cl 4.6(4)(a)(ii).

 

4.       The concurrence of the Secretary has been obtained.

 

Chief Justice Preston in Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118 at [28] notes that the other precondition in cl 4.6(4) that must be satisfied before consent can be granted is whether the concurrence of the Secretary has been obtained (cl 4.6(4)(b)). In accordance with Clause 4.6 (5), in deciding whether to grant concurrence, the Secretary must consider:

 

(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

 

Under clause 64 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, the Secretary has given written notice dated 21 February 2018, attached to the Planning Circular PS 18-003 issued on 21 February 2018, to each consent authority, that it may assume the Secretary’s concurrence for exceptions to development standards in respect of applications made under cl 4.6 (subject to the conditions in the table in the notice).

 

The approach to determining a clause 4.6 request as summarised by Preston CJ in Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118, has been used in the following assessment of whether the matters in Clause 4.6(4) have been satisfied for each contravention of a development standard. 

 

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

 

As discussed above, a formal written justification is not required by the applicant for a Section 4.55 modification.

 

The assessment is made in relation to the following:

 

Compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case and whether there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.  The following justifications are provided in support of the proposed modifications as follows:

 

2.    Has the application adequately demonstrated that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

 

The objectives of the FSR standard are set out in Clause 4.4 (1) of RLEP 2012. The objectives are addressed as follows:

 

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

 

The objective is satisfied in that the site is relatively large and is capable of accommodating the additional gross floor areas and remain compatible with the desired future character of the locality. In particular, the additional areas are well distributed across the site with adequate articulation along the front, northern and eastern elevations. In addition, the additional areas are limited to the northern portion of the building at Levels 2 & 3 and will not result in unreasonable impact upon the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

 

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

 

This objective is satisfied in that the modified building envelope will continue to be well articulated and all habitable rooms will receive adequate light and ventilation and respond well to the environmental and energy needs. In addition, the amended BASIX certificate (submitted by the applicant) shows that the development meets the relevant water and energy saving targets.

 

(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 development is not within a conservation area.  The closest heritage item to the subject site is Randwick Cemetery, located at 42-138 Malabar Road which is of local significance. The modified development will have no additional implications to the significance and setting of the item, including view to the item. The amended development will continue to be adequately setback and is of a scale and built form that is generally consistent with neighbouring development.

 

(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.

 

This objective is satisfied for the following reasons:

 

The proposed additional areas are limited to the northern side of the building at Levels 2 & 3 and will not result in any unreasonable adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining and neighbouring properties in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views.  The additional overshadowing impacts to the adjoining neighbours are considered to be relatively minor and modified development will continue to meet the solar access requirements for surrounding development. 

 

Due to the relatively large size of the subject allotment, the additional areas are able to be accommodated within the building footprint and still maintain adequate separation between buildings for visual and acoustic privacy, solar access, air circulation and view. The front and northern side setback will continue to be consistent with the average setback of neighbouring properties.  A condition has been included to restrict access along the northern side of the roof terrace directly adjacent the master bedroom and living area to minimise privacy impact to the neighbouring properties to the north.  Planter boxes around the perimeter of the main roof terrace area also assists in minimizing potential privacy impacts to neighbouring properties.

  

The changes to the dwelling mix will not increase the parking shortfall of 1.2 space (say 1 space) as originally approved. The amended proposal is still short by 1 car space and the shortfall is supported by the Council’s Development Engineers for the same reasons as stated in the original consent.  (Refer to detailed comments made below under Appendix 1: Referrals.)

 

3.    The application adequately demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard?

 

The assessment below demonstrate that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the FSR development standard as follows:

 

·      The site is relatively large and is capable of accommodating the additional floor areas without affecting the amenity of the adjoining and neighbouring properties in terms of visual bulk, overshadowing, loss of privacy and views.

 

·      The additional floor areas at Levels 2 and 3 maintains the generous setback provided for the development (i.e. 5m at Level 2 and 7m at Level 3) and will maintain sufficient separation to the low density residential zone located towards the northern side of the subject site.

 

·      The additional floor areas are located towards the northern portion of the building and will not result in any unreasonable additional overshadowing to the adjoining properties.

 

·      The additional floor areas are well distributed and will maintain adequate articulation along the front, northern and eastern elevations and will remain compatible with the desired future character of the locality.

 

·      The modified development will continue to achieve the level of solar access and cross ventilation as required under the ADG.  

 

Whilst the provisions of Clause 4.6 are not strictly applicable to the proposed modifications, the satisfaction of the above is such that the modifications are worthy of support, having regard to those matters under Section 4.15(1) of the EP and A Act.

 

Randwick DCP 2013

 

Part C2 – Medium Density Residential

 

Section 3.4 - Setbacks

 

Sub-section 3.4.3 - Rear setback

Control 3.4.3 of Part C2 of Randwick DCP requires a minimum rear setback for residential flat buildings of 15% of the allotment depth (7.5m in this instance) or 5m, whichever is the greater.

 

Rear & side boundary setbacks on the basement level, ground level and level 1 will be consistent with those endorsed under the original consent. The extension to the eastern side boundary is setback approx. 7.49m from the boundary which is generally consistent with the rear setback control of 7.5m.  Moreover, this is an irregular lot and on merit provides adequate setback with compliant landscaped area and separation distances for visual privacy.

 

Section 5 - Amenity

 

Sub-section 5.3 - Visual Privacy

 

The applicant has request to delete Condition 2 of the consent which reads as follows:

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

2.         The approved plans and documents must be amended in accordance with the following requirements and details are to be included in the Construction Certificate:

 

a.   Planter boxes having a minimum width of 900mm and a minimum height of 600mm shall be installed along the entire outer perimeter of the roof terrace. The plans including associated landscaped plan shall be amended to reflect this detail and also include details of the proposed vegetation to be installed in the planter boxes.

 

The applicant indicates that the above requirement was not identified as a key issue, nor was there any commentary included in the detailed reporting of the application.   The applicant has also argued that the terrace area will not be readily visual from surrounding development and there is no discernible benefits to surrounding properties associated with the required planter boxes.  Furthermore, there are well-known drainage problems often associated with such provision.

 

Whilst the terrace area was not noted or identified as a key issue in the report, it is evident that the condition was placed as the roof terrace area is relatively large and may cause acoustic and privacy impacts to the neighbouring properties.  It is recommended this Condition be retained with amendments to suite the current submitted design.  The condition shall read as follows:

 

2 a. Planter boxes having a minimum width of 900mm and a minimum height of 600mm shall be installed along the northern, eastern and southern outer perimeter of the main roof terrace area.  The terrace roof area directly to the north adjust to the master bedroom and living area shall be non-trafficable.  The recessed roof terrace area to the south eastern end can remain without planter boxes. The plans including associated landscaped plan shall be amended to reflect this detail and also include details of the proposed vegetation to be installed in the planter boxes.

 

10.     Conclusion

 

That the application to Modification of approved development to change 1 bedroom dwelling to 2 bedroom dwelling at level 2, change 3 bedroom dwelling to 4 bedroom dwelling at level 3, alteration to some windows, deletion of level 3 north terrace, alter solar panels, delete planter on rear level 3 balcony and associated works be approved (subject to conditions) for the following reasons:

 

·      The proposed modifications are considered to result in a development that is substantially the same as the previously approved development.

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

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

·      The scale and design of the modified development is considered to be suitable for the location and is compatible with the desired future character of the locality.

·      The modified will not result in significant adverse environmental impacts upon the amenity and character of the locality within the foreshore.

·      The development enhances the visual quality of the public domain/streetscape

 


 

Appendix 1: Referrals

 

1.    Internal referral comments:

 

1.1.    Development Engineer

A Section 4.55(2) application has been received which seeks to modify the approved development by changing a 1 bedroom dwelling to 2 bedroom dwelling at level 2, change 3 bedroom dwelling to 4 bedroom dwelling at level 3, alteration to some windows, deletion of level 3 north terrace, alter solar panels, delete planter on rear level 3 balcony and associated works.

 

Original consent: Demolition of existing structures, construction of part 3, part 4 storey residential flat building containing 16 dwellings, basement parking for 22 cars, landscaping and associated works (variation to height control).

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Statement of Environmental Effects stamped by Council 26th Oct 2018

·      Architectural Plans by Edifice Design stamped by Council 26th Oct 2018

 

GENERAL COMMENTS

There are no objections to the Section 4.55 proposal subject to the comments and conditions as provided in this report.

 

PARKING COMMENTS

The Section 4.55 proposal will retain the approved number of 16 units and configuration. It should be noted that the description in the SEE is incorrect  with the development actually comprising of 4 x 1 bedroom (G02,G03,103,203), 6 x 2 bedroom (G01,101,102,201,202,204)  3 x 2 bedroom + study (G05,105,205), 2 x 3 bedroom (G04,104) and 1 x 4 bedroom (301) units.

 

The parking requirement and provision will remain unchanged as determined in Engineers report for the original proposal dated 31st January 2018. i.e.

 

Parking required                 = (4 x 1) + (9 x 1.2) + (3 x 1.5) + 16/4(visitor)

                                           = 4 + 10.8 + 4.5 + 4.0

                                           = 23.2

                                           = say 23 spaces

 

Parking proposed and approved =    22 spaces (no objections)

 

There are no other proposed changes that will affect Development Engineering’s assessment and should the Section 4.55 application be approved, there are no engineering conditions required to be amended, added or deleted.  


 

Appendix 2: DCP Compliance Table

 

3.1     Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013

The relevant provisions of the DCP are addressed below.

 

DCP Clause

Control

Proposal

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA/ Conditioned)

C2

Medium Density Residential

3.3

Building depth

 

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

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

The modified development has a maximum building depth of less than 14m.

Complies

3.4

Setbacks

3.4.1

Front setback

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

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

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

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

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

The ground, first and second floor level will be maintaining the approved front setback of 6m.

 

The upper most level is setback a minimum distance of 10m from the front boundary and 7m from the northern boundary which adjoins the laneway.  The front setback is considered to be well recessed from the street frontage and lower levels and will continue to be consistent with average setback of adjoining buildings.

 

Landscaping is provided in the front setback with the exception of pedestrian pathways.

Complies

3.4.2

Side setback

 

Residential flat building

 

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

   -    Irregular - merit

-     20m and above: 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.

Setbacks to the northern side, fronting the lane way, are 5m to the balcony on level 2 and 7m to the external wall on level 3.

 

The northern setback on level 3 is increased to address Councils concerns in relation to the bulk of the building and is now recessed behind the main built form to the northern side of the building.

 

Both side setbacks are considered appropriate distances to manage bulk and amenity impacts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

3.4.3

Rear setback

 

For residential flat buildings, provide a minimum rear setback of 15% (7.5m) of allotment depth or 5m, whichever is the greater.

The extension to the eastern side boundary is setback approx. 7.49m from the boundary which is generally consistent with the rear setback control of 7.5m.

The non-compliance is negligible. Complies with the objectives of the control. Refer to Key Issues above.

4

Building Design

4.1

Building façade

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

The visual bulk of the building to the front façade on the third level is reduced and is setback well within the front building alignment of the approved building. 

 

The front façade is articulated, presents well to the streetscape and is consistent with the average setback of neighbouring buildings.  In addition to the above, the design incorporates a variety of materials and finishes that add to the diversity and provide visual interest to its appearance and presentation to the street.

 

The building addresses the street and laneway frontage. The building contains suitable articulation along its façade as well as side elevations.

Complies

4.2

Roof design

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are no significant changes made to the main roof form.  The approved solar panels are moved to the north eastern corner of the building.  It is not considered that the solar panels will add any unreasonable visual impacts to neighbouring properties or streetscape.  The panel will provide renewable Energy Source for the building.

 

 

Complies

4.4

External wall height and ceiling height

 

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

The original consent noted a minor non-compliance with the wall height on Level 3, which is further recessed to levels below. The extension portion to the northern side will continue this non-compliant wall height.

 

 

The non-compliance is considered to be minor and will not adversely affect the street or amenity of immediately adjoining properties.

 

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

Min. 2.7m

Complies

5

Amenity

5.1

Solar access and overshadowing

 

Solar access for proposed development

 

(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.

The original proposal achieved the required level of sunlight access to the living rooms and private open spaces with 13 of the 16 units (81%) receive solar access to living rooms which complies with the minimum requirement of the ADG Design Criteria.

 

This will remain unchanged as part of this amendment.

Complies

 

(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.

No units are single aspect on the southern side.

Complies

 

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

Compliance achieved.

Complies

 

Solar access for surrounding development

 

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

 

(ii)    At least 50% of the landscaped areas of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight 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.

Eastern modifications – Unit 204 Level 2

 

The eastern edge of this unit is approved with a full height privacy screen with roof structure over.  The additional GFA in this location will not cause any additional overshadow impact beyond that approved in the original consent.   In fact the amended proposal due to the increase of the northern setback will slightly improve shadows during the afternoon hours to the southern and eastern neighbours.

 

Western modifications – Unit 301 Level 3

The extension to the western end of the upper most level will result in a minor increase to the overshadowing in the morning between 9:00am to 1pm.  The additional shadows occurs over Malabar Road carriageway only.  There will be minor additional shadows between 2pm to 3pm which fall on the hardstand car parking areas in the front yard areas of no. 159 Malabar Road.  

 

Therefore, the proposed modification will have a negligible additional impact on sunlight access and overshadowing on adjoining properties beyond that approved under the original consent. 

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

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

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

-     Translucent glazing

-     Fixed timber or metal slats

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

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

New window openings are appropriately offset, treated or dimensioned.

 

The applicant wishes to deleted Condition 2a relating to planter boxes around the entire perimeter of the roof terrace.

Complies

 

 

 

Refer to Key Issues above which requires this   Condition to be retained with minor amendments to the condition.

 

 

 

 

5.4

Acoustic privacy

 

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

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

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

-    Double glazing

-    Operable screened balconies

-    Walls to courtyards

-    Sealing of entry doors

The proposal is appropriately designed to maintain acoustic privacy, including recessed setbacks to the terrace for Unit 301 and with the inclusion of Condition 2a.

Refer to Key Issues above.

5.5

View sharing

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

No significant view loss identified as part of the development which is non-compliant with height.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Randwick Local Planning Panel            11 April 2019

 

 

Development Application Report No. D12/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      46 Adina Avenue, La Perouse (DA/622/2018)

 

Folder No:                      DA/622/2018