BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Randwick Local Planning Panel

Meeting

 

 

 

   Thursday 9 May 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            9 May 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, 9 May 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

D16/19         35 Jersey Road, Matraville (DA/804/2018).................................................................... 1

D17/19         7 Seaside Parade, South Coogee (DA/502/2018/A)..................................................... 19

D18/19         7 Seaside Parade, South Coogee (DA/655/2018/A)..................................................... 33

D19/19         48 Dudley Street, Coogee (DA/536/2018)................................................................... 47

D20/19         96 Tunstall Avenue, Kingsford (DA/508/2018)............................................................ 131

D21/19         59 Denning Street, South Coogee (DA/601/2018)...................................................... 149

Miscellaneous Reports

Nil    

 

 

 

 

Kerry Kyriacou

Director City Planning


Randwick Local Planning Panel                                                                                                                                           9 May 2019

 

 

Development Application Report No. D16/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      35 Jersey Road, Matraville (DA/804/2018)

 

Folder No:                      DA/804/2018

Author:                          Brenton Pearce, Development Assessment Officer     

 

 

Proposal:                       Torrens title subdivision of existing site into 2 lots, demolition of existing                                       garage on new lot B and construction of hardstand carpark space on                                       new lot A (variation to lot size control).

Ward:                             South Ward

Applicant:                      Mr John Spiteri

Owner:                           MR L P Burrows

Cost of works:                $48,400.00

Reason for referral:        Variation to Minimum Subdivision Lot Size (clause 4.1 RLEP 2012)

Recommendation:

That the RLPP refuse consent under Section 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/804/2018 for Torrens title subdivision of existing site into 2 lots, demolition of existing garage on new lot B and construction of hardstand carpark space on new lot A (variation to lot size control) at No. 35 Jersey Road, Matraville for the following reasons:

 

1.         The proposal does not satisfy the objectives of the R2 Low Density zone in relation to recognising the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form and contributing to the desired future character of the area.

 

2.         The proposal does not comply with the minimum subdivision lot size of 400sqm as specified under Clause 4.1 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the Clause 4.6 exception to the development standard is not supported.

 

3.         The proposal does not satisfy the relevant controls and objectives in relation to minimum lot size and minimum lot frontage controls contained in Part C1 of the Randwick DCP 2013.

 

4.         The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant considerations under Section 4.15(1) (b), (c) and (e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended for natural and built environmental impacts, suitability of the site, and the public interest.

 


 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

 

Ù

North

 

 

1.       Executive summary

 

The application is referred to the Randwick Local Planning Panel (RLPP) as the development contravenes the development standard for minimum subdivision lot size by more than 10%.

 

The proposal seeks development consent for the Torrens Title Subdivision of an existing lot into two allotments (Lots A and B) as follows:

 

-     Lot A (Fronting Jersey Road) = 306.45sqm

-     Lot B (Fronting Anthony Lane) = 306.45sqm

 

The resulting Lot Sizes contravene the minimum subdivision lot size development standard contained in clause 4.1 (2) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP). The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012, however the clause 4.6 is not supported by Council.

 

In addition to the proposed Subdivision, the application proposes to retain the existing dwelling house on Lot A with the provision of a new single hardstand carspace fronting Jersey Road. Apart from the hardstand carspace there is no new deelopment proposed to either site, with the two storey residence depicted on the proposed Lot B provided for illustrative purposes only. A Council Flood Study was requested to be submitted by Council’s Development Engineer in support of the proposed hardstand carspace, although this request was never fulfilled. As a result, the hardstand carspace is also not supported by Council.

 

2.       Key Issues

 

Minimum Subdivision Lot Size

The proposal contravenes the minimum subdivision lot size development standard contained in clause 4.1 (2) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP). The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012. The variation is detailed in Section 8 below.

 


 

 

          Driveway Levels

The Pre-lodgement advice provided by Council’s Development Engineer outlined that the proposed car space fronting Jersey Rd would be subject to flood related development controls and that a flood report (“Birds Gully Flood Study”) from Council’s Drainage Engineer would be required to obtain relevant flood planning levels. The requested Flood Report has not been submitted with the Development Application and thus Development Engineering cannot support the proposed off-street car space fronting Jersey Road.

 

          Parking Facilities Forward of the front façade alignment

          Council’s DCP permits the development of parking facilities within the front setback in circumstances where the site demonstrates that no feasible, alternate location exists upon the site for the development of parking facilities and further, that neighbouring sites within the vicinity demonstrate a similar pattern of development. The subject site is amongst the few properties on Jersey Road which do not benefit from parking facilities within the front setback and the existing dwelling has been developed with a reduced front setback when compared to neighbouring properties. As a result, any hardstand developed within the front setback would require modification to the front façade in order to achieve the required depth of 5m.

 

          Notwithstanding this, the proposed hardstand carspace is not supported for the following reasons:

 

                   i) Council’s inability to support the proposed Torrens Title Subdivision into Lots A and B results in the development being unable to demonstrate that no feasible, alternate location for off-street         parking exists. This is due to the fact that the rear of the property remains substantially un-    developed and therefore capable of being used for the purposes of off-street parking.

 

3.       Site Description and Locality

 

The subject site is known as No.35 Jersey Road and is legally described as Lot 4 in DP 306224. The site is 613.1m2, is regular in shape and has a 9.145m frontage to Jersey Road to the North and 9.145m to Anthony Lane to the South.

 

Figure. 1 Jersey Road Frontage

 

Figure. 2 Anthony Lane Frontage

 

Figure. 3 Surrounding pattern of subdivision (neighbouring block)


 

 

4.       Relevant history

 

Pr-Lodgement 32/2018

 

Advice was forwarded to the Applicant via Council’s pre-lodgement service on 28/9/2018 with regards to the subject Torrens Title Subdivision. The Pre-lodgement advice informed the Applicant that the proposal would unlikely be supported on the grounds that the proposal did not comply with the minimum subdivision Lot Size in relation to Clause 4.1 RLEP and Clause 2.1 (1) of RDCP which specifies the minimum frontage width for allotments resulting from the subdivision of land within Zone R2 for the purposes of dwelling houes and semi-detached dwellings, being 12m.

 

5.       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:

 

·      3 Dive Street, Matraville

 

Issue

Comment

The concept plan for the proposed Lot B is lacking in detail.

The proposed dwelling illustrated on Lot B is conceptual only and the application is not seeking consent for the construction of a dwelling house under this application.  As such, an assessment of the potential environmental impacts relating specifically to and resulting from any development upon the proposed Lot B is not warranted. 

 

6.       Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

6.1     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

The site is zoned R2 under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible with consent.

 

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

 

Clause

Development Standard

Proposal

Compliance (Yes/No)

Cl 4.1: Lot Size (min)

400sqm

306.45sqm

No

 

6.1.1  Clause 4.6 - Exceptions to development standards

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

 

Clause

Development Standard

Proposal

 

Proposed variation m2

 

Proposed variation (%)

Cl 4.1: Lot Size (min)

400sqm

306.45sqm

93.55sqm

23.4%

 

Clause 4.6 of the RLEP provides a mechanism for variation to development standards in certain circumstances, the clause relevantly states:

 

       1.       The objectives of this clause are as follows:

                          (a)  to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development                          standards to particular development,

                          (b)  to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in                         particular circumstances.

 

       2.       Development consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the     development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument. However, this clause does not apply to a development         standard that is expressly excluded from the operation of this clause.

 

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. 

 

6.1.2  Exception to the Minimum Subdivision Lot Size standard (Clause 4.1 RLEP 2012)

The applicant’s written justification for the departure from the Minimum Lot Size 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 minimum lot size 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 minimum lot size standard are set out in Clause 4.1 (1) of RLEP 2012. The applicant has addressed each of the objectives as follows:

 

(a)  to minimise any likely adverse impact of subdivision and development on the amenity         of neighbouring properties,

 

The applicant’s written justification addresses this objective by noting that the existing dwelling house on Lot A will be retained and that the proposed size of Lot B is consistent with other Lot sizes fronting Anthony Lane. Likewise it is noted that the subject site is one of the few remaining allotments within the immediate urban block that is capable of being subdivided and that the site maintains consistency with the relevant planning controls. Lastly, the Applicant notes that the majority of properties within the immediate vicinity are less than 400sqm.

 

(b)  to ensure that lot sizes allow development to be sited to protect natural or cultural     features, including heritage items, and to retain special features such as trees and              views,

 

The applicant’s written justification has not addressed this objective directly, however the site is not within a heritage conservation area or near a heritage item.

 

(c)  to ensure that lot sizes are able to accommodate development that is suitable for its             purpose.

 

The applicant’s written justification claims that this objective is satisfied by noting that the concept plan for a dwelling house upon the proposed Lot B is consistent with the streetscape character of Anthony Lane, specifically that Lot B will have adequate width and configuration to deliver suitable building design and to maintain the amenity of neighbouring properties. Furthermore, the Applicant indicates that the proposed concept plan for Lot B fully complies with the relevant DCP controls and development standards listed in Part 3 of the General Housing Codes (SEPP Exempt and Complying Codes). 

 

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 has not successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient   environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. As discussed above, the proposal does not achieve the planning objectives for the locality; it does not fit in with the subdivision layout and character of similar developments and is not considered to be representative of the most orderly use of the site.

 

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 minimum lot size Standard is provided below:

 

The objectives of Clause 4.1 are as follows:

 

(a)      to minimise any likely adverse impact of subdivision and development on the amenity of neighbouring properties:

 

The main objective of the minimum lot size standard is to minimise any likely adverse impact of subdivision and development on the amenity of neighbouring properties. The proposal seeks to retain the existing dwelling upon the proposed Lot A and to subdivide the existing block to allow for the future construction a new dwelling (subject to a separate development consent) upon the proposed Lot B. Whilst it is acknowledged that the concept proposal for Lot B demonstrates in general terms the ability to construct a new dwelling house upon the proposed Lot B, the proposed non-compliance with controls relating to lot size, frontage width, front and rear setbacks, solar access to neighbouring properties and parking facilities forward of the front façade indicate that the site is not suitable for two detached dwellings and that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site. The site planning controls in conjunction with the RLEP standards ensure sites are not developed outside of their development potential and don’t set an undesirable precedent for smaller allotments within the locality.

 

Further, given the proposed development does not meet the minimum frontage control for each allotment under the RDCP (12m minimum and 9.144m proposed) in combination with other non-compliances (refer to other Key Issues), the subsequent development of each of the substandard lot sizes will not minimise impacts on neighbouring properties. 

It is considered that the proposal does not meet the first objective of Clause 4.1, in that it results in overdevelopment of the site that will impact the amenity of neighbouring properties and the broader context of the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

 

(b)      to ensure that lot sizes allow development to be sited to protect natural or cultural features, including heritage items, and to retain special features such as trees and views:

 

The proposed development will not affect any adjacent natural or cultural or special features associated with the site.

 

(c)      to ensure that lot sizes are able to accommodate development that is suitable for its purpose:

 

The development standards for minimum lot sizes are intended to maintain the existing character of the R2 zone and to ensure acceptable environmental outcomes from housing that are suitably located with access to services, transport, shops and the like, whilst minimising the impact on adjoining neighbours and maintaining or enhancing the neighbourhood character.

 

The minimum lot size standard within the RLEP works in conjunction with the 12m minimum frontage width provision in the RDCP. The proposed variations of 23.4% to the minimum lot size combined with the 2.56m shortfall from the 12m minimum frontage width control in the RDCP (representing a 23.8% variation to the RDCP provision) indicates that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site.

 

It is acknowledged that there are allotments within the vicinity that do not meet the minimum subdivision requirements outlined under the current controls, however these are historical subdivisions which occurred prior to the current LEP controls coming into effect. All surrounding allotments that contain semi-detached dwellings and detached dwelling houses have lot frontages that are greater than 9.144m (generally 10m to 12m in width). The proposed subdivision would not reflect this predominant subdivision pattern and will result in a built form that is not in accordance with the existing or desired future streetscape character.

 

The RDCP complements the RLEP in terms of providing more detailed guidelines stipulates the following objectives in respect of subdivision in the R2 zone:

·           To ensure land subdivision respects the predominant subdivision and development pattern in the locality.

·           To ensure land subdivision creates allotments that have adequate width and configuration, to deliver suitable building design and to maintain the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

 

As discussed above, the proposed allotment size does not respect the predominant subdivision pattern within the larger locality given the lot widths are significantly smaller than existing neighbouring lots containing semi-detached and detached dwellings. Accordingly, the combination of non-compliance with the frontage width and the minimum lot size indicates that the subdivided allotments and proposed development located upon them will not deliver suitable building design that is in accordance with the desired future streetscape character and that will maintain the amenity of the adjoining properties. The proposed development does not represent the most orderly and economic development of land and would result in detrimental outcome for the amenity of future residents should the application be supported. Moreover, the application has the potential to result in adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties by providing for speculative development incentives for the subdivision of smaller sized lots potentially transforming the low density nature of the zone.

 

Overall, having regard to the abovementioned objectives, the exception to the development standard fails to demonstrate how the development is consistent with the objectives of the standard and of the R2 Low Density Residential zone. Therefore it is considered that applying the minimum allotment size standard to the proposed subdivision is reasonable and necessary.

The objectives of the R2 zone are as follows:

 

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

 

The proposed does not conform to the subdivision pattern and does not reflect the low-density character of development within the vicinity. Similarly, it is not considered that the provision of two 306.45sqm lots would result in a better planning outcome for the existing site and dwelling house.

 

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

 

The proposal does not relate to this objective as the proposed land use is low density residential.

 

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

 

The existing streetscape is characterised by a number of sites that have been subdivided in a similar manner to that proposes under this application. However it is noted that neighbouring sites at No. 6, 8 and 10-10A Anthony Lane all have frontages greater than 12m in width. Similarly, neighbouring sites on the opposite side of Anthony Lane also comply with the minimum frontage width of 12m.

 

The prevailing and future character of the area is and will remain low density residential and in this regard, the desired built form should ensure that future development prioritises residential amenity above all else. As such, adherence to the relevant Lot Size and frontage provisions is considered especially important in this instance so that the shape and characteristics of the subject site does not set a precedent for the other lots in the area, should any subdivision occur.

 

·      To protect the amenity of residents.

 

The proposed development will increase the density of development within the immediate vicinity and does not represent an efficient use of land. The proposal is not considered to be a good planning outcome with regards to demonstrating a consistent pattern of subdivision along Anthony Lane.

 

·      To encourage housing affordability.

 

The proposal will increase housing stock in the precinct, however there is no evidence to suggest that it would provide for an affordable housing outcome.

 

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

 

Not relevant to this proposal.

 

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?

 

Variation of the minimum lot size standard will not allow for the orderly use of the site and there is a clear 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 it is recommended that development consent should be refused for development that contravenes the minimum lot size development standard.

 

7.       Development control plans and policies

 

7.1     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.

 

8.       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

The development relies upon Clause 4.6 of RLEP to contravene the minimum lot size standard as per RLEP. The Applicant’s request to contravene the standard is not supported in this instance and therefore the proposal does not comply with the relevant development standards

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

Nil.

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

The proposal does not satisfy the relevant objectives of RDCP

– See discussion in Key Issues 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 proposed development is inconsistent with the dominant character in the locality and will not result in a good planning outcome.

 

 

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.

 

9.       Conclusion

 

That the application for Torrens Title Subdivision of existing site into 2 lots, demolition of existing garage on new lot B and construction of hardstand carpark space on new lot A (variation to lot size control), at No. 35 Jersey Road, Matraville be refused for the following reasons:

 

1.       The proposal does not satisfy the objectives of the R2 Low Density zone in relation to recognising the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form and contributing to    the desired future character of the area.

 

2.       The proposal does not comply with the minimum subdivision lot size of 400sqm as specified under Clause 4.1 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the Clause 4.6 exception to the development standard is not supported.

 

3.       The proposal does not satisfy the relevant controls and objectives in relation to minimum lot size and minimum lot frontage controls contained in Part C1 of the Randwick DCP 2013.

 

4.       The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant considerations under Section 4.15(1) (b), (c) and (e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended for natural and built environmental impacts, suitability of the site, and the public interest.

 

Appendix 1: Referrals

 

1.    Internal referral comments:

 

1.1.    Development Engineer

 

An application has been received for a hardstand car space at the front of the existing dwelling as well as a proposed Torrens Title Subdivision of the Lot with the new Lot (Lot B) fronting Anthony Lane.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Plans by J Spiteri dated 12.11.2018;

·      Statement of Environmental Effects dated November 2018;

·      Survey by Ballenden Surveyors dated 2.11.2018.

 

Car Space Comments – Jersey Rd Frontage

A Pre-lodgement report by Development Engineering (PL/32/2018) advised that the proposed car space fronting Jersey Rd would be subject to flood related development controls and that a flood report (“Birds Gully Flood Study) from Council’s Drainage Engineer would be required to obtain relevant flood planning levels.

 

The requested Flood Report has not been submitted with the Development Application and thus Development Engineering cannot support the proposed off-street car space fronting Jersey Road and has not included any conditions regarding the car space. As Development Engineering cannot support the proposed off-street car space fronting Jersey Rd due to no Flood Level Details (as requested) then the proposed Subdivision is also not supported either as an approved car space is not provide for the Lot fronting Jersey Road.

 


 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 3: DCP Compliance Table

 

          3.1     Section C1 RDCP (2013)

 

DCP Clause

Controls

Proposal

Compliance

 

Classification

Zoning = R2

 

2

Site planning

 

 

2.1

Minimum lot size and frontage

 

Minimum lot size (RLEP):

·    R2 = 400sqm

·    R3 = 325sqm

Lot 1 = 306.45sqm

 

Lot 2 = 306.45sqm

 

No – Refer to Key Issues section above.

 

Minimum frontage

 

 

 

i)     Min frontage R2 = 12m

i)     Min frontage R3 = 9m

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

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

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

Required = 12m

 

Lot 1 = 9.144m

Lot 2 = 9.144m

No battle-axe lots or hatchet-shaped lots are proposed.

No – Refer to Key Issues section above.

 

6

Car Parking and Access

6.1

Location of Parking Facilities:

 

 

 

i)     Maximum 1 vehicular access

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

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

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

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

Double width if:

-     Frontage >12m,

-     Consistent with pattern in the street;

-     Landscaping provided in the front yard.

v)    Minimise excavation for basement garages

vi)   Avoid long driveways (impermeable surfaces)

Integrated parking facilities are provided that are located forward of the front façade of the ground floor (refer to comments in relation to sub-clause 6.2 below).

 

 

 

Yes.

6.2

Parking Facilities forward of front façade alignment (if other options not available)

 

i)     The following may be considered:

-     An uncovered single car space

-     A single carport (max. external width of not more than 3m and

-     Landscaping incorporated in site frontage

ii)    Regardless of the site’s frontage width, the provision of garages (single or double width) within the front setback areas may only be considered where:

-     There is no alternative, feasible location for accommodating car parking;

-     Significant slope down to street level

-     does not adversely affect the visual amenity of the street and the surrounding areas;

-     does not pose risk to pedestrian safety and

-     does not require removal of significant contributory landscape elements (such as rock outcrop or sandstone retaining walls)

Single hardstand area to existing dwelling proposes.

No – Refer to Key Issues section above and Engineering comments.

6.3

Setbacks of Parking Facilities

 

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

ii)    1m rear lane setback

iii)   Nil side setback where:

-     nil side setback on adjoining property;

-     streetscape compatibility;

-     safe for drivers and pedestrians; and

-     Amalgamated driveway crossing

The parking facilities comply with the setback controls provided in sub-section 3.3 of the RDCP.

Yes.

6.4

Driveway Configuration

 

Maximum driveway width:

-     Single driveway – 3m

-     Double driveway – 5m

Must taper driveway width at street boundary and at property boundary

2.65 driveway width proposed.

Acceptable.

6.7

 Hardstand Configuration

 

i) Hardstand car spaces should include permeable materials, such as porous paving units. Gravels over deep soil may be provided in between concrete wheel strips.

 

ii) A hardstand car space must have minimum dimensions of 2.4m x 5.4m.

Minimum dimensions satisfied.

Yes

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Randwick Local Planning Panel                                                                                                                                           9 May 2019

 

 

Development Application Report No. D17/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      7 Seaside Parade, South Coogee (DA/502/2018/A)

 

Folder No:                      DA/502/2018/A

Author:                          William Jones, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

 

Proposal:                       Modification of approved development by enlargement of the rear awning at the entry level and making the awning trafficable with balustrading and provision of a support column.

Ward:                             East Ward

Applicant:                      Santos Architecture

Owner:                           Ms M Eleftheriades

Cost of works:                $19,800 (original DA)

Reason for referral:        The application is made under Section 4.55(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (1979) and 10 or more 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 Application No. 502/2018 for modification of approved development by enlargement of the rear awning at the entry level and making the awning trafficable with and provision of a support column at No. 7 Seaside Parade, South Coogee, in the following manner:

·            Amend Condition 1 to read: 

 

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

1000 ‘A’

Santos Architecture

26/06/2018

1002 ‘A’

Santos Architecture

26/06/2018

1003 ‘A’

Santos Architecture

26/06/2018

2001 ‘A’

Santos Architecture

26/06/2018

2002 ‘A’

Santos Architecture

26/06/2018

 

EXCEPT where amended by:

·      Council in red on the approved plans; and/or

·      Other conditions of this consent; and/or

·      the following Section 4.55 plans and supporting documents only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 4.55 plans and detailed in the Section 4.55 application:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

1002 ‘C’

Santos Architecture

20/12/2018

2001 ‘C’

Santos Architecture

20/12/2018

2002 ‘C’

Santos Architecture

20/12/2018

 

·            Add the following conditions:

 

Privacy Screening

1A.       Privacy screening shall be provided to the northern and southern sides of the rear-facing balcony at the entry level. The privacy screening shall be to a height of 1.6m measured above the floor level of the balcony and shall comprise fixed vertical or horizontal louvres with the individual blades angled and spaced appropriately to prevent overlooking into the private open space or windows of the adjacent dwellings.

 

Deletion of Balustrading

1B.       The redundant balustrading depicted on the eastern side of the original balcony (approved via DA/822/2013) shall be deleted.

 

 


 

 

 

NOTE: Submissions were also received from the following property addresses:

 

·      704/97 Boyce Road, Maroubra

·      25 Amour Avenue, Maroubra

·      21 Torrington Road, Maroubra

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

1.      Reason for referral

 

This application is referred to the Randwick Local Planning Panel (RLPP) as it relates to a modification application under Section 4.55(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (1979) and 10 or more unique submissions by way of objection were received.

 

It is noted that DA/655/2018/A is also subject to determination by the Randwick Local Planning Panel and relates to the same site for modifications including alteration to the rear balcony and awning at the first floor level and provision of a structural column.

 

2.      Site Description and Locality

 

The site is identified as 7 Seaside Parade, South Coogee and is legally described as Lot 3, Sec 3 in DP 9452. The site has a single street frontage to the eastern side of Seaside Parade. The site is irregular in shape and has an east-west orientation. The site slopes approximately 14 metres from the west (front) towards the east (rear) to the Pacific Ocean. The site is occupied by a part two and part five storey dwelling house that is in the final stages of construction.

 

The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of low density residential development comprising three to five storey dwelling houses on the eastern side of Seaside Parade and two and three storey dwelling houses on the western side of Seaside Parade as part of the R2 Low Density Residential zone pursuant to the RLEP 2012. To the south of the site at 9 Seaside Parade is a part 2 and part four storey dwelling house that is currently being constructed. To the north of the site at 5 Seaside Parade is a three storey dwelling house.


 

 

3.      Details of Current Approval

 

The original development application DA/502/2018 was approved by Randwick City Council under delegated authority on 12 September 2018 for a new awning above the rear outdoor terrace area located at the ground floor level. The awning was approved as a cantilevered structure without a support column and was not approved with balustrading and was non-trafficable from the entry level. The approved development relates to the existing dwelling that is subject to a number of DAs and modifications as follows (from most recent):

 

·      DA/601/2017 - Amendments to approved development by:- At pool level, relocation of approved pool equipment room and shower room, addition of plant room between shower and external wall, raising of lawn level at lower ground level, relocation of external access stair to internal stair and extension of roof over cabana towards southern boundary. Approved 10 January 2019 by the Land and Environment Court.

 

·      DA/655/2018 - Construction of entry level awning to rear of existing dwelling. Approved under delegated authority on 28 October 2018.

 

·      DA/15/2017/B - Section 4.55 modification of the approved development by increasing the height of lift overrun by 410mm, new internal staircase from master bedroom to the roof level, increase the height of cabana roof at the rear ground floor level by 800mm. Approved under delegated authority on 4 May 2018.

 

·      DA/924/2014/A - Section 4.55 modification of the approved development by filling in part of the void area at first floor level, extension of rooftop slab to create an awning along eastern side terrace on level 2, and increase the height of western section of the roof by 200mm. Approved under delegated authority on 4 May 2018.

 

·      DA/15/2017 – Increase height of lift overrun and replacement of access stairs on southern boundary with internal stairs and extension of cabana roof. Approved by Council on 25 July 2017.

 

·      DA/851/2015/A – Section 96 modification of the approved development to increase lift overrun & raising lawn level to lower ground floor level. Withdrawn 6 January 2017. DA/15/2017 was then lodged as a result.

 

·      DA/851/2015 – Amendments to approved development consents DA/822/2013 and DA/924/2014 by enclosure of second floor southwest roof garden, increase in size of second floor roof terrace, alteration to floor level of swimming pool and surrounds, addition of privacy louvres on northern side, alterations to cabana, internal reconfiguration, deletion of first floor southern balcony. Approved by Council on 24 May 2016.

 

·      DA/924/2014 – Amendment to the approved DA/822/2013 by altering the internal configuration of the dwelling, increase the floor area at lower ground and ground floor levels, new cabana at lower ground floor level, increase the size of the terrace area at ground and second floor levels, new balcony on the southern elevation at first floor level, changes to openings on all elevations, and increase the overall height of the dwelling to RL33.07 (variation to floor space ratio control). Approved by Council Committee on 8 September 2015.

 

·      DA/822/2013 – Demolition of existing dwelling, construction of 5 level dwelling with lower level swimming pool with plant room/storage area, double garage landscaping and associated works (Variation to floor space ratio control). Approved by Council on 22 July 2014.

4.      Proposal

 

Modification of approved development by enlargement of the rear awning at the entry level and making the awning trafficable with balustrading and provision of a support column. The proposed modifications will result in the awning becoming a balcony that serves the “games room” at the entry level. A small balcony was approved off the “games room” via DA/822/2013 with access via a swinging single door. According to the Applicant a new access is not proposed, therefore access to the proposed balcony will be via the approved access to the original balcony as depicted on the proposed entry level floor plan. However, balustrading is still shown on the proposed floor plan to the eastern side of the original balcony, and therefore a new condition is recommended to ensure that this balustrading is deleted.

 

It is noted that the original modification application proposed privacy screening to the southern side of the balcony, however revised drawings were submitted seeking to delete the privacy screening given the adjoining property at 9 Seaside Parade is provided with privacy screening. The revised drawings were publically re-notified.

 

The approved area of the awning was 12.5m2 and proposed new area of the awning / balcony is 17m2. The entire awning is proposed to be trafficable. The depth is proposed to be reduced overall from the easternmost triangular point. To support the balcony / awning, a structural column is proposed from the ground floor level on the southern side. According to the Applicant, the original size and shape of the awning as approved could not be constructed. A structural certificate has been submitted with the modification application stating that the extension of the awning is necessary to permit the cantilevered section to the north and that the column is necessary to support the load of the southern section. The propsoed modifications have already been carried out except for the ballustrading (a stop-work order has been issued). Therefore retrospective approval is sought.

Figure 1 – Proposed additional balcony / awning (blue) at the entry level.

 

 

Figures 2 & 3  - View south to living room balcony (level 4) of 9 Seaside Parade (left photo) and View north to the POS of 5 Seaside Parade (right photo).


 

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:-

 

1.   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

 

2.   it has consulted with any relevant public authorities or approval bodies, and

 

3.   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 proposed modifications are not considered to result in a development that will fundamentally alter the originally approved development in terms of physical works or use. Although the awning was not originally approved as a balcony, the proposed use of the awning as a balcony at the entry level is ancillary to the residential use of the land and is therefore considered to be substantially the same development noting that the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 defines “development” in section 1.4 as follows:

 

(1)  For the purposes of this Act, development is any of the following:

 

(a)  the use of land,

(b)  the subdivision of land,

(c)  the erection of a building,

(d)  the carrying out of a work,

(e)  the demolition of a building or work,

(f)  any other act, matter or thing that may be controlled by an environmental planning instrument.

 

2.   Consultation with Other Approval Bodies or Public Authorities:

 

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

 

3.   Notification and Consideration of Submissions:

 

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:

 

·      12 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

·      704/97 Boyce Road, Maroubra

·      21 Torrington Road, Maroubra

·      6 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

·      4 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

·      8 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

·      28 Edgecliffe Avenue, South Coogee

·      5 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

·      25 Amour Avenue, Maroubra

·      15 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

·      47 Cuzco Street, South Coogee

·      9 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

 

Issue

Comment

The increased size of the approved awning will result in adverse visual bulk and scale that will impact the scenic quality of the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and views to the coast from public areas.

The proposed modifications are isolated to the rear of the existing building and will not disrupt view corridors from public places to the coast (refer to Key Issues).

Development should not be approved beyond the Foreshore Building Line.

The proposed modifications are located behind the Foreshore Building Line pursuant to clause 6.6 of the RLEP 2012 (refer to Key Issues).

View loss from adjoining properties, which will be exacerbated should privacy screens be required for the trafficable balcony.

The proposed modifications will not result in view loss from neighboring properties (refer to Key Issues).

Approval of the proposed modifications will set an undesirable precedent.

Future applications are assessed on their own merits.

Visual privacy impacts to adjoining properties.

Adverse visual privacy impacts will not occur subject to a condition for privacy screening to the northern and southern sides of the balcony (refer to Key Issues).

Noise impacts.

The size of the balcony is not excessive for its proposed use which serves a “games room”, which is not a principal living area therefore adverse noise impacts are not expected to occur.

The proposed modifications are not in the public interest given retrospective approval of unauthorised works would undermine the faith of the community in the planning system.

It is the Applicant and Certifier’s responsibility to ensure that works are carried in accordance with any approval. Once aware of the unauthorised works, Council issued a stop work notice. The subject application seeks retrospective approval for the unauthorised works (related to the increased size of the awning and the column), as well as the proposed balustrading and the use of the awning as a balcony to the entry level. The application must be considered by Council pursuant to section 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (“EP&A Act”), which is subject to determination by the Randwick Local Planning Panel.

The proposed modifications will result in a development that is not substantially the same as the approved development, and the applicant has not demonstrated as such within the SEE.

The EP&A Act requires the consent authority (the RLPP) to be satisfied that the development will remain substantially the same development as approved. There is no requirement for the Applicant to demonstrate as such. The proposed modifications are considered to satisfy the requirements of section 4.55 of the EP&A Act (refer to Section 5 above).

A large partition wall has been constructed that blocks views from 15 Seaside Parade to Wedding Cake Island.

This matter was raised with Council’s Compliance team who investigated the matter. It was revealed that the partition walls are temporary and are required to permit construction of the development, which have since been removed.

 

6.      Key Issues

 

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

The site is identified as being located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area pursuant to the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area Map refered to in clause 6.7 (2) of the RLEP 2012. It is noted that the proposed modifications are located outside of the Foreshore Building Line pursuant to clause 6.6 of the RLEP 2012 (see figures below).

 

6.7   Foreshore scenic protection area

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Planning Comment: The proposed modifications are not directly visible from Seaside Parade or surrounding streets, and therefore will not impact views to the coast from these public areas. The proposal is not perceivable when viewed from public areas along the coast further to the south-east (along Marine Parade). Therefore the key consideration is views to site from watercraft on the coast and likely visual impacts.

 

The additional awning / balcony area including the balustrading and support column (and the 1.6m high privacy screening required to the sides of the balcony via condition – refer to other Key Issues below) will not result in adverse visual bulk and scale when viewed from the coast. The balcony is in-line with the approved balcony of 9 Seaside Parade and reduces in depth towards the northern side. The regular shaped awning / balcony is in keeping with the shape of existing balconies along the coast and will be less visually jarring as the approved triangular awnings. The proposed balustrading is frameless and comprises glass, which will not significantly contribute to bulk and scale. The proposal therefore does not contribute to adverse visual impacts on the scenic protection area and is considered to minimise visual impact by introducing a regular balcony shape that will contribute to the scenic quality of the coastal foreshore.

 

Figure 4 – Insert from Council’s Foreshore Building Line Map / Foreshore Scenic Protection Area Map Sheet CL1_008 with measurements to the foreshore Building Line (shaded pink) shown from the eastern site boundary.

Figure 5 – Insert from proposed entry level plan with measurements from the eastern site boundary to the Foreshore Building Line.

 

Figure 6 – Approved triangular awnings (red arrow).

 

Figure 7 – Proposed balconies / awnings (red arrow).

Visual Privacy

Clause 5.3 of Part C1 of the RDCP 2013 requires upper floor balconies to be focused to the street or rear yard to minimise privacy impacts on adjoining properties. Privacy screening can be considered, and for sloping sites expansive areas of elevated outdoor recreation spaces shall be avoided.

 

The objective of clause 5.3 is as follows:

 

·      To ensure development minimise overlooking or crossviewing to the neighbouring dwellings to maintain reasonable levels of privacy. 

 

The neighbouring building to the south at 9 Seaside parade is currently under construction and will contain a part 2 and part 4 storey dwelling approved via DA/303/2013. The proposed awning / balcony is at RL 24.5 and will be located adjacent to the approved balcony of 9 Seaside Parade, which is at RL 25.3 and serves the principal living and dining area located at level 4. The northern side of this approved balcony is provided with fixed full height privacy screening approved via DA/303/2013/C. However, the north-facing living room window comprises clear glazing that was approved via DA/303/2013/B and has been installed as such. The Applicant advised that the north facing living room window was approved to be treated for privacy, and therefore privacy screening is not required along the southern side of the propsoed balcony. The approved drawings for DA/303/2013/B included an annotation to the north facing living room window of 9 Seaside Parade requiring this window to be fixed, translucent up to a height of 1.6m in accordance with condition 2. (i), which required the following:

 

The following window/s must have a minimum sill height of 1.6m above floor level, or alternatively, the window/s are to be fixed and be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing below this specified height:

 

·      North-facing windows of bedroom 3 (level 5)

·      North facing window of living room (level 5)

 

Figure 8 – Approved northern elevation of 9 Seaside Parade.

 

However, there is no living room on level 5 (being on level 4 below). A submission was received for DA/303/2013/C requiring this window to be treated as part of the modification application, however DA/303/2013/C (approved via delegated authority) proposed modifications that did not relate to the subject window and therefore the condition could not be modified in response to the submission unless requested to be so modified by the Applicant, which was not requested. And therefore the clear north facing window is in accordance with DA/303/2013 (as modified).

 

As a result, there will be some direct overlooking of the proposed balcony from this living room window and likewise from the balcony to the living room of 9 Seaside Parade.

 

Figure 9 – View from approved north-facing living room window of 9 Seaside Parade.

 

Some indirect overlooking of the lower private open space of the neighbouring property to the north at 5 Seaside Parade will also occur. As the balcony serves the games room and is of a reasonable size it is expected that it will be regularly used. A condition could be provided so that the awning is not trafficable, however the proposed balcony is in-line with the adjoining approved balcony at 9 Seaside Parade, which is provided with privacy screening to the sides of its balcony. The proposed balcony will therefore be consistent in appearance when viewed from the water as part of the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, and when viewed from neighbouring properties to the north and south.

 

Therefore, the use of the awning as a balcony is supported subject to the provision of privacy screening to both the northern and southern sides of the balcony. The privacy screening shall be limited to a maximum height of 1.6m to retain views from 9 Seaside Parade and to reduce the bulk and scale of the development when viewed from the water and neighbouring properties. It is noted that full height privacy screening was approved to the northern side of the balcony to 9 Seaside Parade via DA/3032013/C, however the bulk and scale of the neighbouring dwelling is lesser than that of the subject dwelling at 7 Seaside Parade, and therefore a reduce privacy screen height is appropriate.

 

Despite the provision of privacy screening to the sides of the balcony, some indirect overlooking of the lower private open space of the neighbouring properties will still occur, however some overlooking between properties is a characteristic of the area due to the steep topogrpahy and desire to capitalise on water views. Therefore, there will be no adverse privacy impacts to 9 Seaside Parade as a result of the proposed modifications subject to the recommended conditions.

 

View Sharing

Clause 5.6 of Part C1 of the RDCP 2013 requires existing view corridors to be reasonably maintained. As the modifications are located behind the front façade at the entry level, the key affected properties are the neighbouring properties to the north (5 Seaside Parade) and south (9 Seaside Parade).

 

The proposed modifications will not impact water views from the living room balcony at level 4 of 9 Seaside Parade given privacy screening is provided to the northern side of the balcony. The north facing window will also permit views across the top of the privacy screening noting that the top of the privacy screening shall be at RL 26.1, and the eye height from the north facing window of 9 Seaside Parade will be at RL 26.9.

 

The proposed modifications will not impact water views from the northern neighbouring property at 5 Seaside Parade given the building is set back behind the rear section of the approved building on the subject site and there are no living room windows provided in the southern façade, with living areas orientated to the east and north-east. The proposed modifications will not adversely impact water views from other properties further to the north, south and west given the modifications are located behind the front façade and considering the topography of the area rises from east to west.

 

Building Height / Bulk and Scale

The proposed additional awning / balcony area has a maximum height of 4.5m measured from existing ground level (being existing ground level before the current dwelling that is under construction) to the top of the proposed balustrading (5.1m to the top of the privacy screening recommended via condition). Therefore, the propsoed modifications comply with the maximum building height (9.5m) pursuant to clause 4.3 of the RLEP 2012.

 

The approved area of the awning was 12.5m2. The proposed new area of the awning / balcony is 17m2 (an increase in area of approximately 36%). The additional bulk will be percieved from the lower private open space / garden areas of both the northern and southern adjoining properties. However, the proposed balcony is in-line with the approved balcony off level 4 of the southern neighbouring building and reduces in depth towards the northern side. The 1.6m high privacy screening required to the northern and southern sides in conjunciton with the clear ballustrading to the east will not result in adverse bulk and scale. The single collum provided on the southern side of the balcony has a small footprint and also does not result in adverse bulk and scale. Any perceived additional bulk and scale from surrounding properties further to the north, south and west will be minimal and will not result in adverse visual amenity impacts.

 

Figure 10 – Proposed balconies (top) in-line with balconies of 9 Seaside Parade (bottom).

 

7.      Section 4.15 Assessment

 

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

 

Section 4.15 ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

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

State Environment Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

 

Standard conditions of consent requiring the continued compliance of the development with the SEPP: BASIX were included in the original determination.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

The proposed modifications are ancillary to the approved development, which will remain substantially the same. The development remains consistent with the general aims and objectives of the RLEP 2012.

 

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

Nil.

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

The development remains compliant with the objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013.

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

The proposed modifications have responded appropriately to the relevant planning controls and will not result in any significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality.

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

The site has been assessed as being suitable for the development in the original development consent.

 

The modified development will remain substantially the same as the originally approved development and is considered to meet the relevant objectives and performance requirements in the RDCP 2013 and RLEP 2012. Further, the proposed modifications will not adversely affect the character or amenity of the locality.

 

Therefore the site remains suitable for the modified development.

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

 

The 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.

 

8.      Conclusion

 

The application is recommended for approval for the following reasons:

 

a)   The proposed modifications are considered to result in a development that is substantially the same as the previously approved development.

 

b)   The modified development will not result in significant adverse environmental impacts upon the amenity and character of the locality.

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Randwick Local Planning Panel                                                                                                                                           9 May 2019

 

 

Development Application Report No. D18/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      7 Seaside Parade, South Coogee (DA/655/2018/A)

 

Folder No:                      DA/655/2018/A

Author:                          William Jones, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

 

Proposal:                       Modification of approved development by enlargement of the rear awning at the first floor level and making the awning trafficable with balustrading and provision of a structural column.

 

Ward:                             East Ward

Applicant:                      Santos Architecture

Owner:                           Ms M Eleftheriades

Cost of works:                $19,800 (original DA)

Reason for referral:        The application is made under Section 4.55(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (1979) and 10 or more 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 Application No. 655/2018 for modification of approved development by enlargement of the rear awning at the first floor level and making the awning trafficable with balustrading and provision of a structural column at No. 7 Seaside Parade, South Coogee, in the following manner:

·            Amend Condition 1 to read: 

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

1000 ‘A’

Santos Architecture

28/09/2018

1003 ‘A’

Santos Architecture

26/09/2018

2001 ‘A’

Santos Architecture

28/09/2018

2002 ‘A’

Santos Architecture

28/09/2018

 

EXCEPT where amended by:

·      Council in red on the approved plans; and/or

·      Other conditions of this consent; and/or

·      the following Section 4.55 plans and supporting documents only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 4.55 plans and detailed in the Section 4.55 application:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

1002 ‘D’

Santos Architecture

1/4/2019

1003 ‘C’

Santos Architecture

20/12/2018

2001 ‘D’

Santos Architecture

1/4/2019

2002 ‘D’

Santos Architecture

1/4/2019

 

·            Add the following conditions:

 

Reduced Balcony Size

1A.       The clear ballustrasing to the eastern side of the balcony shall continue in a straight line at 90 degrees from the eastern edge of the ballustrading that is provided to the northern side of the balcony. Details shall be provided to Council for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 


 

 

NOTE: Submissions were also received from the following property addresses:

 

·      704/97 Boyce Road, Maroubra

·      25 Amour Avenue, Maroubra

·      21 Torrington Road, Maroubra

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

 

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

1.      Reason for referral

 

This application is referred to the Randwick Local Planning Panel (RLPP) as it related to a modification application under Section 4.55(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (1979) and 10 or more unique submissions by way of objection were received.

 

It is noted that DA/502/2018/A is also subject to determination by the Randwick Local Planning Panel and relates to the same site for modifications including changes to the rear awning / balcony at entry level.

 

2.      Site Description and Locality

 

The site is identified as 7 Seaside Parade, South Coogee and is legally described as Lot 3, Sec 3 in DP 9452. The site has a single street frontage to the eastern side of Seaside Parade. The site is irregular in shape and has an east-west orientation. The site slopes approximately 14 metres from the west (front) towards the east (rear) to the Pacific Ocean. The site is occupied by a part two and part five storey dwelling house that is in the final stages of construction.

 

The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of low density residential development comprising three to five storey dwelling houses on the eastern side of Seaside Parade and two and three storey dwelling houses on the western side of Seaside Parade as part of the R2 Low Density Residential zone pursuant to the RLEP 2012. To the south of the site at 9 Seaside Parade is a part 2 and part four storey dwelling house that is currently being constructed. To the north of the site at 5 Seaside Parade is a three storey dwelling house.

 

3.      Details of Current Approval

 

The original development application DA/655/2018 was approved by Randwick City Council under delegated authority on 28 October 2018 for construction of an entry level awning to the rear of the existing dwelling. The awning was approved as a cantilevered structure without a support column and was not approved with balustrading and was non-trafficable. The approved development relates to the existing dwelling that is subject to a number of DAs and modifications as follows (from most recent):

 

·      DA/601/2017 - Amendments to approved development by:- At pool level, relocation of approved pool equipment room and shower room, addition of plant room between shower and external wall, raising of lawn level at lower ground level, relocation of external access stair to internal stair and extension of roof over cabana towards southern boundary. Approved 10 January 2019 by the Land and Environment Court.

 

·      DA/502/2018 - New awning above the rear outdoor terrace area at lower ground floor level. Approved under delegated authority on 12 September 2018.

 

·      DA/15/2017/B - Section 4.55 modification of the approved development by increasing the height of lift overrun by 410mm, new internal staircase from master bedroom to the roof level, increase the height of cabana roof at the rear ground floor level by 800mm. Approved under delegated authority on 4 May 2018.

 

·      DA/924/2014/A - Section 4.55 modification of the approved development by filling in part of the void area at first floor level, extension of rooftop slab to create an awning along eastern side terrace on level 2, and increase the height of western section of the roof by 200mm. Approved under delegated authority on 4 May 2018.

 

·      DA/15/2017 – Increase height of lift overrun and replacement of access stairs on southern boundary with internal stairs and extension of cabana roof. Approved by Council on 25 July 2017.

 

·      DA/851/2015/A – Section 96 modification of the approved development to increase lift overrun & raising lawn level to lower ground floor level. Withdrawn 6 January 2017. DA/15/2017 was then lodged as a result.

 

·      DA/851/2015 – Amendments to approved development consents DA/822/2013 and DA/924/2014 by enclosure of second floor southwest roof garden, increase in size of second floor roof terrace, alteration to floor level of swimming pool and surrounds, addition of privacy louvres on northern side, alterations to cabana, internal reconfiguration, deletion of first floor southern balcony. Approved by Council on 24 May 2016.

 

·      DA/924/2014 – Amendment to the approved DA/822/2013 by altering the internal configuration of the dwelling, increase the floor area at lower ground and ground floor levels, new cabana at lower ground floor level, increase the size of the terrace area at ground and second floor levels, new balcony on the southern elevation at first floor level, changes to openings on all elevations, and increase the overall height of the dwelling to RL33.07 (variation to floor space ratio control). Approved by Council Committee on 8 September 2015.

 

·      DA/822/2013 – Demolition of existing dwelling, construction of 5 level dwelling with lower level swimming pool with plant room/storage area, double garage landscaping and associated works (Variation to floor space ratio control). Approved by Council on 22 July 2014.

 

4.      Proposal

 

Modification of approved development by enlargement of the rear awning at the first floor level and making the awning trafficable with balustrading and provision of a structural column. The proposed modifications will result in the awning becoming a balcony that serves “Bed 2” at the first floor level. A small balcony was approved off the bedroom via DA/822/2013 with a sliding access door approved via DA/851/2015. According to the Applicant, the sliding access door will provide access to the proposed balcony. It is noted that the original modification application proposed privacy screening to the southern side of the balcony and the provision of a structural beam to support the balcony. Revised drawings were submitted seeking to delete the privacy screening (given the adjoining property at 9 Seaside Parade is provided with privacy screening) and to replace the structural beam with a 150mm x 100mm structural column. The revised drawings were publically re-notified.

 

The approved area of the awning was 15.6m2 and the proposed new area of the awning / balcony is 19.9m2. The entire awning is proposed to be trafficable. The depth of the balcony is proposed to be reduced from the easternmost triangular point (refer to dotted outline of original balcony in figure 1 below). To support the balcony / awning, a structural column is proposed under the southern side. According to the Applicant, the original size and shape of the awning as approved could not be constructed. A structural certificate has been submitted with the application stating that the extension of the awning is necessary to permit the cantilevered section to the north and that the column is necessary to support the southern section. Formwork for the awning as proposed has been errected, however the slab has not yet been poured and therefore the proposed works have not yet been carried out (a stop-work order has been issued).

Figure 1 – Proposed additional balcony / awning (blue) at the first floor level.

 

 

Figures 2 & 3  - View south to living room balcony below (level 4) and bedroom balcony / awning above (level 5) of 9 Seaside Parade (left photo), and view north-east to POS of 5 Seaside Parade (right photo).

 

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:-

 

1.   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

 

2.   it has consulted with any relevant public authorities or approval bodies, and

 

3.   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 proposed modifications are not considered to result in a development that will fundamentally alter the originally approved development in terms of physical works or use. Although the awning was not originally approved as a balcony, the proposed use of the awning as a balcony at the entry level is ancillary to the residential use of the land and is therefore considered to be substantially the same development noting that the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 defines “development” in section 1.4 as follows:

 

(1)  For the purposes of this Act, development is any of the following:

 

(a)  the use of land,

(b)  the subdivision of land,

(c)  the erection of a building,

(d)  the carrying out of a work,

(e)  the demolition of a building or work,

(f)  any other act, matter or thing that may be controlled by an environmental planning instrument.

 

2.   Consultation with Other Approval Bodies or Public Authorities:

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

 

3.   Notification and Consideration of Submissions:

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:

 

·      12 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

·      704/97 Boyce Road, Maroubra

·      21 Torrington Road, Maroubra

·      6 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

·      4 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

·      8 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

·      28 Edgecliffe Avenue, South Coogee

·      5 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

·      25 Amour Avenue, Maroubra

·      15 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

·      47 Cuzco Street, South Coogee

·      9 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

·      11 Edgecliffe Avenue, South Coogee

 

Issue

Comment

The increased size of the approved awning will result in adverse visual bulk and scale that will impact the scenic quality of the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and views to the coast from public areas.

The proposed modifications are isolated to the rear of the existing building and will not disrupt view corridors from public places to the coast (refer to Key Issues).

 

Development should not be approved beyond the Foreshore Building Line.

The proposed modifications are located behind the Foreshore Building Line pursuant to clause 6.6 of the RLEP 2012 (refer to Key Issues).

View loss from adjoining properties, particularly should privacy screens be required for the trafficable balcony.

The proposed modifications will not result in view loss from neighboring properties (refer to Key Issues).

Approval of the proposed modifications will set an undesirable precedent.

Future applications are assessed on their own merits.

Visual privacy impacts to adjoining properties.

Noted. A condition is recommended to reduce the trafficable area of the balcony. Adverse visual privacy impacts will not occur considering the balcony serves a bedroom and some overlooking is a characteristic of the area (refer to Key Issues).

Noise impacts.

Subject to a condition to reduce the size of the balcony, the resulting size is not considered to be excessive and will serve a bedroom. Therefore adverse noise impacts are not expected to occur.

The proposed modifications are not in the public interest given retrospective approval of unauthorised works would undermine the faith of the community in the planning system.

It is the Applicant and Certifier’s responsibility to ensure that works are carried in accordance with any approval. Once aware of the unauthorised works, Council issued a stop work notice. It is noted that only the formwork has been installed with the works as proposed not having yet been carried out. The application must be considered by Council pursuant to section 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (“EP&A Act”), which is subject to determination by the Randwick Local Planning Panel.

The proposed modifications will result in a development that is not substantially the same as the approved development, and the applicant has not demonstrated as such within the SEE.

The EP&A Act requires the consent authority (the RLPP) to be satisfied that the development will remain substantially the same development as approved. There is no requirement for the Applicant to demonstrate as such. The proposed modifications are considered to satisfy the requirements of section 4.55 of the EP&A Act (refer to Section 5 above).

A large partition wall has been constructed that blocks views from 15 Seaside Parade to Wedding Cake Island.

This was raised with Council’s Compliance team who investigated the matter. It was revealed that the partition walls are temporary and are required to permit construction of the development, which have since been removed.

 

The application was renotified with one additional submission being received from the owner of 5 Seaside Parade. He stated that he would rely on his previous comments submitted to the Council in January 2019 as detailed above.

 

6.      Key Issues

 

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

The site is identified as being located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area pursuant to the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area Map refered to in clause 6.7 (2) of the RLEP 2012. It is noted that the proposed works are located outside of the Foreshore Building Line pursuant to clause 6.6 of the RLEP 2012 (see figures below).

 

6.7   Foreshore scenic protection area

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Planning Comment: The proposed modifications are not directly visible from Seaside Parade or surrounding streets, and therefore will not impact views to the coast from these public areas. The proposal is not perceivable when viewed from public areas along the coast further to the south-east (along Marine Parade). Therefore the key consideration is views to site from watercraft on the coast and likely visual impacts.

 

The additional awning / balcony area and clear balustrading will not result in adverse visual bulk and scale when viewed from the coast. The awning is in-line with the approved awning of level 5 of 9 Seaside Parade and reduces in depth towards the northern side. The regular shaped awning / balcony is in keeping with the shape of other awnings / balconies along the coast and will be less visually jarring as the approved triangular awnings. The proposed balustrading is frameless and comprises glass, which will not significantly contribute to bulk and scale. The proposal therefore does not contribute to adverse visual impacts on the scenic protection area and is considered to minimise visual impact by introducing a regular balcony shape that will contribute to the scenic quality of the coastal foreshore.

 

Figure 4 – Insert from Council’s Foreshore Building Line Map / Foreshore Scenic Protection Area Map Sheet CL1_008 with measurements to the foreshore Building Line (shaded pink) shown from the eastern site boundary.

 

Figure 5 – Insert from proposed roof plan with measurements from the eastern site boundary to the Foreshore Building Line.

 

Figure 6 – Approved triangular awnings (red arrow).

 

Figure 7 – Proposed balconies / awnings (red arrow).

Visual Privacy

Clause 5.3 of Part C1 of the RDCP 2013 requires upper floor balconies to be focused to the street or rear yard to minimise privacy impacts on adjoining properties. Privacy screening can be considered, and for sloping sites expansive areas of elevated outdoor recreation spaces shall be avoided.

 

The objective of clause 5.3 is as follows:

 

·      To ensure development minimise overlooking or crossviewing to the neighbouring dwellings to maintain reasonable levels of privacy. 

 

The neighbouring building to the south at 9 Seaside Parade is currently under construction and will contain a part 2 and part 4 storey dwelling approved via DA/303/2013. The proposed awning / balcony is at RL 27.22 (eye level will be at RL 28.72) and will be located in-between the approved balconies of 9 Seaside Parade at level 5 (RL 28.6 – eye level at RL 30.1, serving a bedroom) and level 4 (RL 25.3 serving the principal living and dining area – provided with privacy screening).

The northern side of the approved balcony of 9 Seaside Parade at level 5 is not provided with privacy screening, and the northern side of the approved balcony at level 4 is provided with privacy screening approved via DA/303/2013/C. Therefore the proposed balcony will not overlook the lower level 4 balcony, but will overlook the level 5 balcony of 9 Seaside Parade. The northern side of the proposed balcony will in-turn overlook the lower POS of the neighbouring property to the north at 5 Seaside Parade.

 

Considering the significant size of the balcony (19.9m2), it is capable of holding a large number of people that will result in adverse visual privacy impacts on neighbouring properties. Privacy screening to the sides of the balcony is not desirable as this will contribute to the bulk and scale of the development when viewed from neighbouring properties and from the water. Therefore, a condition is recommended to ensure that the trafficable area of the awning is restricted so that the clear ballustrasing to the eastern side of the balcony is to continue in a straight line at 90 degrees from the eastern edge of the northern section of ballustrading. The resulting balcony area will be 17.3m2, which is adequate and will be in-line with the approved balcony depth of 9 Seaside Parade at level 5 (subsequently, the non-trafficable awning will also be in-line with the awning of 9 Seaside Parade). Subject to its reduced size, the proposed balcony will not result  in adverse privacy impacts given it is off a bedroom, which is not a highly frequented room.

 

Figure 8 – Recommended reduced trafficable area of balcony shaded red that is in-line with the level 5 balcony / awning of 9 Seaside Parade.

View Sharing

Clause 5.6 of Part C1 of the RDCP 2013 requires existing view corridors to be reasonably maintained. As the works are located behind the front façade at the entry level, the key affected properties are the neighbouring properties to the north (5 Seaside Parade) and south (9 Seaside Parade).

 

The proposed modifications will not impact water views from the main living area of 9 Seaside Parade given the living area is located at a lower height than the proposed awning / balcony, and the balcony off the living area is provided with privacy screening to the northern side. The northern neighbouring property located at 5 Seaside Parade is set back behind the rear section of the subject building and is not provided with living room windows in its southern façade (living areas are orientated to the east and north-east). The proposed modifications will not adversely impact water views from other properties further to the north, south and west given the works are located behind the front façade of the subject building and considering the topography of the area rises from east to west. Therefore, existing view corridors will be reasonably maintained.

 

Building Height / Bulk and Scale

The proposed additional awning / balcony area has a maximum height of 5.4m measured from existing ground level (being existing ground level before the current dwelling that is under construction) to the top of the proposed balustrading. Therefore, the propsoed works comply with the maximum building height (9.5m) pursuant to clause 4.3 of the RLEP 2012.

 

The approved area of the awning was 15.6m2. The proposed new area of the awning / balcony is 19.9m2 (an increase in area of approximately 27%). The additional bulk will be percieved from the lower private open space / garden areas of both the northern and southern adjoining properties. However, subject to a condition to restrict the depth of the balcony, the proposed balcony / awning is in-line with the approved balcony / awning off level 5 of the southern neighbouring building and reduces in depth towards the northern side. The clear balustrading will not result in adverse bulk and scale. Any perceived additional bulk and scale from surrounding properties further to the north, south and west will be minimal and will not result in adverse visual amenity impacts.

 

Figure 9 – Proposed balcony / awning (top) in-line with the awning of 9 Seaside Parade (bottom).

 

7.      Section 4.15 Assessment

 

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

 

Section 4.15 ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

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

State Environment Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

 

Standard conditions of consent requiring the continued compliance of the development with the SEPP: BASIX were included in the original determination.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

The proposed modifications are ancillary to the approved development, which will remain substantially the same. The development remains consistent with the general aims and objectives of the RLEP 2012.

 

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

Nil.

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

The development remains compliant with the objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013.

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

The proposed modifications have responded appropriately to the relevant planning controls and will not result in any significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality.

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

The site has been assessed as being suitable for the development in the original development consent.

 

The modified development will remain substantially the same as the originally approved development and is considered to meet the relevant objectives and performance requirements in the RDCP 2013 and RLEP 2012. Further, the proposed modifications will not adversely affect the character or amenity of the locality.

 

Therefore the site remains suitable for the modified development.

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

 

The issues raised in the submission has been addressed in this report.

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

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

 

8.      Conclusion

 

The application is recommended for approval for the following reasons:

a)   The proposed modifications are considered to result in a development that is substantially the same as the previously approved development.

b)   The modified development will not result in significant adverse environmental impacts upon the amenity and character of the locality.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Randwick Local Planning Panel                                                                                                                                           9 May 2019

 

 

Development Application Report No. D19/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      48 Dudley Street, Coogee (DA/536/2018)

 

Folder No:                      DA/536/2018

Author:                          Brenton Pearce, Development Assessment Officer     

 

 

Proposal:                       Construction of a new three storey residential flat building comprising 6                                       x 3 bedroom units over basement carpark level, including increased                                       front setback and minor changes to communal open space. 

Ward:                             East Ward

Applicant:                      Albert Becerra

Owner:                           Strebora Pty Ltd

Cost of works:                $2,665,166.00

Reason for referral:        SEPP 65

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 Secretory 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/536/2018 for the construction of a new three storey residential flat building comprising 6 x 3 bedroom units over basement carpark level, including increased front setback and minor changes to communal open space. 

 


 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

 

Ù

North

 

 

1.  Executive summary

 

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

 

The proposal seeks development consent for the development of a new three storey residential flat building comprising six three-bedroom units over a basement carpark level and associated site works including landscaping. The subject proposal follows a previous Development Application that was refused by the NSW Land and Environment Court on appeal, (2017) NSWLEC 1575 for the development of a four storey residential flat building over basement parking. The former application included several non-compliances with the relevant Development Standards and Development Controls and the appeal was subsequently refused by the Court on this basis.

 

The subject proposal was advertised and notified in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP) and re-notified following receipt of amended plans and documentation. One submission was received as part of the original notification process and no submissions were received after the amended plans were re-notified. The amended plans have addressed Council’s issues relating to FSR and setbacks and the amended scheme now demonstrates compliance with the maximum permitted FSR pursuant to RLEP (2012) and the relevant setbacks as per RDCP (2013).

 

The proposal does however contravene the maximum permitted Height of Buildings standard (12m) and proposes a maximum of 12.775m measured from the lift overrun (RL66.99) to the existing ground level. The applicant has submitted a written request to vary the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the RLEP. The variation is supported given the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the height standard and the R3 Medium Density Residential zone in that the proposal is compatible with the desired future character of the locality will reasonably protect the amenity of residents.

 

The key issues relate to building height and solar access to the southern adjoining residential flat building, which is addressed in detail below. Notwithstanding these issues, the proposal is recommended for approval subject to the recommended conditions.

 

2.  Site Description and Locality

 

The subject site is commonly known as 48 Dudley Street, Coogee, and is legally referred to as Lot 3 in Deposited Plan 54077. The site is located at the south-eastern intersection of Dudley Street and Mount Street. The site is a corner lot with a primary street frontage of 15.85m to Dudley Street and a secondary street frontage of 32.615m to Mount Street. The total area of the site is 638m². Currently the site is vacant land with varied ground levels, predominantly the site slopes significantly down to the east, south-east

 

The subject site adjoins a three-storey brick residential flat building to the east, at 52 Dudley Street, Randwick. To the rear the subject site abuts a driveway servicing the flat building at 52 Dudley Street, Randwick. The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the provisions of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The site directly adjoins residential development and is predominantly surrounded by residential development.

 

Figure. 1 Dudley Street Frontage looking south-east

 

Figure. 2 Mount Street secondary frontage looking north-east

 

          Figure. 3 Access driveway to No. 52 Dudley St, located at rear (southern) boundary of subject site

Figure. 4 South-East corner of subject site looking north-west to Mount St secondary frontage

 

 

Figure. 5 Easterm boundary of subject site taken from western walkway of No. 52 Dudley St

3.  Relevant history

 

·    DA/455/2016

 

A previous development application (DA/455/2016) for the construction of a four-storey residential flat building was refused by the Land and Environment Court on the 12th of October, 2017, [2017] NSWLEC 1575, primarily on the basis of excessive bulk and scale.

 

·    Interim Heritage Order (IHO)

 

An Interim Heritage Order was made by Randwick Council pursuant to s25(2) of the Hertiage Act, dated 8th September 2016. The IHO was made following several submissions from members of the public in response to the proposed demolition of the building ‘Hillsea” (under DA/455/2016) and for its inclusion in Randwick Local Environmental Plan as an item of local heritage significance. Furthermore, on the 8th September 2016, Council's Heritage Planner, Lorraine Simpson recommended to Council the making of an Interim Heritage Order on the basis that GML Heritage had been engaged to provide a heritage assessment of the property and that this assessment had not been finalised. The IHO was to allow for the completion of the GML heritage assessment for the building. “Depending on the recommendations/findings of this heritage assessment, consideration could be given to heritage listing for the property" (p. 10 NSW 2017LEC 1204).

 

Strebora Pty Ltd appealed the IHO on the basis that the significance of the house (Ocean View) did not warrant local heritage listing and further, that additional investigation was not likely to result in the identification of additional heritage significance of the building.

    

     Following the hearing in the NSW Land and Environment Court [2017] NSWLEC 1204, Commisioner D M Dickson ordered that:

 

(1) The Interim Heritage Order on "Hillsea" at 48 Dudley Street, Coogee (Cnr Lot 3 DP545077), dated 8 September 2016 is revoked.

 

(2) The appeal is upheld;

 

·     CDC/108/2017

 

The building “Hillsea” was subsequently demolished following the revoking of the IHO, CDC/108/2017 was issued by a Private Principle Certifying Authority dated 5/5/2017 for the demolition to occur. No development has occurred upon the site since the demolition and the site currently remains vacant.

 

4.  Proposal

 

The proposal seeks development consent for the construction of a three storey residential flat building (RFB) containing 6x3 bedroom units, basement level parking for 11 vehicles and one holding bay.The proposal can be broken down into the follwing components:

 

Basement/Lower Ground

 

·      9 car parking spaces including 2 visitor spaces and 3 mechanical car stackers, as well as a holding bay for use during car stacker operations. Each space featuring a car stacker is to be allocated to a single unit.

·      6 bicycle parking spaces;

·      Garbage room and plant room;

·      Additional enclosed storage areas for each unit;

·      Lift core for common vertical circulation and Pedestrian entry stairs from street level.

·      A 47m² area of communal open space and landscaping contains wall-mounted clotheslines for residents and is accessed by stairs from the primary street frontage at Dudley Street, or from a secure access door to the basement.

 

 

Ground Floor

 

·      Landscaped areas are provided including a 46.7m² area of communal open space located within the setback from the secondary street frontage to Mount Street;

·      Separate pedestrian and vehicular entries to the basement/lower ground level are provided at both primary and secondary street frontage;

·      The main pedestrian entry to the building is from Mount Street, with mailboxes located at adjacent to the entry;

·      A lift core and stairs provide for common vertical circulation;

·      Two three-bedroom, two-bathroom residential units are designed to provide for universal access. Each unit has a terrace area to provide for private open space, and these are connected to each unit’s open-plan kitchen, dining, and living areas.

 

Level 1

 

·      A lift core and stairs provide for common vertical circulation;

·      A partially open terrace area comprises the circulation space, designed to promote safety and provide social interaction between residents;

·      Two three-bedroom, two-bathroom residential units are provided. Each unit has a balcony of at least 15m² to provide for private open space, and these are connected to each unit’s open-plan kitchen, dining, and living areas.

 

Level 2

 

·      A lift core and stairs provide for common vertical circulation;

·      A partially open terrace area comprises the circulation space, designed to promote safety and provide social interaction between residents;

·      Two three-bedroom, two-bathroom residential units are provided. Each unit has a balcony of at least 15m² to provide for private open space, and these are connected to each unit’s open-plan kitchen, dining, and living areas.

 

5.       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:

 

No. 124 Mount Street, Coogee

Issue

Comment

The trees located upon the Council footpath adjacent to the secondary Mount Street frontage should be protected.

 

The materials/finishes of the balustrades should be of high quality finish to ensure high levels of internal amenity and privacy are achieved.

Standard tree protection measures will be included in any consent issued for this application.

 

A condition will be included in any consent issued for this application requiring a more detailed colours/finishes schedule to be submitted to Council for approval.

 

5.1.    Re-Notification

The plans were amended on two occassions following recommendations made by the Design Excellence Panel and the Assessing Officer:

 

-         Revision C (dated 6/11/2018)

-         Revision D (dated 27/11/2018)

 

The second amended plan set, revision D dated 27/11/2018 was renotified from 29/11/18 – 13/12/2018 in accordance with Council’s notificaiton policy and form the final set of plans subject to the assessment contained in this report. The amendments relate to the following:

 

 

 

-    Increased setbacks

-    Deletion of clerestory windows on roof top

-    Reduction in continous wall length at central corridor

-    Minor amendments to Communal Open Space

-    Additional street access

-    Additional ‘view from the sun’ plans provided to better illustrate solar access impacts

 

6.  Key Issues

 

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards – Maximum Height of Buildings

The proposed development exceeds the maximum height of buildings development standard of 12m pursuant to Clause 4.3 of the RLEP. The proposed height of the building is 12.775m measured from the lift overrun, representing a variation up to 6.4%.

 

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

 

The table below identifies the maximum height of the development above existing ground levels:

 

Development

Ground level existing

Maximum height of development

Compliance with 9.5m RLEP height standard

Lift overrun

RL54.215

 

12.775m

 

Does not comply

 

Although the lift overrun exceeds the standard by the greatest amount, there are only minor impacts on the streetscape and neighbouring properties given its limited vertical massing, bulk and scale and the fact that it is located well away from the street frontage and neighbouring properties. The most pronounced impacts occur as a result of the proposed development exceeding the height of buildings standard across the eastern elevation (see Figure below) opposite No. 52 Dudley Street.

 

Figure. 6 Eastern elevation.

 

Despite the exceedance, the height of the lift overrun along the eastern side boundary is considered acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The proposed development responds appropriately to the sloping nature of the site and characteristic topography of the surrounding area. The height breaches along the eastern low parts of the site are an inherent response to, and example of, built form which respects the topography in the surrounding area, in particular the constraints imposed by the steeply sloping topography across the site (see figure. 7 below).

Figure. 7 view of sites topography when standing in south-east corner looking north-west.

 

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 in some areas 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, it is noted that the corner allotment of the subject site imposes additional considerations upon any development proposal in relation to setbacks. In this regard, there is a pattern of development on east-west subdivided sloping sites, containing narrow pathways at side boundaries, which makes southern properties, namely No. 131 Mount Street, particularly vulnerable to overshadowing (especially in relation to northern sunlight). This area also exhibits examples of setbacks of medium density developments that are more consistent with the RDCP side setback controls and in some circumstances the DCP controls have more relevance to context of the area than those proposed under the SEPP. Notwithstanding, the principle and secondary frontage setbacks are outlined in the table below for easy comparison to adjoining development.

 

 

Mount St Frontage

No. 131

= 4.6m

Subject Site

= 3m

1.6m variance

Dudley St Frontage

No. 52

= 7m

Subject Site

= 7m (principle façade)

= 5.35m (terrace)

1.65m variance to terraces

 

Whilst there are non-compliant elements such as the terraces fronting Dudley Street and the reduced setback on the secondary frontage of Mount Street. It is important to consider that these are minor non-compliances and largely a result of existing steeply sloping site rather than a consequence of any inordinate bulk or scale when compared with the scale of existing medium density development within the surrounding area. Moreover, the applicant has suitably demonstrated that appropriate solar access will be retained to neighbouring properties and that with regard to No. 131 Mount Street, the reduced setback from Mount Street is warranted in this instance as the proposal would not result in a better solar access outcome in terms of northern sunlight if the building was setback in-line with the principle frontage of No. 131 Mount Street. Likewise, the encroachment of the terraces upon the Dudley Street frontage is considered acceptable given the 10.6 metres of separation between the eastern end of the terraces and No. 52 Dudley Street, ensuring adverse acoustic/visual privacy impacts do not occur and that solar access is not disrupted to the north facing elevation of No. 52. Detailed Solar and Daylight Access discussion follows below.

 

·      3D-1 Communal Open Space (COS)

 

The original comments from DEP as well as recommendations made by the Assessing Officer highlighted the need for minor amendments to the COS. It is considered that the Applicant has addressed these issues by providing a pathway joining the two areas of communal open space and a redesign of the ground floor corridor areas to improve access to the COS. Additional amenities have also been provided in the form of a BBQ and herb garden. It is noted that solar access to the COS does not meet the required 50% during midwinter on the eastern boundary, although this can be considered acceptable when taking into account the provision of high-quality private open space that does receive the required solar access during midwinter.

 

·      3F-1 Visual Privacy

 

The ADG requires for the purposes of visual privacy of neighbouring properties that habitable areas including attached balconies be separated by a minimum of 6m from boundaries and 12m combined separation from habitable areas (including balconies) on neighbouring properties as shown in figures 3F-3 below.

Figure. 8 Visual privacy controls ADG

The proposal has side setbacks that meet the RDCP controls however, they do not comply with the 6m minimum separation control in the ADG. As considered earlier under Orientation 3B-2, it is impractical to provide 6m building separation as it would physically constrain and sterilise development of the site. The ADG also acknowledges existing patterns of development which in this instance contain buildings with narrow pathways at side boundaries which are well below the 6m control in the ADG. As such, it is considered more reasonable to place a greater emphasis on ensuring the new development is designed so that occupants and neighbours enjoy reasonable visual and acoustic privacy relationship, which may be addressed through physical measures.

 

An assessment of visual and acoustic relationship between the proposed development and the neighbouring properties is carried out for windows and balconies. The proposal generally seeks to mitigate privacy impacts with physical screens, placement of windows and forward and rear location of areas of private open space.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:  Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

Amended plans including shifting of building approximately 500mm to          south, increased front setbacks and changes to communal open space. Original proposal: Construction of a new three storey residential flat building comprising 6 x 3 bedroom units over basement carpark level be approved (subject to conditions) for the following reasons:

 

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

 

·       The proposal as amended and conditioned is consistent with the objectives in SEPP 65 and the design guidance contains in the Apartment Design Guide (ADG).

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.       Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

7.1.    State Environmental Planning Policies

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (BASIX) 2004

In accordance with the SEPP BASIX, all new housing in NSW is required to meet a designated target for energy and water reduction. A BASIX Certificate was submitted with the application, which indicates that the proposal meets the required reduction targets. The proposal therefore satisfies the requirements of BASIX.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality Residential Flat Buildings

SEPP 65 aims to promote quality design of Residential Flat Buildings (RFB’s). The proposal is subject to the policy as it involves the alterations and additions to a residential flat building being 3 storeys and more in height containing four or more dwellings. Council’s Design Excellence Panel (DEP) commented on one occasion that the panel is generally supportive of the proposal, subject to the points noted in their comments being addressed. In this respect, the key issue raised by the DEP relates to minimising the massing of the development at the front and demonstrating that the southern neighbour’s future development potential will not be unreasonably impacted by the proposed development. The amended scheme was not referred to the DEP given their concerns were adequately addressed as the massing was reduced and the development potential of the southern property was adequately demonstrated.

 

As required by SEPP 65, the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) is considered by way of an assessment below. The ADG is used in conjunction with SEPP 65 and is a guide containing objectives, design criteria and design guidance to improve the planning and design of residential apartment development in NSW.

 

Having regard to the ADG, an assessment is carried out against the key design criteria requirements in Part 3: Siting the Development and Part 4: Designing the Building. The ADG provides guidance about how development proposals can achieve the nine design quality principles identified in SEPP 65. Any non-compliance to the design criteria includes a merits based assessment as per the design guidance of the Apartment Design Guide.

 

Clause

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

Part 3: Siting the Development

3A-1

Site Analysis

 

 

 

Each element in the Site Analysis Checklist should be

addressed

 

Site analysis plan is adequate.

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)

Complies.

 

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

Building has two frontages North and East. The south facing units have a considered approach to both west and south facing openings, with terraces provided on the West.

Complies 

 

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 orientated to

the east and west (see figure 3B.2)

Shadow Diagrams and View from the Sun modelling (including breakdown of north facing windows of No. 131 Mount) indicates that the required levels of solar access have been preserved.

Complies

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

Development achieves 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 3pm on 21 June (mid winter).

Acceptable

 

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

Living rooms accessible from terraces will receive adequate solar access due to their location upon north and west facing elevation.

Complies.

 

If the proposal will significantly reduce the solar access of neighbours, building separation should be increased beyond

minimums contained in section 3F Visual privacy – requires 6m setback

Proposed development has side setbacks less than 6m however, it is not considered necessary given compliance is achieved with the design guidance. Moreover, compliance with the 6m control would sterilise development of the site located in the medium density zone which envisages development of a similar bulk and scale to that envisaged by the standards.

Does not comply with the 6m setback control. See comment at left and key issues section of report.

 

Overshadowing should be minimised to the south or downhill by increased upper level setbacks

The proposed development responds appropriately to the topography of the site and surrounding area. It has a bulk and scale that is consistent with the RDCP controls and where non -compliance occurs, the associated objectives have been suitably satisfied.

Complies.

 

It is optimal to orientate buildings at 90 degrees to the boundary with neighbouring properties to minimise overshadowing and privacy impacts, particularly where minimum setbacks are used and where buildings are higher than the adjoining development

Complies.

 

A minimum of 4 hours of solar access should be retained to

solar collectors on neighbouring buildings

Complies.

3D-1

Communal and Public Open Space

 

 

 

Communal open space has a minimum area equal to

25% of the site

 

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 total area of the proposed communal open space at both levels is 93.7m². The size of the lot

is 638m², and with a provision of 25% of the area as communal open space an area of 159.5m² is

required. There is hence a shortfall of 65.8m².

Despite this numeric shortfall in meeting Design Criteria 1 of Objective 3D-1 of the ADG, the

communal open space as provided by the proposal meets the design guidance listed in the ADG.

The areas of private open space provided to residents are larger than the minimum

standards provided by the ADG to account for the shortfall in communal open space. The

design criteria under Objective 4E-1 indicate that three-bedroom units are to provide a

minimum area of 12m² of private open space, for levels above ground level. Ground level

units are required to be provided a minimum area of 15m². Each unit is provided an area

greater than this under this proposal. For units at ground level (Units 1 and 2) the ADG

only require 15m² of private open space to be provided, and this is exceeded by between

3.7m² to 53.5m². Cumulatively, at the ground floor 57.2m² of private open space is

provided. All areas of private open space on the first and second floors exceed the 12m²

minimum standard set by the AGD, ranging in size from 15m² to 15.8m². Private open

space of 6.8m² over the minimum areas required is provided at both the first and second

floor levels. In total an area of 70.8m² of additional private open space beyond the

minimum requirement is provided to residents.

Does not comply. The communal open space is sufficient however given the low number of units and the proximity of other high quality open space areas in the vicinity of the site such as Coogee Beach and parklands that provide passive and active recreational use. Further, each unit is provided with compliant POS.

 

Solar access to the communal open space in the rear yard is compliant.

3E-1

Deep Soil Zones

 

 

 

Deep soil zones are to meet the following minimum requirements:

 

Site area

Minimum Dimensions

Deep Soil Zone (% of site area)

<650m2

-

7%

650-1500m2

3m

>1500m2

6m

>1500m2 with sig. existing tree cover

6m

23% of the site. (146.5m²).

Complies.

 

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:

 

Building height

Habitable rooms and balconies

Non-habitable rooms

Up to 12m (4 storeys)

6m

3m

Up to 25m (5-8 storeys)

9m

4.5m

>25m (9+ storeys)

12m

6m

 

Note: Separation distances between buildings on the same site should combine required building separations depending on the type of room (see figure 3F.2 showing separation of 6m plus 6m between habitable components.

The proposal has varying side setbacks that do not meet the minimum 6m control in the ADG.

 

The location of windows of the neighbouring residential flat building have been indicated

on floor plans for each level of the proposed development. The windows of the proposed

development have been offset to minimise privacy impacts.

Only bedrooms and bathrooms are proposed at this side of the development. This is in

parallel to the neighbouring residential flat building, which also provides bedrooms and

bathrooms to the shared boundary. While bedrooms are considered habitable rooms it is

noted that they are not used with the same intensity as kitchen, living and dining areas. It

is considered that less active time is generally spent within bedrooms and bathrooms,

providing fewer opportunities for visual privacy to be negatively affected.

Does not comply, see key issues section of report, however separation distances considered acceptable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3G-1

Pedestrian Access and Entries

 

 

 

Building Entry and access connects to and addresses the public domain

 

Access and entries are easy to identify

 

Complies

3H-1

Vehicle Access

 

 

 

Vehicle access points are designed and located to achieve safety, minimise conflicts between

pedestrians and vehicles and create high quality streetscapes.

Complies. The vehicle access

point is located close to the rear

boundary of the site from Mount

Street. This is near to the vehicle

access point of the adjoining

property and an appropriate

distance from tangent points of

unsignalled intersections.

Complies

3J-1

Bicycle and Car Parking

 

 

 

For development in the following locations:

·      on sites that are within 800 metres of a railway station or light rail stop in the Sydney Metropolitan Area; or

·      on land zoned, and sites within 400 metres of land zoned, B3 Commercial Core, B4 Mixed Use or equivalent in a nominated regional centre

 

 

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

 

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

 

NA see assessment in part B7 of the RDCP.

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.

Supporting solar access and cross ventilation diagrams indicate full compliance with this requirement

Complies

 

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

NA

4B

Natural Ventilation

 

 

 

At least 60% of apartments are naturally cross ventilated in the first nine storeys of the building.

All apartments are cross ventilated.

Complies.

 

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

Complies.

4C

Ceiling Heights

 

 

 

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

 

Minimum Ceiling height for apartment and mixed use buildings

Habitable rooms

2.7m

Non-habitable

2.4m

 

These minimums do not preclude higher ceilings if desired.

Complies.

4D

Apartment Size and Layout

 

 

 

Apartments are required to have the following minimum internal areas:

 

Apartment Type

Minimum Internal Area

Studio

35m2

1 bedroom

50m2

2 bedroom

70m2

3bedroom

90m2

5sqm for each additional bathroom

Complies.

 

Each unit has 3 x bedrooms and

2 x bathrooms. A minimum of

95m² area is required for each

unit.

Each of the six units

proposed has a floor area of

95.7m².

 

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

Complies.

 

Habitable room depths are limited to a maximum of

2.5 x the ceiling height

Complies.

 

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 room window.

Complies.

 

Master bedrooms have a minimum area of 10m2 and

other bedrooms 9m2 (excluding wardrobe space)

Complies.

 

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

Complies.

 

Living rooms or combined living/dining rooms have a

minimum width of:

·      4m for 3 bedroom apartments

Complies.

 

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

Complies.

4E

Private open space and balconies

 

 

 

All apartments are required to have primary balconies as follows:

 

Dwelling Type

Minimum Area

Minimum Depth

Studio Apt.

4m2

-

1 bed Apt.

8m2

2m

2 bed Apt.

10m2

2m

3+ bed Apt.

12m2

2.4m

 

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

Ground floor terraces have the

following dimensions:

 

Unit 1

18.7m² x3m

Unit 2

68.5m² x6.42m

 

First and Second Floors:

 

Unit 3

15m² x2.4m

Unit 4 15.8m²x 2.4m

Unit 5

15m²x 2.4m

Unit 6

15.8m² x2.4m

Complies. All balconies and

ground floor terraces meet the

minimum standards of area and depth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

4F

Common Circulation and Spaces

 

 

 

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

Complies.

 

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

NA

4G

Storage

 

 

 

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

 

Dwelling Type 

Storage Size Volume

Studio

4m3

1 bedroom

6m3

2 bedroom

8m3

3bedroom

10m3

 

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

Ample cupboard space provide storage within each apartment.

Complies.

 

7.2.    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

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

 

The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form a high quality and an architecturally well-designed residential flat building on the subject site that will positively contribute to the streetscape by reflecting the scale and materials used in modern residential developments and ensure the continued use and viability of residential development in an area.

 

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)

0.9:1

574:2sqm

(0.9:1)

Yes

Cl 4.3: Building height (max)

12m

12.775m

No

 

7.2.1.      Clause 5.10 - Heritage conservation

 

The Site

The site is prominently located on the corner of Dudley and Mount Streets.  The site was formerly occupied by a two storey dwelling with sandstone base, face brick walls and a slate roof.  The building, now demolished, was a good example of the Edwardian style applied to a generous two storey villa, notable for its fine interior detailing.  To the west of the site is the Dudley Street heritage conservation area, as well as several heritage items, nos.38, 42 and 44 Dudley Street and no.122 Mount Street on the corner of Dudley Street.  The expansion of the Dudley Street heritage conservation area and the heritage items in the bloc between Byron and Mount Streets were gazetted in February 2019.  Further to the east of the site on the corner of Dudley Street and Edgecumbe Avenue “Brooklyn Flats” is also listed as a heritage item.  In terms of significance, the Heritage Data Form for no.122 Mount Street notes that “the residence at 122 Mount Street Coogee erected in the period 1917-18, is a notable example of a late Federation House incorporating aspects of Federation Queen Anne Style.”  The Statement of Significance for the Dudley Street heritage conservation area notes that “the conservation area includes fine quality groupings and individual examples of large Federation and Inter-War period detached houses.”

 

Background

DA/455/2016 for demolition of the existing building and construction of a three storey residential flat building over basement carparking was approved by the Land and Environment Court in October 2017. 

 

Proposal

The application proposes changes to the existing building including setbacks from the Dudley and Mount Street boundaries and from the southern and eastern boundaries.  Changes are also proposed to the Dudley and Mount Street elevations and to the southern elevation, and a rooftop apartment has been deleted. 

 

Submission

The application has been accompanied by a Statement of Environmental Effects, which includes a copy of Council’s Heritage Map which was current at the time the application was submitted, but which does not include the recent gazetted extension to the Dudley Street heritage conservation area and additional heritage items in the vicinity of the site.  The SEE therefore claims that the site is not adjacent to a heritage item, and is located approximately 150m from the Dudley Street heritage conservation area, and asserts that there are no environmental constraints identified as affecting the subject site.

 

Controls

Clause 5.10(1) of Randwick LEP 2012 includes an objective of conserving the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views. 

 

Comments

Surrounding development to the east of the site on Dudley Street includes a number of three storey residential flat buildings apparently dating from the 1970s.  Surrounding development to the south of the site on Mount Street predominantly comprises single storey and two story Interwar semi-detached dwellings, as well as a recent 3 storey apartment building immediately to the south of the site at no.131 Mount Street. 

 

The site is on the opposite side of Mount Street from the heritage item and the heritage conservation area, and will not result in any damage to the building fabric of heritage properties.  Although a poor replacement for the previous building on the site, the current proposal is consistent with the setbacks, scale, bulk and character of surrounding development on the south east corner of Dudley and Mount Streets.  The proposed development will not detract from the streetscape setting of the heritage items and heritage conservation in the vicinity of the site and will not impact on views to and from the heritage properties. 

 

8.       Clause 4.6 exception to a 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.

 

Clause

Development Standard

Proposal

 

Proposed variation

 

Proposed variation

(%)

Cl 4.3:

Building height (max)

12m

12.775m

.775m

6.4%

 

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. 

 

8.1.    Exception to the Height of Buildings 

The applicant’s written justification for exceeding the height of buildings standard is contained in Appendix 2.

 

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 height of buildings 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 height of buildings 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

 

          In terms of objective (a), it is considered the size and scale of the development is consistent     with the desired future character of the locality, as evidenced by its compliance with the FSR,          3 storey scale relative to the street level and its suitable side and rear setbacks,

 

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

 

On 22 February 2019 Amendment No. 6 to the RLEP 2012 to extend the boundary of the Dudley Street Heritage Conservation Area to incorporate 38, 40, 42, 44 and 46 Dudley      Street, Coogee and 122 Mount Street, Coogee and to list 38, 42 and 44 Dudley Street, Coogee and 122 Mount Street, Coogee as local heritage items was gazetted. The effect of this amendment is that the heritage conservation objectives and provisions contained under clause 5.10 of the RLEP 2012 now apply to these sites. At the time of lodgement the DRAFT proposal for the listing of No. 122 Mount had not been published and as such the proposal does not address this factor. Nonetheless, the subject application was referred to Council’s Heritage Planner who has determined that the proposal will have not detrimental or significant environmental impact to the heritage significance of No. 122 Mount Street.

 

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

 

In terms of objective (c), the proposed building has been designed to high-standard including a variety of articulation measured including recessive elements in the form of ground floor terraces, balconies, and common terraces at each level. These measures ensure a varied façade is provided to all street frontages. Additionally, the building has been designed to facilitate continued solar access to the adjacent properties to the rear and east of the subject site at 131 Mount Street, Coogee and 52 Dudley Street, Coogee as demonstrated in the Shadow Diagrams provided with the DA plans. It is noted that the proposed breach is generated by the lift core, rather than exceeding the LEP maximum height limit for the entire building footprint, which helps to reduce the overshadowing impact of the height breach.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: In conclusion, the applicant’s written request has adequately demonstrated that compliance with the floor space ratio development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

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 building heights development standard as follows:

 

The maximum proposed variation is 0.775m in height, being contained to the lift core. The overrun is attributable to the slope of the existing ground level at the site. Fundamentally the visual bulk and scale of the development is seen to be contained, with the building being read from street level as a three-storey development.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: In conclusion, the applicant’s written request has adequately demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

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

 

          Consistency with the objectives of the Height of Buildings standard in the RLEP:

Strict compliance with the maximum is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case for the following reasons:

 

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

 

·      The additional overshadowing to the southern neighbour is largely unavoidable due to the east-west orientated subdivision and development pattern of the site and surrounding area; notwithstanding the applicant has demonstrated that suitable levels of solar access will be retained to the neighbouring properties and the development itself between the hours of 8am and 4pm during the winter solstice. Moreover, there is no additional overshadowing that results from the lift overrun itself.

 

·      The lift overrun will remain largely incorporated into the roof form and imperceptible from the streetscape. Similarly, the structure will not cause any view loss to surrounding properties.

 

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

 

Consistency with the objectives of the R3: Medium Density Zone 

The Site is zoned R3 under RLEP 2012.  The proposed development for a ‘residential flat building’ is permissible with consent under the zone.

 

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

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

§  To 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.

 

Assessment:

The objectives of the zone are listed below followed by comments:

 

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

 

The development will cater for the need for housing within a medium density residential environment.

 

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

 

The development will provide variety in housing via the apartment’s size, layout and aspects.

 

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

 

N/A

 

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

 

The development provides a three storey scale and will not be out of character with built forms in the surrounding area which have similarly responded to the characteristic sloping topography of land. The proposal reflects a suitable envelope including fenestration and façade treatment where the encroachment above the height standard will not deter from its contribution to the desired streetscape character of the area.

 

§  To protect the amenity of residents.

 

The proposal will not result in loss of acoustic or visual privacy that cannot be overcome by the size of the balconies and adoption of additional privacy screening along the sides of the balconies. The proposed encroachment of the height of the development are minor and limited to the lift overrun and does not result in unreasonable levels of overshadowing to the neighbouring properties.

 

§  To encourage housing affordability.

 

The proposal does not provide affordable housing as defined under the SEPP Affordable Rental Housing, however it will provide housing choice where the degree of affordability is to a large extent dictated by improving the amenity and live ability of new housing stock closer to current standards of acceptability under SEPP 65.

 

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

 

N/A

 

Overall, it is considered that the key matters raised in the applicant’s submission and the assessment carried out against the amended application demonstrate that the resultant environmental impacts of the proposal as amended will be acceptable.

 

The variation to the height standard is a well-considered response to the development envisaged by the standards for the zone, the sites sloping topography, its orientation and the bulk and scale of medium density development along Carrington Road.

 

Moreover, if the development were made to comply it would not result in any appreciable difference in overall benefits to the neighbouring properties and will in most likelihood result in substandard floor to ceiling heights of the top level apartment.

 

The proposal is considered to maintain consistency with the size and scale of development envisaged in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone relative to the existing site conditions.

 

As such it is considered that in this case, strict compliance is unnecessary and unreasonable.

 

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?

 

Variation of the maximum height of buildings standard will allow for the orderly use of the site and there is a no 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 been satisfied and that development consent may be granted for development that contravenes the maximum building height standard.

 

9.   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.

 

10.     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

Complies – Refer to relevant sections of report.

 

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

Nil.

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

The proposal generally satisfies the objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. 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 proposed development is consistent with the dominant character in the locality.

 

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

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

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

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

 

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.

 

11.     Conclusion

 

That the application to Amended plans including shifting of building approximately 500mm to south, increased front setbacks and changes to communal open space. Original proposal: Construction of a new three storey residential flat building comprising 6 x 3 bedroom units over basement carpark level be approved (subject to conditions) for the following reasons:

 

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

 

·      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 development enhances the visual quality of the public domain/streetscape

 


 

Appendix 1: Referrals

 

1.    Internal referral comments:

 

1.1.    Heritage planner

See Heritage Comments under Section 5.10 of RLEP assessment.

 

1.2.    Development Engineer

Amended plans have been received including the shifting of building approximately 500mm to south, increased front setbacks and changes to communal open space.

 

Original proposal: Construction of a new three storey residential flat building comprising 6 x 3 bedroom units over basement carpark level.at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Amended Architectural Plans by Becerral Architects, rev J, both dated and stamped by Council 27th November 2018;

·      Statement of Environmental Effects by GAT & Associates dated August 20180;

·      Detail & Level Survey by Geo strata dated 16th May 2018;

·      Swept Path analysis stamped by Council 14th November 2018;

·      Landscape Plans by Conzept Landscape Architects, dwg’s LPDA 19 – 03/1-4, rev F, dated 17/08/18.

 

GENERAL COMMENTS

The proposed development will generally be able to meet Council’s minimum engineering & landscaping requirements including parking, drainage & waste management.

 

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

 

DRAINAGE COMMENTS

On site stormwater detention is required for this development.

 

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

 

The stormwater must be discharged (by gravity) either:

 

i.             Directly to the kerb and gutter in front of the subject site in Dudley Street or Mount Street; or

 

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

 

PARKING COMMENTS

Parking Provision

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

·      1.5 spaces per 3 bedroom unit

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

 

Parking required under DCP           = (6 x 1.5) + 1(visitor)

                                                    = 9 + 1

                                                    = 10 spaces

 

Parking proposed                        = 11 spaces (complies)

 

The parking provision is satisfactory for the development

 

Motorbike Parking

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

 

Motorbike Parking Required               = 0.05 x 10

                                                         = 0.5 spaces

 

Motorbike Parking proposed              = 0 spaces

 

No motorbike spaces have been provided however there is an excees of vehicle spaces no objections are raised.                                                        

 

Bicycle Parking

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

 

Bicycle Parking Required                    = 6/2 + 6/10

                                                         = 4 spaces

 

Bicycle Parking proposed                 = 6 spaces (complies)

 

Carpark Layout

The vehicular access driveways, internal circulation ramps and the carpark areas, (including, but not limited to, the ramp grades, carpark layout and height clearances) are to be in accordance with the requirements of Australian Standard 2890.1:2004.

 

It is noted the head clearance in the vicinity of the proposed carstacker is 3.5m. This is at the lower end of what is acceptable as it may restrict the type of vehicles that are able to use the carstackers. For example two large 4WD’s would unlikely be able to both use a single stacker with a head clearance of 3.5m. Development Engineering recommends a head clearance of 4m to accommodate moist vehicles.

 

Notwithstanding as each stacker would be allocated to a single unit it would thereby allow at least one large vehicle to be provided within each stacker and to each unit. In consideration of this aspect the head clearance of 3.5m is accepted in this instance.

 

UNDERGROUNDING OF SITE POWER LINES

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

 

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

 

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

 

CIVIL COMMENTS

The kerb and gutter along the site frontage is in generally poor condition. Although it is noted it has been like this for some time it is also likely that recent demolition works on the site have also contributed to the poor condition.

 

The kerb and gutter along both frontages shall therefore be upgraded as part of the works.

‘No Stopping’ signage within 10m of the intersection of the Dudley & Mount Street shall also be installed as part of the works subject to the requirements and approval of Randwick Traffic committee.

 

WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMENTS

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

 

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

 

Comments on the number of Waste Bins

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

 

i.e. Garbage/recycling Bins Required = Number of units/2 (rounded up to nearest whole number))

 

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

 

Total Number of  BINS required          = 3 (normal) + 3 (recycling) + 2 (green waste)

                                                         = 8 x 240L BINS

 

TREE MANAGEMENT COMMENTS

All structures have already been demolished at this site, which is now completely vacant, meaning that the only vegetation requiring assessment for this application is the row of three mature Banksia integrifolia (Coastal Banksia’s) on Council’s Mount Street frontage, between the corner of Dudley Street and the southern site boundary. Their true size has been heavily reduced due to repeated topping away from the overhead wires, to now be about 5m tall, and as they are a native coastal species that are covered by the DCP, need to be retained as they will assist with integration of the new building into the streetscape.

 

The amended plans show that the existing vehicle access along the southern site boundary in Mount Street will be maintained in its current position, linking with an excavated basement level, and while the new crossing will be re-constructed slightly closer to the most southern street tree in this group, given the setback that will still be provided, as well as the relatively shallow depth of excavations required for this component, no major impact will result, so relevant protection measures and a bond have been imposed.

 


 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 3: DCP Compliance Table

 

B6 Recycling and Waste Management

 

DCP Clause

Control

Proposal

Compliance

On-Going Operation

 

 

 

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

Complies.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Condition to comply.

B7

Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access

3.

Parking & Service Delivery Requirements

 

Car parking requirements:

1space per 2 studios

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

1.2 spaces per 2-bedroom unit

1.5 spaces per 3- or more bedroom unit

1 visitor space per 4 dwellings

Complies

See Development Engineering comments.

C2

Medium Density Residential

 

2

Site Planning

 

2.1

Site Layout Options

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

·      Two block / courtyard example

·      T-shape example

·      U-shape example

·      Conventional example

 

Complies.

 

2.2

Landscaped open space and deep soil area

 

2.2.1

Landscaped open space

 

 

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

33.1%

Does not comply, however the provision of high quality COS and skillful design of basement levels means the site is more livable for residents. The provision of site coverage un this instance can be considered acceptable.

 

2.2.2

Deep soil area

 

 

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

22%

Does not comply however the ADG provisions overrides the RDCP provisions.

 

 

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

Complies.

 

 

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

Complies.

 

 

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

Complies.

 

 

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

Complies.

 

2.3

Private and communal open space

 

2.3.1

Private open space

 

 

Private open space is to be:

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies subject to conditions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For residential flat buildings:

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

 

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

 

2.3.2

Communal open space

 

 

 

 

Communal open space for residential flat building is to be:

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

(b)   Designed for passive surveillance.

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

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

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

 

Complies.

 

 

3

Building Envelope

 

3.1

Floor space ratio

 

 

0.9:1

0.9

Complies

 

3.2

Building height

 

 

12m

12.m (rooftop)

12.775 (lift overrun)

See Clause 4.6 exception.

 

3.3

Building depth

 

 

For residential flat buildings, the preferred maximum building depth (from window to window line) is between 10m and 14m.

Any greater depth must demonstrate that the design solution provides good internal amenity such as via cross-over, double-height or corner dwellings / units.

Complies.

 

3.4

Setbacks

 

3.4.1

Front setback

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

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

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

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

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

 

Dudley Street-

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.4.2

Side setback

 

 

Residential flat building

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

-     12m≤site frontage width<14m: 2m

(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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Western Side acceptable given corner allotment and compliance with solar access controls.

 

Eastern side complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prescribed condition.

 

3.4.3

Rear setback

 

 

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

Rear setback between 4.4m and 6m.

Acceptable

Partial compliance.

Corner lot that adjoins driveway of neighbouring property at rear. Compliance with building separation ADG satisfied and

the parts of the development that encroach upon the rear 6m setback relate only to a staircase.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

No services are evident.

 

4.2

Roof design

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

Contemporary flat roof including clerestory, good composition of materials and fenestration compliments building form and scale.

 

The roof form is flat contains a reduced footprint from the levels below.

 

Proposal is consistent with the modern roof forms in the area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lift overrun is adequately setback from the street frontage and will not be perceptible from any surrounding development.

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 of 10.5m applies.

Minor exceedance of 10.5m in south-east corner due to dramatic slope in topography. Portion not perceptible from the streetscape and will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts to neighbouring properties.

Acceptable 

 

 

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

Complies.

 

4.5

Pedestrian Entry

 

 

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

Complies.

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

-    Provide weather protection for building entries.

Postal services and mailboxes

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

4.6

Internal circulation

 

 

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

-      Providing natural lighting and ventilation where possible.

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

-      Allowing adequate space for the movement of furniture.

-      Minimising corridor lengths to give short, clear sightlines.

-      Avoiding tight corners.

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

 

 

Complies.

 

4.7

Apartment layout

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

Complies.

 

4.8

Balconies

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

4.9

Colours, materials and finishes

 

 

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

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

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

-    Changes of colours and surface texture

-    Inclusion of lightweight materials to contrast with solid masonry surfaces

-    The use of natural stones is encouraged.

(v)   Avoid the following materials or treatment:

-     Reflective wall cladding, panels and tiles and roof sheeting

-     High reflective or mirror glass

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

-     Large expanses of rendered masonry

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

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

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

Materials and colours are contemporary. The DEP commend the materials.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.12

Earthworks Excavation and backfilling

 

 

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

The development as amended adopts a suitable response to the site conditions.

Suitable conditions are included to support neighbour’s land.

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

Complies.

 

 

Retaining walls

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

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

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

 

Basement level walls are located on the side boundaries.

 

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

 

 

 

Does not comply however in general the proposed development as amended responds appropriately to the steep slope of the site.

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

5

Amenity

 

5.1

Solar access and overshadowing

 

 

Solar access for proposed development

 

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

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

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

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

ADG Provisions supersede the RDCP requirements.

See ADG table.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

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

See ADG table.

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

5.2

Natural ventilation and energy efficiency

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

All habitable rooms have a window.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.3

Visual privacy

 

 

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

 

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

 

(iii)   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

Windows are generally suitably located and dimensioned.

 

 

Balconies are oriented to the front and secondary frontage, overlooking streetscape.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.4

Acoustic privacy

 

 

 

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

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

Subject of standard and non-standard conditions.

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

5.5

View sharing

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Complies.

 

5.6

Safety and security

 

 

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

Complies.

 

 

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

Complies.

 

 

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

Complies.

 

 

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

Complies.

 

 

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

Complies.

 

 

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

Complies.

 

 

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

Condition.

 

 

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

Complies.

 

 

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

Complies

by condition.

 

 

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

Condition.

 

6.1

Location

 

 

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

Complies

 

 

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

Complies.

 

 

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

The driveway is appropriately located at the low side of the site and secondary frontage and not inconsistent with the design and location of other driveways along this side of Mount Street.

See comment at left.

 

 

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

NA

 

 

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.2

Configuration

 

 

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

Complies.

 

 

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

Complies.

 

 

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

·      Provide natural ventilation.

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

7

Fencing and Ancillary Development

 

7.1

Fencing

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

7.2

Front Fencing

 

 

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

Complies.

 

 

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

Complies.

 

 

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

NA

 

 

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

- Front fence for sites facing arterial roads.

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

Complies.

 

 

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

Complies.

 

 

(vii)  Gates must not open over public land.

Complies.

 

 

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

 

 

Conditioned.

 

7.3

Side and Rear Fencing

 

 

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

UP to 3.6m along southern boundary.

The proposed development reduces the levels along the southern side of the site closer to natural ground level and does not result in any significant additional adverse impacts on the neighbours property.

Adequate

 

7.6

Storage

 

 

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

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

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

(a)       3-bedroom apartments – 10m3

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.7

Laundry facilities

 

 

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

Not required a communal clothes line is provided and each apartment has internal laundry facilities.

 

 

(ii)       Provide internal laundry for each dwelling unit.

Complies.

 

7.8

Air conditioning units:

 

 

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

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

AC units proposed to be located in the basement.

Complies.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Dev Consent Conditions (med density res) - DA/536/2018 - 48 Dudley Street, Coogee

 

 

 

 


Dev Consent Conditions (med density res) - DA/536/2018 - 48 Dudley Street, Coogee

Attachment 1

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Randwick Local Planning Panel                                                                                                                                           9 May 2019

 

 

Development Application Report No. D20/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      96 Tunstall Avenue, Kingsford (DA/508/2018)

 

Folder No:                      DA/508/2018

Author:                          Plandev Pty Ltd, Thomas Mithen     

 

 

Proposal:                       Demolition of all structures on site and construction of a new part 2                                       and part 3 storey dwelling house with double garage, rear                                       swimming pool, associated site and landscaping works.

Ward:                             West Ward

Applicant:                      Aetch Design Pty Ltd

Owner:                           Mr T Yiu & Mrs D Yiu

Cost of works:                $2,602,080.00

Reason for referral:        Applicant is a relative of a Council employee

Recommendation

That the RLPP grants development consent under Sections 4.16 and 4.17 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 508/2018 for demolition of all structures on site and construction of a new part 2 and part 3 storey dwelling house with double garage, rear swimming pool, associated site and landscaping works, at No. 96 Tunstall Avenue, Kingsford, subject to the development consent conditions attached to this report.

 

 


 

1.       Executive summary

 

The application is referred to the Randwick Local Planning Panel (RLPP) as the Applicant is a relative of a Council employee.

 

2.       Site Description and Locality

 

The site is located on the western side of Tunstall Avenue, between Goodrich and Tresidder Avenues, Kingsford. The site is legally described as Lot 32 in DP 27867.

 

The site is rectangular in shape with a frontage width of approximately 17 m and a depth of approximately 36 m, providing a total site area of 613 m2.

 

The site slopes down from the street to the rear boundary, representing a change in level of approximately 6-7 m.

 

The adjoining properties to the north at 94 Tunstall Avenue and to the south at 98 Tunstall Avenue contain a 1-3 storey dwelling houses with swimming pools in the rear yard. The rear boundary adjoins the Australian Golf Club.

 

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=82fdc7f4-cf59-4f3f-b3cf-0eab2db2aee2&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

3.       Relevant history

 

The application has been subject to the following requests for additional information:

 

Date

Additional information required/response from the applicant

28 November 2018

Council sent an email to the Applicant requesting additional information including:

·      elevation shadow diagrams

·      updated survey plan

·      area plans and calculations

·      clarification on ownership

13 December 2018

Council sent an email to the Applicant requesting additional information including:

·      streetscape elevation

·      clause 4.6 written request in relation to the non-compliance with FSR

·      recommendation to reduce the height of the clerestory window/roof

04 February 2019

Following a preliminary assessment of the application Plandev sent an email to the Applicant raising the following issues:

·      non-compliance with deep soil and landscape controls and recommendation the proposal to comply with these planning controls

·      concerns with the calculation of floorspace and recommendation to revise the FSR.  

7 February 2019

The Applicant submitted amended drawings including:

·      removal of storage room and revised FSR calculation

·      reduced coverage calculation

·      replacement of hardstand area in the front setback with additional landscape area

6 March 2019

 

 

Following a detailed assessment Plandev sent an email to the Applicant raising the following issues:

·      roof form on top level and external wall height

·      non-compliance with FSR development standard

·      privacy and visual impacts from the raised turf area at the rear

·      minor plan details

15 March 2019

 

 

 

The Applicant submitted amended plans, including:

·      reduction in the footprint at the top floor and the overall quantum of floorspace, resulting in a compliant FSR of 0.59:1 

·      reduction in the level of the rear yard by 300mm

·      additional privacy measures to side window bedroom 4 and the laundry deck

 

4.       Proposal

 

The proposal is for demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a part two and part three storey dwelling with a ground floor double garage and a swimming pool and associated landscaping.

 

A description by level is provided in Table 1.

Table 1Summary description by level

Level

Description

Lower ground Floor

 

·      open plan dining kitchen

·      living room

·      rumpus and study

·      outdoor decks

·      swimming pool

Ground Floor

 

·      main entrance

·      3 x bedrooms with ensuites

·      laundry

·      double garage

·      first floor

First Floor

·      1 x bedroom

·      living area

·      bathroom

·      storage

·      outdoor deck

5.       Notification

 

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

 

6.       Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

6.1.    SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

A BASIX certificate has been submitted in accordance with the requirements of the SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

 

6.2.    State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land

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

 

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

 

6.3.    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that it retains the use of the site as a single dwelling in a low density residential environment.

 

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

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

0.6:1

0.59:1

Yes

Height of Building (Maximum)

9.5 m

4.5-9.5 m

Yes

 

7.       Development control plans and policies

 

7.1.    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.

 

8.       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

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

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

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

 

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

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

No submissions were received.

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

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

 

8.1.    Discussion of key issues

 

External Wall Height

Clause 3.2 of Part C2 of the RDCP 2013 requires a maximum external wall height of 8 m for steeply sloping sites. The western end of the building at the northern elevation exceeds the maximum wall height by up to 1.8 m when measured at the lowest point of the skillion roof.

 

The objectives of Clause 3.2 are as follows:

 

·       To ensure development height establishes a suitable scale to the street and contributes to its character.  

·       To ensure development height does not cause unreasonable impacts upon the neighbouring dwellings in terms of overshadowing, view loss, privacy and visual amenity. 

·       To ensure the form and massing of development respect the topography of the site. 

 

The non-compliance is acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      the non-complying part of the building is located at the rear of the site and would not be readily visible from the street

·      the non-complying part of the building represents less than 50% of the length of the external wall on the top floor

·      the site slopes down steeply from the street to the rear boundary, representing a change in level of approximately 6-7 m

·      the proposal would not result in any unreasonable impacts in relation to overshadowing, view loss, visual bulk and visual privacy (subject to conditions to provide privacy screening).

 

Side Setback (Garage)

Clause 3.3 of Part C2 of RDCP 2013 requires a 1200 mm setback to the side boundary. The relevant objective of the control seeks to ensure the location and design of parking and access facilities do not adversely affect the amenity of the neighbouring property or the streetscape.

 

The proposed southern setback of the garage is 902 mm, which does not comply with the setback control. Notwithstanding, Part 6.3 Setback of Parking facilities Control iii) states that car parking garages can be built to the side boundary where the adjoining property has parking facilities or outbuildings constructed to the common property and is compatible with the streetscape character. 

 

The SEE submitted with the application justifies the setback on the basis that the existing dwelling and garage has a southern setback of approximately 0.9 m, and to minimize excavation and adaptively reuse the existing driveway, the proposed new garage will replace the existing garage in a similar location and adopt similar setbacks.

 

The garage will have a flat roof similar in height to the roof pitch of the existing garage on the site and will be located within the same footprint as the existing garage. The location of the garage is therefore not likely to have any significant additional impact on the adjoining property at 98 Tunstall Avenue. The proposed garage will sit below street level to reduce its visual dominance within the streetscape. The proposed garage setback to the side boundary is acceptable.

 

Front Setback

Clause 3.3.1 of Part C2 of RDCP 2013 requires the front setback to be consistent with the average setbacks of the adjoining dwellings. Where there are no adjoining dwellings, the setback must be no less than 6m.  Where a development is proposed in an area identified as being under transition, the front setback will be determined on a merit basis. 

 

The existing dwellings on the adjoining properties are setback between 14 m to14.5 m to the front boundary. In a wider context the front setback of dwellings on the western side of Tunstall Avenue is mixed with some older dwellings also adopting a reduced setback to the street between 5 to 7 m. The proposed front setback of the building at ground level will be 6.68 m and 6 m to the garage.  A merit based assessment is appropriate to determine the front setback given the emerging built form character of the street.

 

The existing dwellings on the adjoining properties are setback between 14-14.5 m to the front boundary. The proposed front setback of the building at ground level will be 6.68 m and 6 m to the garage.

 

The proposed front setback is acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      the form and massing of development will complement the emerging streetscape character on the western side of Tunstall Avenue

·      the top floor is massed to the northern elevation and includes adequate setbacks to minimize its visual bulk within the streetscape

·      there are opportunities for deep soil planting in the front setback

 

Visual Privacy

Clause 5.3 of Part C2 of RDCP 2013 contains privacy controls to minimize privacy impacts to the adjoining properties.

 

Windows

 

Lower ground

The proposed kitchen and rumpus room windows on the northern elevation are generally at or below existing ground level and would not result in any adverse privacy impacts to the adjoining property to the north at 94 Tunstall Avenue.

 

The proposed living room window on the southern elevation will be approximately 870 mm above existing ground level at 98 Tunstall Avenue. The proposed window is orientated to a blank wall and recessed behind the face of the external wall and setback of 2 m to the common boundary at 98 Tunstall Avenue. A privacy screen would mitigate any oblique views to the balcony at the rear of 98 Tunstall Avenue. A condition to this effect is included in the recommendation of this report.

 

Ground

The bedroom window at the northern elevation would not result in any adverse privacy impact as it will be setback 1.8 to the common side boundary and overlook the front yard of No. 94 Tunstall Avenue. The other windows along the northern elevation service non-active spaces. The windows along the southern elevation also service non-active spaces and will be setback 1.5 m from the side boundary.

 

The bedroom 3 window along the rear (western elevation) will be elevated approximately 5 m above the swimming pool 98 Tunstall Avenue. A privacy screen would mitigate any oblique views to the rear of 98 Tunstall Avenue. A condition to this effect is included in the recommendation of this report.

 

First Floor

The bedroom 4 window along the northern elevation would result in potential privacy impacts to the adjoining property at 94 Tunstall Avenue. The proposal includes a timber batten privacy screen. A condition to this effect is included in the recommendation of this report. The other windows on the northern elevation service non-active rooms and would not result in any adverse potential privacy impacts to the adjoining property at 94 Tunstall Avenue. 

 

The living room window on the southern elevation will be setback 6 m to 6.5 m to the boundary and would not result in any adverse overlooking impacts to the adjoining property to the south at 98 Tunstall Avenue.

 

Balconies/Decks

 

Lower Ground

The deck adjoining the rear boundary will be setback 1.3 m to the northern boundary with 94 Tunstall Avenue at RL 28.84. The deck adjoining the dining area will be setback to the northern boundary with 94 Tunstall Avenue at RL 28.69. The pool deck on the adjoining property at 94 Tunstall is at RL 29.32. The planter along the northern boundary will assist in minimizing cross viewing between the properties.  A condition to this effect is included in the recommendation of this report.

 

The proposed deck adjoining the living area will be setback 2 m from the boundary and opposite the balcony at 98 Tunstall Avenue. In order to mitigate potential cross viewing between the properties the bench on the southern edge should be removed and a privacy screen installed. A condition to this effect is included in the recommendation of this report.

 

The turf area is at RL28.54 and will be elevated above the pool deck at 98 Tunstall Avenue at RL 27.59. The potential overlooking will be mitigated by a 1.8 m high boundary wall (proposed at RL 30.34) and a 1.2 m wide planted landscape strip. A condition to this effect is included in the recommendation of this report.

 

Ground

The oblique views from the rear deck adjoining bedroom 2 will be mitigated by the wall along the northern side of the deck and distance separation (7 m when standing in the middle of the deck).

 

First

The deck adjoining the living area would not result in any adverse privacy impacts due to the 6 m distance separation to the common boundary with 98 Tunstall Avenue.

 

Swimming Pool

Clause 7.5 of Part C2 of RDCP 2013 contains controls for swimming pools. The proposed swimming pool deck exceeds the maximum coping level of 1 m above existing ground level. The non-compliance is acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      the existing swimming pool coping level is also more than 1 m above existing ground level at the rear boundary due to the steep topography

·      the overall design and siting of the swimming pool does not present any adverse impacts to adjoining residential properties given that the site adjoins the Australian Golf Club (to the west)

·      the design incorporates setbacks and landscape plantings adjacent to the side boundaries to minimise the trafficability of those spaces.

 

9.       Conclusion

 

That the application to demolish all structures on site and construct a part 2 and part 3 storey dwelling house with double garage, rear swimming pool, associated site and landscaping works be approved (subject to conditions) for the following reasons:

 

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

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

 

The following non-standard conditions are recommended:

·      The installation of privacy measures to:

-    lower ground living room window

-    ground level bedroom 3 window

-    first floor bedroom 4 window

-    lower ground southern edge of the deck adjoining living area

-    lower ground screen planting along the southern boundary.


 

 

Appendix 1: Referrals

 

1.    Internal referral comments:

 

1.1.    Development Engineer

 

 

Appendix 2: DCP Compliance Table

 

3.1     Section C1: Low Density Residential

 

DCP Clause

Controls

Proposal

Compliance

2

Site planning

 

 

2.1

Minimum lot size and frontage

 

Minimum lot size (RLEP):

·    R2 = 400sqm

·    R3 = 325sqm

 

N/A

 

Minimum frontage

 

 

 

i)     Min frontage R2 = 12m

ii)    Min frontage R3 = 9m

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

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

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

No change to existing frontage width.

N/A

2.3

Site coverage

 

Up to 300 sqm = 60%

301 to 450 sqm = 55%

451 to 600 sqm = 50%

601 sqm or above = 45%

Site = 613m2

 

 

Allowable (max.) = 45% or 276m2

 

Proposed = 37% or 232m2

Yes

2.4

Landscaping and permeable surfaces

 

i)      Up to 300 sqm = 20%

ii)      301 to 450 sqm = 25%

iii)     451 to 600 sqm = 30%

iv)     601 sqm or above = 35%

v)     Deep soil minimum width 900mm.

vi)     Maximise permeable surfaces to front

vii)    Retain existing or replace mature native trees

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

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

Site = 613m2

 

Required (min.) = 35% or 215m2

 

Proposed = 36% or 219m2

 

Yes

2.5

Private open space (POS)

 

Dwelling & Semi-Detached POS

 

 

 

Up to 300 sqm = 5m x 5m

301 to 450 sqm = 6m x 6m

451 to 600 sqm = 7m x 7m

601 sqm or above = 8m x 8m

Site = 613 m2

 

Required = 8 m x 8 m

 

Proposed = 16 m x 8 m private open space area provided in the rear yard, including turf area, pool and decks. This parcel of private open space is situated at the lower ground level, is directly accessible to the living/dining areas and faces northwest to maximise solar access.

Yes

3

Building envelope

3.1

Floor space ratio LEP 2012 = 0.6:1

Allowable = 0.6:1

Proposed = 0.59:1

Yes

 

3.2

Building height

 

 

 

Maximum overall height LEP 2012 = 9.5 m

Allowable (max.)= 9.5 m

Proposed = 9.5 m

Yes

 

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

ii)    Sloping sites = 8m

iii)   Merit assessment if exceeded

Allowable = 8 m

Proposed = 4.5-9.5 m

No

Refer to the Key Issues section of this report.

3.3

Setbacks

3.3.1

Front setbacks

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

ii)    Corner allotments: Secondary street frontage:

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

-     1500mm for all other sites

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

Ground Floor

Garage - 6m

Bedroom 1 – 6.7 m

 

First Floor

10.3 m

 

No

Refer to the Key Issues section of this report.

3.3.2

Side setbacks:

Dwellings:

·      Frontage less than 9m = 900mm

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

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

 

Refer to 6.3 and 7.4 for parking facilities and outbuildings

Lower Ground Level

North – 1.35m

South – 903 mm to 1.55 m

 

Ground Level

North – 1.86 m

South – 1.55 m (building) & 903 mm (garage)

 

First Floor Level

North – 2.3 m South - 5.9m 11.9 m

Yes, except for the garage.

Refer to Key Issues Section of this report.

 

3.3.3

Rear setbacks

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

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

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

-     protect the privacy and solar access

iii)   Garages, carports, outbuildings, swimming or spa pools, above-ground water tanks, and unroofed decks and terraces attached to the dwelling may encroach upon the required rear setback, in so far as they comply with other relevant provisions.

iv)   For irregularly shaped lots = merit assessment on basis of:-

-     Compatibility

-     POS dimensions comply

-     minimise solar access, privacy and view sharing impacts

 

Refer to 6.3  and 7.4 for parking facilities and  outbuildings

Lower Ground Level

9.46 m

 

Ground Level

8 m

 

First Floor Level

10.8 m

 

Yes

4

Building design

4.1

General

 

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

·    articulated to enhance streetscape

·    stepping building on sloping site,

·    no side elevation greater than 12m

·    encourage innovative design

The site slopes down from the street to the rear boundary, representing a change in level of approximately 6-7 m. The building design generally follows the natural landform as required by the RDCP 2013 controls. 

 

The street elevation is sufficiently articulated with recessed entry, fenestration and mix of materials to create visual interest within the streetscape and modulate the built form without unduly increasing the visual bulk of the development.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.4

Roof Design and Features

 

 

 

Rooftop terraces

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

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

Dormers

iii)   Dormer windows don’t dominate

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

v)    Multiple dormers consistent

vi)   Suitable for existing

Celestial windows and skylights

vii)  Sympathetic to design of dwelling

Mechanical equipment

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

No roof terraces are proposed. The proposed roof includes planters that will only be accessed for maintenance.

 

Yes

4.5

Colours, Materials and Finishes

 

i)     Schedule of materials and finishes

ii)    Finishing is durable and non-reflective.

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

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

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

vi)   recycle and re-use sandstone

(See also section 8.3 foreshore area.)

The dwelling presents as a contemporary architectural form and integrates materials including face brick, zinc cladding, timber cladding and batten screening and rendered finish.

Yes

4.6

Earthworks

 

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

ii)    minimum 900mm side and rear setback

iii)   Step retaining walls.

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

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

vi)   cut and fill for POS is terraced

where site has significant slope:

vii)  adopt a split-level design

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

Part of the excavation proposed exceeds 1m. However, this is considered to be reasonable in view of the steep slope of the site. The excavation proposed on the lower ground floor level complies with the 900mm setback requirement.

No, acceptable on merit.

5

Amenity

5.1

Solar access and overshadowing

 

Solar access to proposed development:

 

 

 

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

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

The north-facing living area window is capable of receiving a minimum of 3 hours sunlight between midday and 4pm on 21 June.

The private open space of the proposed development is capable of receiving a minimum of 3 hours sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

Yes

 

Solar access to neighbouring development:

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

·      Topography of the subject and adjoining allotments.

·      Location and level of the windows in question.

·      Shadows cast by existing buildings on the neighbouring allotments.

The additional shadow cast by the proposal to the adjoining property to the south at 98 Tunstall Street would not adversely impact its private open space or rear facing balcony and windows.

 

Yes

5.2

Energy Efficiency and Natural Ventilation

 

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

·      Skylights (ventilated)

·      Clerestory windows

·      Fanlights above doorways

·      Highlight windows in internal partition walls

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

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

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

The application was accompanied by a compliant BASIX Certificate and is therefore acceptable in respect of energy efficiency. The design of the dwelling would facilitate natural ventilation.

Yes

5.3

Visual Privacy

 

Windows

 

 

 

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

-    windows are offset or staggered

-    minimum 1600mm window sills

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

-    Install fixed privacy screens to windows.

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

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

The proposal is acceptable in terms of visual privacy subject to conditions.

Yes

 

Refer to Key Issues Section of this report.

 

Balcony

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

The proposal is acceptable in terms of visual privacy subject to conditions.

Yes

 

Refer to Key Issues Section of this report.

5.4

Acoustic Privacy

 

i)     noise sources not located adjacent to adjoining dwellings bedroom windows

Attached dual occupancies

ii)    Reduce noise transmission between dwellings by:

-     Locate noise-generating areas and quiet areas adjacent to each other.

-     Locate less sensitive areas adjacent to the party wall to serve as noise buffer.

The design and layout of the proposed dwelling is appropriate to minimise acoustic privacy impacts.

Yes

5.5

Safety and Security

 

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

ii)    Street numbering at front near entry.

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

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

The main dwelling entry is located on the front elevation.

 

The design of the dwelling contains windows on the front elevation to maximise casual surveillance opportunities across the public domain.

Yes

5.6

View Sharing

 

i)     Reasonably maintain existing view corridors or vistas from the neighbouring dwellings, streets and public open space areas.

ii)    retaining existing views from the living areas are a priority over low use rooms

iii)   retaining views for the public domain takes priority over views for the private properties

iv)   fence design and plant selection must minimise obstruction of views

v)    Adopt a balanced approach to privacy protection and view sharing

vi)   Demonstrate any steps or measures adopted to mitigate potential view loss impacts in the DA.

(certified height poles used)

The proposal will not impact on the views from surrounding properties. The footprint of the first floor has generous setbacks from the side boundaries to ensure that view corridors between buildings will be retained.

Yes

6

Car Parking and Access

6.1

Location of Parking Facilities:

 

 

 

i)     Maximum 1 vehicular access

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

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

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

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

Double width if:

-     Frontage >12m,

-     Consistent with pattern in the street;

-     Landscaping provided in the front yard.

v)    Minimise excavation for basement garages

vi)   Avoid long driveways (impermeable surfaces)

The proposal includes a double garage in a similar location to the existing garage on the site.

 

 

 

No

 

Refer to the Key Issues Section of this report.

 

6.2

Parking Facilities forward of front façade alignment (if other options not available)

 

i)     The following may be considered:

-     An uncovered single car space

-     A single carport (max. external width of not more than 3m and

-     Landscaping incorporated in site frontage

ii)    Regardless of the site’s frontage width, the provision of garages (single or double width) within the front setback areas may only be considered where:

-     There is no alternative, feasible location for accommodating car parking;

-     Significant slope down to street level

-     does not adversely affect the visual amenity of the street and the surrounding areas;

-     does not pose risk to pedestrian safety and

-     does not require removal of significant contributory landscape elements (such as rock outcrop or sandstone retaining walls)

The proposed double garage is located in a similar location to the existing garage on the site.

No

 

Refer to the Key Issues Section of this report.

 

6.3

Setbacks of Parking Facilities

 

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

ii)    1m rear lane setback

iii)   Nil side setback where:

-     nil side setback on adjoining property;

-     streetscape compatibility;

-     safe for drivers and pedestrians; and

-     Amalgamated driveway crossing

 

The southern side setbacks of the garage does not achieve the 1.2 m requirement.

No

 

Refer to Key Issues Section of this report.

6.4

Driveway Configuration

 

Maximum driveway width:

-     Single driveway – 3m

-     Double driveway – 5m

Must taper driveway width at street boundary and at property boundary

 

The driveway width is 5 m in width.

Yes

6.5

Garage Configuration

 

i)     recessed behind front of dwelling

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

-     Single garage – 3m

-     Double garage – 6m

iii)   5.4m minimum length of a garage

iv)   2.6m max wall height of detached garages

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

vi)   600mm max. parapet wall or bulkhead

vii)  minimum clearance 2.2m AS2890.1

The proposed garage door width is 4.7 m. The internal dimensions are compliant with the applicable Australian Standard to accommodate two car parking spaces.

 

 

Yes

7

Fencing and Ancillary Development

7.1

General - Fencing

 

i)     Use durable materials

ii)    sandstone not rendered or painted

iii)   don’t use steel post and chain wire, barbed wire or dangerous materials

iv)   Avoid expansive surfaces of blank rendered masonry to street

There will be no change to existing side boundary fence. No details were provided regarding the front fence.

Yes, subject to condition.

7.2

Front Fencing

 

i)     1200mm max. (Solid portion not exceeding 600mm), except for piers.

      -  1800mm max. provided upper two-thirds partially open (30% min), except for piers.

ii)    lightweight materials used for open design and evenly distributed

iii)   1800mm max solid front fence permitted in the following scenarios:

-     Site faces arterial road

-     Secondary street frontage (corner allotments) and fence is behind the alignment of the primary street façade (tapered down to fence height at front alignment).

Note: Any solid fences must avoid continuous blank walls (using a combination of materials, finishes and details, and/or incorporate landscaping (such as cascading plants))

iv)   150mm allowance (above max fence height) for stepped sites

v)    Natural stone, face bricks and timber are preferred. Cast or wrought iron pickets may be used if compatible

vi)   Avoid roofed entry portal, unless complementary to established fencing pattern in heritage streetscapes.

vii)  Gates must not open over public land.

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

ix)   Splay fence adjacent to the driveway to improve driver and pedestrian sightlines.

The proposal includes a 1.2 m high front fence. No details regarding the materials were submitted with the application

Yes, subject to conditions.

7.3

Side and rear fencing

 

i)     1800 mm maximum height (from existing ground level). Sloping sites step fence down (max. 2.2m).

ii)    Fence may exceed max. if  level difference between sites

iii)   Taper down to front fence height once past the front façade alignment.

iv)   Both sides treated and finished.

No side fencing is proposed. The existing fence/retaining wall along the side boundaries will be retained with the rear boundary fence adjoining the turf area at the southern boundary being extended.

Yes, subject to conditions

7.5

Swimming pools and Spas

 

i)     Locate behind the front building line

ii)    Minimise damage to existing tree root systems on subject and adjoining sites.

iii)   Locate to minimise noise impacts on the adjoining dwellings.

iv)   Pool and coping level related to site topography (max 1m over lower side of site).

v)    Setback coping a minimum of 900mm from the rear and side boundaries.

vi)   Incorporate screen planting (min. 3m mature height unless view corridors affected) between setbacks.

vii)  Position decking to minimise privacy impacts.

viii) Pool pump and filter contained in acoustic enclosure and away from the neighbouring dwellings.

A swimming pool is proposed within the rear yard. The design of this pool does not strictly comply with the RDCP requirements given that the coping level is elevated greater than 1m above existing ground level and the coping level adjoins the rear boundary.

 

 

No

 

Refer to Key Issues Section of this report.

7.6

Air conditioning equipment

 

i)     Minimise visibility from street.

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

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

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

The drawings do not show the location of air conditioning equipment. Standard conditions of consent have been included in this regard.

Yes, subject to condition

7.8

Clothes Drying Facilities

 

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

Whilst the drawings do not include reference to clothes drying facilities, these could be accommodated within the rear yard and would not be visible from the street.

Yes

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

RLPP Dev Consent Conditions - DA/508/2018

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Randwick Local Planning Panel                                                                                                                                           9 May 2019

 

 

Development Application Report No. D21/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      59 Denning Street, South Coogee (DA/601/2018)

 

Folder No:                      DA/601/2018

Author:                          Plandev Pty Ltd, Thomas Mithen     

 

 

Proposal:                       Alterations and additions to existing dual occupancy at lower ground, ground and first floor levels and conversion to a single dwelling, swimming pool to rear, garage to front, landscaping and associated works (variation to height control).

Ward:                             East Ward

Applicant:                      Mrs N Page

Owner:                           Mr P A W Frederick, Mr T P Frederick & Ms K F Frederick

Cost of works:                $680,186.

Reason for referral:        The development contravenes the development standard for building height by more than 10%.

Recommendation

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

 

B.      That the RLPP grants development consent under Sections 4.16 and 4.17 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No.601/2018 for alterations and additions to existing dual occupancy at lower ground, ground and first floor levels and conversion to a single dwelling, swimming pool to rear, garage to front, landscaping and associated works, at No.59 Denning Street, South Coogee, subject to the development consent conditions attached to this report.

 

 


 

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=5dbca7b4-7fd4-46b4-aa9b-100d2969a917&contentType=image%2Fjpeg