BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Randwick Local Planning Panel

Meeting

 

 

 

Thursday 13 June 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    13 June 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Randwick Local Planning Panel

 

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

Thursday, 13 June 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

D23/19        279 Avoca Street, Randwick (DA/619/2018)...................................................... 1

D24/19        13 McDougall Street, Kensington (DA/929/2018)............................................. 59

D25/19        96-98 Mason Street, Maroubra (DA/642/2018)............................................... 107

D26/19        127 Darley Road, Randwick (DA/532/2018)................................................... 147

D27/19        1 Hill Street, Coogee (DA/31/2018)............................................................... 187

D28/19        5 Crana Avenue, South Coogee (DA/258/2018/A).......................................... 229

D29/19        70 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington (DA/35/2019)............................................ 243

D30/19        238-246 Arden Street, Coogee (DA/963/2018).............................................. 265

Miscellaneous Reports

Nil     

 

 

 

 

Roman Wereszczynski

Acting Director City Planning


Randwick Local Planning Panel    13 June 2019

 

 

Development Application Report No. D23/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                  279 Avoca Street, Randwick (DA/619/2018)

 

Folder No:                     DA/619/2018

Author:                          Chahrazad Rahe, Senior Assessment Planner     

 

 

Proposal:                      Demolition of all existing structures, construction of a 2 level boarding                         house in 2 building forms containing 10 boarding rooms and associated                      parking with access from Dine Lane plus motorcycle and bicycle                                       parking, landscaping and associated works.

Ward:                            East Ward

Applicant:                     Aramoon Pty Ltd

Owner:                          J Jabbour Investments Pty Ltd

Cost of works:              $1,804,000

Reason for referral:      More than 10 unique submissions have been received

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/619/2018 for demolition of all existing structures, construction of a 2 level boarding house in 2 building forms containing 10 boarding rooms and associated parking with access from Dine Lane plus motorcycle and bicycle parking, landscaping and associated works, at No.279 Avoca Street, Randwick, subject to the development consent conditions attached to this report.

 

 

 


http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.png?guid=574b0352-2b6d-4ac4-91f7-dd0be2dca3b2&contentType=image%2Fpng

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

 

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

 

1.       Executive summary

 

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

 

Initially the applicant was seeking development consent for demolition of all existing structures, construction of a 3 level boarding house in 2 building forms containing 17 boarding rooms, parking for 4 vehicles with access from Dine Lane plus motorcycle and bicycle parking, landscaping and associated works.

 

During the assessment of the application, the proposal was amended to make a series of changes to the design of the development to address a number of concerns raised by Council in relation to the bulk and scale of the development, parking, privacy and overshadowing impacts including issues raised in the submission by neighbouring properties. Revised drawings were received by Council on 27 February 2019 and 22 May 2019.

 

The revised plans received on 27 February 2019 include deletion of level 2 to buildings 1 and 2, reduction to boarding rooms from 17 to 10, deletion of eastern units to building 2 at level 1, relocation of communal room and car parking area, deletion of driveway to Avoca Street, alteration to roof form, addition of privacy screens to balconies.

 

The proposal was further amended on 22 May 2019 including the replacement of two car spaces with one accessible car space fronting Dine Lane, increase the size of communal room and front entry at Avoca Street to allow compliance with accessibility requirements, reconfiguration of the waste bin area, bicycle parking, and reduce the size of the rooms above the car space. The latest amendments would result in a reduction of the total number of occupants from 19 to 18 occupants.

 

The original proposal was notified and advertised in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP).  Initially the proposal attracted a total of fourteen (14) unique submissions raising key concerns with the bulk, scale and density of the development being out of character with the street and with the local area and not complying with the LEP standard.  There were also concerns raised with amenity impacts in terms of noise, overshadowing, overlooking, parking, traffic congestion, safety, waste management plan and impacts on property values associated with the boarding house use.  The management of the premises was also questioned.

 

The amended proposal received on 27 February 2019 was re-notified in accordance with the RDCP. The amended proposal attracted a total of seven (7) submissions raising key concerns with the appropriateness of boarding house use in its location, parking, traffic, safety and access impacts, privacy and noise impacts, FSR and overdevelopment of the site, overshadowing impacts to neighbouring properties, plan of management is vague and not enforced and no on-site manager, location of waste bin & waste management plan and the development does not meet a number of requirements under the Affordable Housing SEPP (AHSEPP). 

 

The final amended plans received on 22 May 2019 were not required to be re-notified as the amendments relate to a reduction in bulk and scale to the rear building and will not result in additional impact upon the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

 

The assessment is based on the amended plans received by Council on 22 May 2019.

The most recent amendments received have been assessed against the relevant planning requirements contained within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012, AHSEPP 2009 and the RDCP. The proposal is considered to be an acceptable form of development within the R2 – Low Density Residential zone and would not cause any unreasonable amenity impacts for the streetscape and/or adjoining properties, subject to on-going compliance with the submitted Plan of Management which is recommended to be imposed a condition of consent.

The amended development is able to satisfy the character compatibility test in accordance with the planning principle and subject to conditions, will not result in any adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the neighbouring dwellings or the character of the locality.

As outlined within this report, the proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria outlined within the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 as well as the relevant requirements prescribed by the Randwick LEP 2012. The proposal complies with the relevant controls and meets the relevant core objectives outlined within the Randwick DCP 2013.

 

The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the attached conditions of consent.

 

2.       Site Description and Locality

 

The subject site is known as 279 Avoca Street, Randwick and is legally described as Lot 1 in DP 954307.  The site is 459.9m2, is regular in shape and has a 9.14m frontage to Avoca Street, a depth of 50.29m and contains rear lane access via Dine Lane. The site contains an existing single storey detached dwelling house with a detached garage and outbuilding to the rear located adjacent to Dine Lane.  Refer to Photos 1 & 3 below.

 

Photo 1: Subject site and adjoining dwellings.

 

IMG_2395

The site slopes approximately 530mm from the front west boundary to the rear eastern boundary.

 

Surrounding residential development forms part of the R2 Low Density Residential zone and comprises of a mixture of uses from a school to the west, Prince of Wales hospital to the north-west as well as a number of dwelling houses and residential flat buildings that front Avoca Street. Directly adjoining the subject site to the north and south (at no.’s 277 & 281 Avoca Street, respectively) are single storey dwelling houses.  Refer to Photo 1 above.

 

Refer to Photo 2 which shows the existing streetscape along Avoca Street.

 

Photo 2: Exisitng streetscape along Avoca Street as viewed from eastern side of Avoca Street.

 

  IMG_2400

Photo 3: Subject site shown in dashed red line and adjoining dwelling facing Barker Street viewed from Dine Lane

 

3.       Relevant history

 

·      Subject development application was submitted to Council on 21 Septmber 2018.

·      On 3 October 2018 the application was advertised and notified to neighbours in accordance with RDCP 2013 for a period of 14 days. A total of fourteen (14) submissions were received.

·      Following a preliminary assessment of the application, the applicant was advised that the design of the development is required to be amended to address a number of cornerns in relation to the height, scale and bulk of the development, parking, privacy and overshadowing impacts.

·      The applicant submitted amended plans on 27 February 2019.

·      The amended plans were re-notified on 5 March 2019 in accordance with RDCP 2013 for a period of 14 days.  A total of seven (7) further submissions were received.

·      Further amendment have been received by Council on 22 May 2019 to address the bulk and scale of the rear building. Re-notificaiton was not necessary as the changes proposed will not further impact on neighbouring properties.

 

4.       Proposal

 

Initially the applicant was seeking development consent for demolition of all existing structures, construction of a 3 level boarding house in 2 building forms containing 17 boarding rooms, parking for 4 vehicles with access from Dine Lane plus motorcycle and bicycle parking, landscaping and associated works.

 

The latest amended plans received by Council on 22 May 2019 seeks consent for demolition of all existing structures, construction of a 2 level boarding house in 2 building forms containing 10 boarding rooms (8 double rooms and a two single rooms) with a total of 18 lodgers, parking for 2 vehicles including an accessible car space with access from Dine Lane and 2 motorcycle and 7 bicycle spaces, a detached indoor communal living area adjacent to the rear building opening out to a central communal outdoor open space which is at a lower level, landscaping and associated works. The amended proposal also includes the relocation of the waste storage area inside the rear building adjacent to the staircase and provision of 1.8m high privacy screens to both ends of the landing in front of the communal area and along the northern side of the waste bin/bicycle parking area.

 

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 original notification attracted a total of fourteen (14) unique submissions. The main issues raised in the submissions related to the development being of a bulk, scale and density of the development being out of character with the street and with the local area and not complying with the LEP standard. There were also concerns raised with amenity impacts in terms of noise, overshadowing, overlooking, parking, traffic, safety and impacts on property values associated with the boarding house use.  The management of the premises was also questioned. 

 

The amended proposal has addressed some of the residents’ concerns raised in these submissions and any other issues raised are addressed below in Section 5.1 Renotification.

 

5.1.    Renotification

 

The amended development was renotified to adjoining owners and likely affected neighbouring properties in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013.   As a result of the second notification period the modified development attracted a total of seven (7) additional unique submissions.  A summary of the concerns raised in the submissions is provided below: 

 

·      20 Titania Street, Randwick

·      22 Titania Street, Randwick

·      24 Titania Street, Randwick

·      33 Titania Street, Randwick

·      281 Avoca Street, Randwick

·      285 Avoca Street, Randwick

·      206 Barker Street, Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

No. 20 Titania Street was not notified

No. 20 Titania Street is located 72m from the subject site and were not notified of the proposed development.

 

The subject development is notified in accordance with Part A3 of the RDCP which only requires adjoining owners of the land of a development proposal to be notified within a 40m radius measured from each boundary of the development site.

 

This site is just outside the 40m radius and therefore, does not require notification under the DCP requirements.

 

Notwithstanding the above, the original application was advertised in the local paper which is also in accordance with Part A3 of the RDCP.

The boarding house is not appropriate use in this location.

Location of the boarding house is in close proximity to Randwick Girls High School.  Concerns that the above ground dwelling facing the girl’s high school will have direct visible sightlines to the playground area which is frequently used by the girls during the day.

 

Safety concerns have also been raised regarding the use of the poorly lit alley way within the immediate locality during late and very early hours including Dine Lane.

The proposed development is permitted with consent in the R2 – Low Density Residential zone pursuant to the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP).

 

It is common for boarding houses in low density residential areas to be opposed by a significant number of neighbours. The Affordable Rental Housing SEPP, however, encourages their development in such areas to provide an alternative form of housing which is affordable subject to the form and scale of the development not being incompatible in its context and the amenity impacts being acceptable. 

 

The proposed development is assessed as be in harmony with the buildings around it and in line with the plan of management is not envisaged to cause any significant safety concerns.

 

Parking, traffic, safety and access impacts

There is a parking short fall under the SEPP resulting in insufficient car parking spaces for the proposed number of rooms.

 

The proposal will add to the already high congestion and traffic ability on Avoca Street, Baker Street and the laneway and could add to potential nuisance.

 

The proposal is further cause parking pressures to the already congestion street.  There is a lack of parking in the area.

 

Concerns with the proposed access point from the quiet Dine Lane at the rear of the site.  The lane is narrow and increased traffic to the lane way will be unsafe for all users.  Also accessing garages from Dine Lane requires 3 point turns.  Allowing access to multiple additional car parks from Dine Lane can only increase the risk to both pedestrians and drivers trying to access/leave their properties, and those using the lane as a thoroughfare.

 

The statement that the development is in close proximity to public transport is incorrect and disputes the applicant’s calculation of distance to public transport.

 

If a dedicated GoGet vehicle space is proposed, this would reduce the number of available car spaces for this property. Clarification and further assessment of the proposed inclusion of a dedicated GoGet vehicle car space should be provided, as well as the impact to neighbouring properties (i.e. security issues).

 

The previous proposal included a disability access car space it is unclear whether the amended proposal has dedicated a parking space for disability access.

 

Refer to detailed assessment comments made by Councils Development Engineers which addresses these concerns.

 

In relation to public transport, according to the SEPP  “accessible area" means land that is within:

(a) 800 metres walking distance of a public entrance to a railway station or a wharf from which a Sydney Ferries ferry service operates, or

(b) 400 metres walking distance of a public entrance to a light rail station or, in the case of a light rail station with no entrance, 400 metres walking distance of a platform of the light rail station, or

(c) 400 metres walking distance of a bus stop used by a regular bus service (within the meaning of the Passenger Transport Act 1990 ) that has at least one bus per hour servicing the bus stop between 06.00 and 21.00 each day from Monday to Friday (both days inclusive) and between 08.00 and 18.00 on each Saturday and Sunday.

 

The site lies about 270m walking distance from a bus stop near the corner of Easy Street and Barker Street (in front of hospital) which serves frequent services including  routes 348, 357  ,400, 418, 410. In addition, the site is also within 800mm of a light rail stop near the intersection of High Street and Avoca Street. The site therefore falls within the definition of an “accessible area”.

 

 

 

Motorcycle and bicycle spaces

Would like clarification for the following:

·     What is the number of parking spaces for motorcycles and bicycles?

·     Safety to both pedestrians and motorcycles using the common walkway when entering or existing from Dine Lane?

·     Width of the walkway to be wide enough for a motorcycle to use without damaging the southern boundary fence?

·     Security measures (i.e. gate or high fences – 2.1m in height to prevent lodgers from entering onto the proposed property or neighbouring properties (no. 281 Avoca Street)?

 

As the number of boarding rooms is 10 this will require the minimum provision of 2 bicycle and 2 motorbike spaces. The submitted plans demonstrate compliance with the motorbike parking requirement of 2 spaces and it is noted that 7 bicycle spaces have been proposed being well in excess of the SEPP requirements.

 

The walkway is sufficient in width for the motorbike to safely access the parking space without damaging the southern boundary fence.  A condition is included which requires a 1.8m high fence to be proposed along the southern side boundary to ensure privacy levels are maintained.

 

Privacy and noise impacts

The upper level balconies of building 2 to the rear laneway will have direct privacy sightline concerns to the neighbours backyards and private living areas. 

 

Concerned the communal roof will have noise impacts in a densely populated tight area.

 

With regards to noise and general amenity refer to Section C4 – Boarding Houses - Sub-section 2.6 – Visual and acoustic amenity and privacy which addresses these concerns.

 

 

FSR & Overdevelopment

The FRS is not stated clearly on the plans and documents and concerned the revised plans are inappropriate and unreasonable precedent for overdevelopment in a residential area adjacent to heritage protected properties.

 

The amended proposal has an FSR of 0.64:1 which complies with the LEP 2012 FSR standard.

 

Refer to Assessment of Clause 30 - Standards for Boarding Houses which demonstrates that the proposed boarding house is of a scale and bulk that is consistent with neighbouring properties and will satisfy the local character test.

 

Disability access and mobility

Concerned the ramp from the Dine Lane entrance does not meet the minimum gradient for ramps and width for wheelchair access under the BCA for disability access and mobility including entry to room G04.

 

The scaled plans indicate that the walkway width directly next to room G04 is 1.2m which meets the BCA requirement for disability access and mobility.

 

Moreover, a condition is included with the consent which requires the development to comply with the BCA requirements that includes disability access and mobility on the site.

 

Local character

Whilst the amended proposal has reduced the bulk and scale of the development, the development still does not fit in with the local character of the surrounding area and is aesthetically imbalanced.  Clause 16A of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 states that the consent authority must take into account whether the design of the development is compatible with the local character of the area. 

 

The proposed works are not compatible with the local area and do not provide a positive planning outcome for the community.  The building will have a scale, bulk and height not appropriate to the existing and desired future character of the street and surrounding buildings. The surrounding local area is characterised by low density housing as well as the nearby The Spot Heritage Conservation Area.  The proposal for 10 boarding rooms over two stories on a narrow block is totally out of character for the area, which is mainly detached houses.

 

Refer to Assessment of Clause 30 - Standards for Boarding Houses which demonstrates that the proposed boarding house will satisfy the local character test.

 

 

 

Justification

The outdated SEE and other documents available on the DA tracker do not address the proposed development and are incorrect and insufficient.

 

The amended plans lack any justification in regards to design standards, car parking requirements and public interest.

 

 

An amended SEE is provided which adequately assesses the relevant planning provisions with regards to Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended.

 

Notwithstanding the above, Council does not solely rely on the applicants justifications.

 

An assessment has been carried out by Council Officers to ensure the proposed development complies with relevant planning provisions/ instruments.

 

The development does not meet a number of requirements under the Affordable Housing SEPP (AHSEPP)

The proposal fails to provide affordable rental housing for key and low-income workers in the Randwick Community.

 

The development does not fit in with the existing low density character of the local area, raised safety issues for users of Dine lane and does not comply with the parking requirements set out in the AHSEPP.

 

The proposed indoor and outdoor communal area does not comply with the minimum 3 hours of direct sunlight requirements under the AHSEPP.

 

It is not clear how lodgers with mobility issues (including wheelchair) would be able to access the communal areas.  Request that further clarification be submitted to address this issue.

 

The proposal does meet the Affordable Housing SEPP as it provides a form of low-cost rental accommodation for a wide range of tenants including singles, retirees, students and young couples.  Moreover, the proposal satisfies the Key requirements under Clause 29 which provides Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent and Clause 30 which provides Standards for boarding houses.

 

The proposed development is of a size and scale that is consistent with the built form controls outlined in the RDCP 2013 and FSR and height of Building standards in the LEP 2012.  Refer to Assessment of Clause 30 - Standards for Boarding Houses which demonstrates that the proposed boarding house will satisfy the local character test.

 

The shadow diagrams below demonstrate that a portion of the indoor and outdoor communal areas will receive the required 3 hours of sunlight between 12pm to 4pm during mid-winter. The amendments made on 22 May 2018 also includes enlarged door opening and new skylight to the communal area, which will also improve solar access to the internal communal area.

 

In relation to the mobility issues, a condition is included with the consent which requires the development to comply with the BCA requirements that includes disability and access on the site.

 

Location of waste bin & waste management plan

 

The proposed waste bin is next to the BBQ area of number 206 Barker Street, Randwick.  The 19 people living at the boarding house would generate a lot of waste in comparison to normal resident household.  There is no onsite management to ensure the bin lids are closed. Would like a condition imposed to prevent odour nuisance from blowing into their backyard and have suggest a solid 2.1m high fence be constructed for the full width of the southern boundary to prevent odours and vermin crossing the fence. 

 

The provision for waste/recycling collection seems low for 10 boarding rooms.  The plans indicate different areas for the location of the bins, depending on the correct location this could potential raise other issues to the property at number 33 Titania Street, Randwick.

 

With the relocation of the bins to be stored at the eastern part of the property (Dine Lane), would like to know who will be responsible to take the bins up to Avoca Street.  Concerned this will impact on pedestrian maneuverability, traffic on Avoca Street during collection.

 

It was determined and conditioned that a minimum of 7 x 240L bins comprising of 3 normal, 3 recycling and 1 green waste would be required for the proposed development. The submitted plans indicate 9 x 240L bins for the proposed development along the northern side boundary and therefore, achieve compliance with the minimum bin provision required.

 

The waste management plan will determine the various responsibilities for waste management. A draft waste management plan was submitted as part of the DA which indicate the appointment of a strata manager company to manage the waste. A final Waste management Plan will however be required to be approved prior to the issuing of CC subject to the approval of council’s Waste Management coordinator. A condition is included within the consent. 

 

Council’s Development Engineers have advised that it has not yet been finalised where the waste bins will be presented for collection. It will likely however be Avoca Street but this will be subject to approval of Council’s Waste Management coordinator as part of the Waste management plan. There is a travel path available for the bins to Avoca Street.

 

If collection is on Avoca Street there is no concern on traffic as the situation is no different to what is currently occurring with surrounding properties.

 

A 1.8m high fence is proposed adjacent to the waste storage/bicycle parking area.  It is not necessary for the fence to be of solid material as it is located to the rear of the site, is partially adjacent to the neighbour’s outbuilding/garage wall and is located a fair distance from the rear of the neighbour’s dwelling house.

 

Overshadowing impacts to adjoining properties

The proposed development will result in significant overshadowing impacts to the adjoining dwelling at 281 Avoca Street, Randwick for majority of the day in mid-winter.   The minimum requirement of 3 hours of sunlight during mid-winter will not be achieved.

 

Having regard to the fact that the immediate adjoining properties contain single storey dwellings, the application was amended to remove or minimize to an acceptable degree any adverse impacts that the development otherwise will cause to these neighbours in terms of overshadowing and overlooking.

 

Refer to section 8.1 Discussion of key issues below which further addresses this issue.

 

Management Plan

There is no on-site management, based on the maximum occupant capacity of the development.

 

The proposed management plan for the boarding house is too vague and not enforceable.

 

There is no criteria and process for choosing lodgers. Preference should be given to people on low and moderate income.

 

A schedule detailing minimum furnishings for boarding rooms, provision of facilities and appliances for kitchen, bathroom and laundry rooms and maximum occupancy of each room.

House rules, covering issues such as lodger behaviour, visitors, party policies, noise control, use and operation hours of common areas, consumption of alcohol and illicit drugs.

Operational Plan of Management to minimise noise impacts. 

 

A boarding house manager is not required on site as there are only 18 lodgers.  A condition will be included to ensure that the maximum number of residents does not exceed 18 lodgers as proposed.

 

A condition is recommended to ensure the boarding house is operated in accordance with the submitted Plan Of Management (POM), which will be enforced within the rental agreement contract.

 

Conditions will also ensure ongoing use of the development does not give rise to offensive noise or anti-social behaviour.

 

In relation to noise and general amenity refer to Section C4 – Boarding Houses - Sub-section 2.6 – Visual and acoustic amenity and privacy which addresses these concerns.

 

No on-site management is proposed

As no documents was provided with the development describing the maximum occupancy capacity on the site, it is possible that a total of 20 lodgers (10 boarding rooms x 2 adults = 20 lodgers) maybe provided on the site, if this is the case an on-site manager will be required.

 

The modified development includes 10 boarding rooms, 8 double rooms and a two single rooms, which totals the number to 18 lodgers on the premises.

 

An on-site manager/caretaker’s residence is not required for premises with a boarding capacity of less than 20 rooms under the SEPP ARH 2009.  A condition is included to ensure that there will be a maximum of 18 lodgers on the premises.

 

Conditions will also ensure ongoing use of the development does not give rise to offensive noise or anti-social behaviour. 

 

In addition to the above, the applicant has submitted an acoustic report (amended) indicating that noise will be acceptable subject to relevant restrictions. 

 

Pitch of roof

Would like to know why a pitched roof was proposed rather than a flat roof.  Would like to know what will be installed/included in the space under the pitched roof? How is the roof space accessed?

The roof form will be generally consistent with the pitched roof forms within the area and therefore, will not be out of character with neighbouring properties. 

 

There is not storage space or access proposed within the roof area.

 

6.       Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

6.1.    SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

The subject application is made pursuant to the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. Clause 29 provides – Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent and Clause 30 provides - Standards for boarding houses.

 

An assessment against these clauses is provided below:

 

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

Standard

Assessment

(1) Floor Space ratio

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

The subject site has an area of 459.5m².

 

In response to (a), the site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential and the maximum floor space ratio for any form of residential accommodation permitted on the site (based on the land size) under the Randwick LEP is 0.65:1.

 

The amended proposal has a maximum FSR of 0.64:1 (or GFA of 297m²) which complies with the development control.

 

Complies

(2) (a) Building height

 

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

The maximum permitted building height is 9.5m.

 

The proposed development has a building height of 9.4m based on the roof RL and survey plan.

 

Complies

 

(b) Landscaped area

 

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

The development contains suitable landscaped areas within the front of the site and is in accordance with the streetscape pattern of adjoining development. Landscaping is also strategically located within the site and its surrounds. 

 

Complies

 

(c) Solar access

 

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

 

The communal living room is located to the rear of the secondary building and will receive compliant solar access from 12pm until 3pm based on the submitted shadow diagrams.

 

The boarding rooms are well configured and also receive the required solar access through their window openings.

 

Complies

 

(d) Private open space

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The private communal area is provided to the centre of the site and has an area of 47m2 with a minimum dimension exceeding 3m.

 

A boarding house manage is not required on the site as there are only 19 lodgers.

 

Complies

 

(e) Parking

 

if:

 

(i)  in the case of development in an accessible area—at least 0.2 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room, and

 

(ii)  in the case of development not in an accessible area—at least 0.4 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room, and

 

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

Total parking required for the boarding house = 5 parking spaces.

 

The proposal is located within an accessible area, however only 3 parking spaces are provided which are accessed off Dine Lane. Refer to Development Engineer referral comments below which addresses this section of the SEPP.

 

 

 

(f) Accommodation Size

 

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

 

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

 

(ii)  16 square metres in any other case.

 

The modified development includes 10 boarding rooms, 8 double rooms (one of the rooms being accessible) and two single rooms are proposed.

 

All double rooms exceed 16m2 and the single rooms on the first floor level to the rear building exceed 12m2 (13.4m²) excluding private kitchen and bathroom facilities.

 

It is noted that all double rooms will be occupied with 2 lodgers and the single rooms will be occupied with 1 lodger, the total number of lodgers would be 18. Therefore, a condition is recommended to ensure that the maximum number of residents does not exceed 18 lodgers as proposed.

 

Complies

 

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

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

 

Complies

 

 

Assessment of Clause 30 - Standards for Boarding Houses

Standard

Assessment

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

More than 5 boarding rooms are proposed and a communal living room has been provided. 

 

Complies

 

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

 

All boarding rooms are between 13.4m² and 18.6m² in area.

 

Complies

 

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

A condition is recommended to ensure compliance with this part.

 

Complies

 

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

Adequate bathroom and kitchen facilities are provided in each boarding room.

 

Complies

 

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

 

All rooms have been design to accommodate a maximum of 2 lodgers except for rooms 106 & 107 on the first floor level of the rear building which is designed to accommodate a single lodger. As such, a total of 18 lodgers are proposed and therefore, a boarding house manager is not required for the boarding house.

 

Complies

 

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

The land is zoned R2 – Low Density Residential.

 

 

Complies

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

2 bicycle and 2 motorcycle parking spaces are required.

 

7 bicycle and 2 motorcycle parking spaces are provided (refer to Development Engineer referral comments below).

 

Complies

 

Assessment of Clause 30A- Character of the local area

Character of the local area:

 

An assessment is carried out in relation to the context, compatibility of the built form, compatibility of the use and compatibility of the R2 zone.

 

Context: The subject site and surrounding area contains a mixture of uses with the majority of development’s south and east of the subject site containing low density residential uses with built forms that generally contain single and two storey scaled development.  To the west directly opposite the subject site on Avoca Street is Randwick Girls High School and further north east is Prince of Wales Hospital & Sydney’s Children Hospital which are located within SP2 Infrastructure zone.  The scale and density to this side of the street is independent and changes significantly.

 

Development to the north of the site along Barker Street contain residential flat buildings.  The zone changes to R3 scale to the north of the subject site and further to the east along Barker Street where there is a change in scale, bulk (FSR density of 0.75:1) and height (12m) which is also greater than the 0.65:1 permitted for the subject site.  Refer to figure 1 below.

 

The most obvious examples of the scale and size permitted on the subject site is the developments located to the east of Avoca Street to the eastern and southern side of the subject site containing two single and storey dwellings. The rear of the site fronts Dine Lane and developments permitted fronting the laneway are up to a maximum overall height of 6m with a 4.5m wall height. This laneway spans for a short distance and contains an outbuilding structure which is located to the rear of no. 206 Barker Street. This rear building is of a similar bulk and scale to the amended secondary building being sought to the rear on the subject site.

 

Figure 1: Map of subject site and surrounding zone uses

 

Compatibility of built form:

 

The site is located within the R2 Low Density Residential zone where boarding houses are permissible with consent. The application was amended during conciliation to reduce both the height and density of the development to be consistent with the zone.  The original proposed development proposed two predominant 3 storey buildings one facing Avoca Street and the other facing Dine Lane as shown in figure 2 below.  The FSR was reduced from 1.06:1 to 0.64:1 to comply with the LEP maximum of 0.65:1 and the external wall height was reduced to comply with the DCP. The overall building height complies with the LEP maximum height control of 9.5m. Refer to amended southern elevation in figure 3 below.

 

The development fronting Avoca Street will read as a 2 storey dwelling and the rear building fronting Dine Lane will read as an outbuilding structure with a habitable first floor level over parking at ground level. 

 

The elevations below show the originally proposed and amended development along its southern elevation. The main amendments relate to the reduction to the wall height of the main building fronting Avoca Street and reduction in size and scale to the outbuilding facing Dine Lane.

 

It is noted that the immediate adjoining properties contain single storey dwellings. However, when considering the FSR proposed within a compliant height limit, surrounding dwellings and built form, the proposed development is not considered out of character with what might reasonably occur were the site to be redeveloped for a large residence as it permissible.  In short, in terms of bulk and scale, the planning controls envisage a form of development not dissimilar to what is proposed. 

 

The amendments allows for the proposed scale to suitably sit within the predominant low density residential scale and not adversely affect streetscape character.

 

It is considered the proposal has found an effective balance of density and distribution of built form across the site that is consistent with the surrounding streetscape.

 

Figure 2: Southern elevation of original development: (Left side of elevation fronts Avoca Street and right side of elevation fronts Dine Lane).

``2

 

Figure 3: Southern elevation of amended development: Plan excerpt of the amended proposal showing a reduction in size and scale of the main building fronting Avoca Street and secondary building fronting Dine Lane.

 

Compatibility of use:

 

The proposed use of the site as a boarding house with 8 double lodger rooms and two single lodger allows for a maximum of 18 lodgers. The boarding house use is permissible development within both the RLEP and the SEPPARH 2009.

 

The bulk of the building supports a reasonable intensity of residential use, remaining within the scope of a small scale boarding house, notably for the purpose of SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. Critically, the increase in intensity posed by the development is well supported by public transport options and local services being located within the area integrating effectively into the existing and evolving character of the locality.

 

Effective measures in relation to noise, operation and management of the boarding house have been employed in a Plan of Management and acoustic report. These measures outlined in both documents can be suitably enforced by way of condition of consent, ensuring the development poses minimal detrimental amenity impact to adjoining residents and integrates effectively into the prevailing character of the locality.

 

It is considered that through conditions, the proposal provides both a built form and operational outcome consistent with surrounding character, minimising detrimental impacts upon adjoining sites, while providing contemporary affordable housing to the community.

 

Consistency with the objectives of the R2 Low Density zone:

The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the R2 zone having particular regard to providing for the housing needs of the community within the low density environment. It also recognises the desirable elements of the streetscape and built form and seeks to protect the amenity of residents whilst also meeting the demand for housing affordability.

The proposed building is sympathetic to the character of the existing mixed residential, school and hospital uses in context, maintaining and enhancing desirable attributes of built form, as discussed above. The proposal incorporates a Plan of Management, detailing ongoing commitment to reduce impacts upon and protect the amenity of existing residents. The Plan of Management is recommended to be tied to any consent issued by way of appropriate condition.

 

Overall the proposed development is considered to satisfy the local character test.

 

 

6.2.    SEPP Building Sustainability Index (BASIX) 2004

The amended development has a gross floor area of 297m² as defined under the Randwick LEP 2012.  However, the FSR is defined differently under the BASIX.  The proposed development as defined under the BASIX is as follows:

 

Floor area: means the area of floor measured within the finished surfaces of the walls, and includes the area occupied by any cupboard or other built-in furniture item, fixture or fitting. Therefore, the floor area will be much greater than that defined under the Randwick LEP 2012.

 

Class 1, class 2 and parts of class 4 buildings are subject to BASIX certificate. However, once a boarding house accommodates more than 12 people or is over 300m² it is classed as a Class 3 building.  It is now no longer subject to Basix but must meet the Section J requirements under the BCA.

 

The proposed boarding house accommodates for more than 12 people (18 people) and is over 300m² in gross floor area as defined under the SEPP and therefore, is classified as a Class 3 building which is subject to a Section J certificate.

 

Section J is the energy efficiency provisions of the building code which only applies to Class 2 to 9 Buildings.  A Section J certificate has been submitted with the application and therefore, it can be concluded that the proposal in its current form offers good amenity to residents in terms of energy efficiency and thermal comfort.

 

6.3.    Infrastructure – State Environment Planning Policy (SEPP) 2007

The subject site was initially subject to Infrastructure SEPP 2007 as the driveway access was proposed via Avoca Street frontage which is identified as an RMS classified road.  The driveway has now been deleted and access is only via Dive Lane to the rear of the property the application no longer is subject to the Infrastructure SEPP 2007.

 

 

6.4.    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 consent.

 

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

 

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

 

Clause

Development Standard

Proposal

Compliance

(Yes/No)

Cl 4.4: Floor space ratio (max)

0.65:1

0.64:1

Yes

 

Cl 4.3: Building height (max)

9.5m

9.4m

Yes

 

 

6.4.1.      Clause 5.10 - Heritage conservation

As required under this clause the consent authority must consider the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the heritage item and heritage conservation area.

 

The subject site is not a Heritage Item nor is it located within the Conservation area; however, directly opposite the sudject site to the rear of Dine Lane the site boarders onto The Spot Heritage Conservation area.  The Statement of Significance for The Spot heritage conservation area identifies the heritage values of the area which contribute to its character and quality.

 

The proposed development is generally considered to have been designed to minimise the impact on the significant features of the neighbouring conservation area.  The two storey section of the rear building is generally consistent with the built form and scale of existing development to the rear, minimising amenity impacts on the heritage conservation area. 

 

The proposed development is not considered to impact on the adjoining conservation area and therefore, will meet the above objectives of this clause.

 

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

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

 

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

Nil.

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

The proposal 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 built form will be generally 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.

 

8.1.    Discussion of key issues

 

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

 

(c) Solar access

The communal living room is located to the rear of the site and will receive compliant solar access from 12pm until 3pm based on the submitted shadow diagrams. In addition, the amended proposal also includes widening of the door opening to the communal area and a roof skylight that will improve solar access to the communal area.

 

The boarding rooms are well configured and also receive the required solar access through their window openings.

 

A submission has been received from the adjoining neighbour at no. 281 Avoca Street, objecting to the development on the grounds that it will result in significant overshadowing impacts to their property for majority of the day during mid-winter and therefore will not receive the minimum required 3 hours of sunlight.

 

The proposal is located on an east to west axis with the adjoining southern neighbour (at no. 281 Avoca Street) that is vulnerable to overshadowing impacts to their north facing windows and rear private open space.  The shadow diagrams indicate that majority of the rear yard to this neighbouring property is already overshadowed by existing development.  The additional overshadowing impacts are mainly in the morning and is minor. 

 

The additional overshadowing is considered acceptable when considering the overall built form of the development complies with the FSR and building height standards in the LEP and the proposed setbacks comply with the DCP for Low Density Residential and are generally consistent with neighbouring dwellings within the immediate locality. 

 

The additional overshadowing impacts are a result of the orientation of the site rather than the development being of poor design.  Any two storey compliant dwelling house with outbuilding will result in similar overshadowing impacts to the proposed development.

 

Given the above, the development is considered to comply with the objectives of the solar access control.

 

   

 

Figure 5: Existing and proposed elevational shadow impacts to the neighbouring property at 281 Avoca Street, Randwick.

 

   

21 June 8am – Existing Shadows                               21 June 8am - Proposed Shadows

 

      

21 June 12pm – Existing Shadows                              21 June 12pm - Proposed Shadows

 

  

21 June 4pm – Existing Shadows                               21 June 4pm - Proposed Shadows

 

Figure 6: Existing and proposed shadow diagrams

 

PART B - Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access

 

Section 2 - Sustainable transport

 

Sub-section 2.2 - Car share 

Objective

·      To encourage car share spaces in developments with high public transport access.

 

 Controls

 

i)     Car share spaces are to be provided in residential and/or commercial development where public transport accessibility is high and/or where a Transport Assessment Study is required.

 

ii)    Locate the car share space/s in a convenient, accessible, secure area. 

 

iii)   Ensure good visibility, 24 hour access and close proximity to the street. If in a basement it must be near exit/entry areas and not difficult to find or be out of sight.

 

iv)   Identify (sign and road/pavement markings) the car share space for use only by car share vehicles in accordance with RMS standards.

 

v)    The establishment and operation of a car share scheme must occur soon after completion or occupation of the development.

 

vi)   Parking spaces for car share schemes located on private property are to be retained as common property by the Owners Corporation of the site.

 

 

 

Planners Comment

A GoGet share car space is provided to the rear of the site, which is accessed off Dine Lane.  The GoGet share car space is accessed at ground level in a secure area that is visible and easily accessible for users and is located within 800mm of the Randwick light rail station which is in an accessible area. Condition will be included to ensure 24 hour access to the car share space.

 

In addition to the above, a condition is included to ensure that the establishment and operation of the car share place is established prior to final occupation certificate.

 

Section C4 – Boarding Houses

 

Sub-section 2.6 – Visual and acoustic amenity and privacy

The controls and objectives for visual and acoustic amenity and privacy are guided by both the SEPPARH, Part C4 Boarding Houses of the RDCP, Part C1 Low Density Residential and Part B9 Management Plan. The key controls and objectives under the SEPPARH and the RDCP are outlined as follows:

 

The key control under the SEPPARH is:

 

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

 

The key objective under the RDCP is:

 

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

 

Subject to conditions, it is not expected that the proposed development will result in significant privacy impacts to the neighbouring properties.

 

Majority of the window openings are orientated to the east and west and will primarily overlook the street and laneway or centre communal common area on the subject site.  Window openings to the side elevations are limited to glass bricks that do not facilitate any outlook towards the neighbouring properties private living and open spaces.

 

The window openings to the indoor communal living room will overlook the outdoor communal open area to the centre of the site and walkway/bicycle area. No windows are proposed to the sides of this building.

 

The common open space area is relocated at the ground level to the centre of the site which is the traditional location for areas of private open space for residential developments. This is considered a more appropriate location as it ensures that the lodgers are able to use this area as a private space.

 

In addition, the communal open space is not located adjacent any habitable room windows and the private open space will generally align with the neighbouring dwellings to the north and south of the site.

 

Privacy screens are provided to both sides of the landing area adjacent to the indoor communal area which will minimise overlooking impacts to neighbouring properties. In addition, a privacy screen is also provided to the northern side of the waste bin/bicycle parking area to further minimise the potential overlooking impact to neighbouring properties.

 

An assessment of the visual and acoustic privacy of the boarding facilities in relation to the above SEPPARH and RDCP objectives requires attention to the following parts of the proposed development:

 

A 2.1m high fence is provided along the northern side boundary to restrict overlooking into neighbouring property.  However, to the southern side there is a walk way which is elevated from the ground level by approximately 1.1m which may cause overlooking concerns once in use and it is unclear on the elevations weather a boundary fence is proposed. For this reason, it is recommended that a 1.6m boundary fence be provided above the proposed walkway level starting from the front building line of the main building and extend to the rear building line of the indoor communal area.  The boundary fence shall increase to 1.8m beyond the rear of the indoor communal area and extend to the rear of the boundary.  The above privacy measures will provide adequate level of privacy between the subject and neighbouring property. 

 

Photo 4 below demonstrates the drop in the land from the southern side boundary between the subject and neighbouring property at no. 281 Avoca Street.  Due to the typography, the fence has a height ranging from 1.8m to the rear and increasing to a maximum height of 2.7m to the centre of the site which is consistent with the neighbouring fencing.  This is acceptable as the fence at its highest point is located at the centre of the site which will not result in visual amenity impacts to the neighbouring property given the neighbouring windows are at a similar height to the fence.

 

Photo 4: View taken from the southern side boundary between the subject and neighbouring property at no. 281 Avoca Street showing the drop of the land beyond the rear of the existing building at no. 281 Avoca Street which is approximately 1m to 1.1m.

 

In relation to noise and general amenity, the application is accompanied by a management plan and a condition is included which requires an amended acoustic report to be submitted to Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate to ensure that the use of the development will not result in any significant impacts on the amenity enjoyed by neighbouring properties.

 

In addition to the above, conditions have been included restricting the use of the outdoor communal area from Monday- Sunday 7:00am – 10:00pm and that each occupant is furnished with a set of house rules and sign a lease or license agreement to comply with the Plan of Management.

 

Conclusion

 

That the application to construct a boarding house in 2 building forms containing 10 boarding rooms, parking for 3 vehicles with access from Dine Lane plus 2 motorcycle and 6 bicycle parking, landscaping and associated works 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 proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the R2 zone in that it recognises the desirable elements of the streetscape and built form and seeks to protect the amenity of residents whilst also meeting the demand for housing affordability.

 

·      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 and will make a positive contribution to the local area.

 

 

 

 

Appendix 1: Referrals

 

1.    External referral comments:

 

1.1.    RMS

Reference is made to Council’s letter dated 24 September 2018 with regard to the abovementioned development proposal, which was referred to Roads and Maritime Services (Roads and Maritime) for comment/concurrence. The relevant legislation was not detailed in the Council letter and Roads and Maritime has assumed this referral triggers concurrence under Section 138 of Roads Act 1993 as there is a new access proposed to Avoca Street.

 

Roads and Maritime has reviewed the submitted application and would not provide concurrence under Section 138 of Roads Act 1993 to the proposed vehicular crossing on Avoca Street, Randwick at this stage. The application has been briefly mentioned Clause 101(2) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (Clause 101) in their report however Roads and Maritime require further clarification and evidence that alternate access options have been investigated (e.g. Turn Tables and different car park designs) and deemed not practicable.

 

Clause 101 states the consent authority must not grant consent to development on land that has a frontage to a classified road unless it is satisfied that: (a) where practicable and safe, vehicular access to the land is provided by a road other than the classified road, As such Roads and Maritime requires Council to advise if this clause has been considered and their position.

 

Roads and Maritime advises that current practice is to limit the number of vehicular conflict points along the arterial road network to maintain network efficiency and road safety. This current practice is reflected in Section 6.2.1 of Roads and Maritime current publication of the Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, which states ‘access across the boundary with a major road is to be avoided wherever possible’. Roads and Maritime preference is for all access to the site to remain from Dine Lane only.

 

Refer to Development Engineers comments regarding RMS.

 

2.    Internal referral comments:

 

2.1.    Heritage planner

The application was not referred to the heritage officer as it was not considered that the development will result in any significant impacts on the adjoining Heritage Conservation Area.

 

2.2.    Environmental Health

The application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officer and relevant conditions have been included in the recommendation of the report.

 

2.3.    Development Engineer

Amended plans have been received including deletion of level 2 to building 1 and 2, reduction to boarding rooms from 17 to 10, deletion of eastern units to building 2 at level 1, relocation of communal area, deletion of driveway to Avoca Street, alteration to roof form, addition of privacy screens to balconies.

 

Original proposal: Demolition of all existing structures, construction of a 3 level boarding house in 2 building forms containing 17 boarding rooms, parking for 4 vehicles with access from Dine Lane plus motorcycle and bicycle parking, landscaping and associated works.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·    Amended Architectural Plans by dated June 2010;

·    Concept drainage plans by Green Arrow date;

 

General Comments

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

 

Flooding Comments

The Council commissioned ‘Birds Gully Flood study’ indicates the site is subject to flooding and the applicant has obtained a flood report from Council’s Drainage Engineer.

 

The flood report states the following relevant flood information;

 

· The level of the 1% AEP (1 in 100yr) flood is RL 46.78 AHD

 

· The level of the 5% AEP (1 in 20yr) flood is RL 46.72 AHD

 

As required by part B8 of the DCP the residential floor planning level is RL 47.28 AHD being the height of the 1 in 100yr flood level plus 0.5m freeboard. The submitted plans indicate the ground floor level as RL 47.28 and so demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

Part B8 of the DCP also requires that hardstand carspaces be provided at or above the level of the 5% AEP (1 in 20yr) flood level being RL 46.72 AHD.  The submitted plans indicate the hardstand carspace as RL 46.72 and so demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

The food report also indicates the development is located within a flood storage area and floodway. The submitted plans indicate the building is to be constructed as a slab on piers this will minimize the impact on flood storage and the flood way which is locate through the middle of the site.

 

The area underneath the ground floor slab shall not be filled or used for the storage of goods. A condition requiring a restriction to be created on the title to this effect has been included 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 Avoca Street or Dine Lane;

 

ii.    Directly into Council’s underground drainage system located in Avoca street verge or Dine Lane via an approved connection point; or;

 

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

 

RMS Comments

The assessing officer is advised that Avoca Street is classified as a state road at this location and consequently a referral to the Road & Maritime Services (RMS) was required. The RMS did not support the originally proposed access from Avoca St and subsequently the application has been amended to remove this aspect. 

 

All vehicle access is now exclusively from Dine Lane and as a consequence RMS re-referral may not be required. There are standard RMS conditions that may still be relevant to minimise the impact of the development on traffic flows on Avoca Street during construction. It should be noted that RMS are generally not supportive of Works Zones on state roads. Appropriate conditions have been included in this report.

 

Parking Comments

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

For the subject proposal comprising of 10 boarding rooms and not being made by a social housing provider then adopting the above rate would require the following parking provision;

 

Parking Required    = 0.5 x 10

                              = 5 spaces

 

Parking Proposed    = 2 spaces (1 accessible space & 1 carshare space)

 

Parking Shortfall     = 3 SPACES (see discussion below).

 

Motorbike & Bicycle Parking

The Affordable Housing SEPP states in regulation 30(h) that consent authorities must not consent to development unless at least one parking space is provided for a bicycle and one for a motorcycle for every 5 boarding rooms.

 

As the number of boarding rooms is 10 this will require the minimum provision of 2 bicycle and 2 motorbike spaces. The submitted plans demonstrate compliance with the motorbike parking requirement and it is noted that 6 bicycle spaces have been proposed being well in excess of the SEPP requirements.

 

Discussion of Vehicle Parking Shortfall

The vehicle parking shortfall was originally proposed to be addressed by dedicating all three spaces as car share bays. An in-principle agreement from Go-get Car share agreeing to the proposal was provided.

 

Although car sharing can be supported by Council in principle, Development Engineering did not support all 3 bays being dedicated as car share since this would leave no spaces for private car ownership or assessable parking space. It has since been confirmed that 1 accessible space will be required. The required accessible space will effectively take up two of the carspaces leaving one carspace available for the carshare.

 

For the 10 rooms 5 spaces are required under the SEPP and as 1 accessible space is provided for the accessible room this will leave 1 carshare space serving the remaining 9 rooms which would generate a parking demand of 4.5 normal spaces.

 

This results in a parking rate of 1 carshare space being the equivalent of 4.5 normal spaces. This is quite conservative and is less than half the rate of 1 space per 10-12 spaces as determined by Goget and a L&E court judgement in Prince Street.

 

Provided the carshare scheme is established for boarders it is considered the parking configuration can be supported and no objections are raised by development engineering.

 

As the carshare space will also be available to neighbouring properties it may have assist in reducing the demand for on-street parking in the locality.

 

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

Council’s ‘Waste Management Guidelines for Proposed Developments’ specify a waste generation rate for boarding houses of 9L/occupant/day for normal garbage and 3L/occupant per day for recycling. This is for the standard traditional model of a boarding house of individual rooms with common kitchen and living area.

 

Normal waste          = 10 x 9 x 7 (weekly collection)

                              = 630 L

 

Number of 240L Garbage bins required = 630/240 = 2.6 = say 3 x 240L bins

 

Recycled waste       = 10 x 3 x 14 (fortnightly collection)

                              = 420L

 

Number of Recycling 240L bins required = 420/240 = 1.78 = say 2 x 240L bins

 

There are no specific requirements for green waste in Part B6 of the DCP  however as some landscape areas are proposed it is recommended that a minimum of  1 x 240L bins also be provided for green waste.

 

Total Number of BINS required   = 3(normal) + 2(recycling) + 1(green waste)

                                                 = 6 x 240L BINS

 

The submitted plans indicate sufficient storage for 9 x 240L bins and so is satisfactory but is slightly oversized for Council’s requirements. A condition has been included only requiring minimum provision for 6 x 240L bins.

 

Undergrounding of site feed 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 A suitable condition has been included in this report.

 

Tree Management & Landscape Comments

The juvenile Watergum that is growing within a dedicated tree square on the Avoca Street bitumen footpath, just to the south of the existing pedestrian entry, is part of a formal scheme in this area, and can remain in-situ as vehicle access will no longer be permitted over this frontage, with relevant protection conditions and a bond imposed.

 

There is no significant vegetation within the subject site that will pose a constraint to these works, so conditions allow them all to be removed where necessary, subject to a formal Landscape Plan being submitted which demonstrates how reasonable levels of amenity will be afforded to both future occupants and adjoining neighbours as part of such a development.

 

Whilst not shown on the survey or plans, there are some shrubs/small trees that are located on the neighbouring private property to the south, no.281, against the common boundary, between that dwelling and the free standing brick shed, including a Loquat, which would appear to require clearance pruning to avoid damage during works, with the relevant consent for this provided.

 

Appendix 3: DCP Compliance Table

 

3.1       Section C4 – Boarding Houses

 

DCP Clause

Control

Proposal

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA/ Conditioned)

2.1 – Boarding rooms

Orientate to receive the maximum amount of sunlight;

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

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

 

The design of the development provides either east or west facing window that allow access to sunlight and natural ventilation.

 

Private balconies are proposed to majority of the units with the exception of two units (102 & 103) where private balconies are not provided.  This is above the minimum requirement under the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing).

 

The open spaces at are capable of receiving good levels of solar access and ventilation.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.2 – Outdoor communal open space

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

Provide at ground or podium level in the form of a courtyard or terrace area, accessible to all residents;

Locate and orientate to maximise solar access;

Incorporate both hard and soft landscaped areas;

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

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

The proposal provides a 47m² area (with minimum dimensions of 3m) at ground level to the centre of the site.

 

The development also provides areas of open space surrounding the development for the use of some boarding rooms.

 

The development includes hard and soft surface areas throughout the site with the hard surface areas mainly associated with the required parking fronting Dine Lane and assess pathways mainly to the northern side of the site.

 

Adequate landscaping is provided to soften the development to the front and side boundary interfaces.

 

Shared facilities are able to be provided.

 

Partial cover is provided to the outdoor area which is adjacent to the indoor communal area.

 

Yes

2.3 - Indoor communal living areas

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

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

 

An area of 21.6m² is provided for the indoor common open area

 

Based on 18 lodgers, a 21.6m2 indoor communal room is required. The proposed communal room achieves this requirement and the dimensions are in excess of the minimum 3m requirement. Further, the communal room is located on the ground floor level and is orientated in an east west access achieving the minimum solar access requirements to a portion of the room which will improve amenity for future users.

 

The room is also directly connected to the outdoor communal open space in the middle.

 

Yes

2.4 – Communal kitchen, bathroom and laundry facilities

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

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

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

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

All kitchen/bathroom and laundry facilities are provided within each of the boarding rooms.

 

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

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

2.5 – Safety and crime prevention

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

There is a clearly delineated pedestrian access path to the northern side of the boundary from the front boundary to the entries of boarding rooms on the ground level as well as the stairs servicing the first floor.

Yes

2.6 – Visual and acoustic amenity and privacy

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Yes

3 – Management Plan

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

 

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

 

Conditions have been included to up date the plan of management to include any necessary changes as a result of conditions imposed.

Yes

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Dev Consent Conditions - DA/619/2018 - 279 Avoca Street, Randwcik

 

 

 

 


Dev Consent Conditions - DA/619/2018 - 279 Avoca Street, Randwcik

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    13 June 2019

 

 

Development Application Report No. D24/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                  13 McDougall Street, Kensington (DA/929/2018) 

 

Folder No:                     DA/929/2018

Author:                          Barker Ryan Stewart, Pty Ltd     

 

 

Proposal:                      Alterations and additions to existing dwelling house including new pool, new first floor addition, new carport, rear ground floor alterations, front fence, landscaping and associated site works (Heritage Conservation Area).

Ward:                            West Ward

Applicant:                     Koturic & Co Architects

Owner:                          Mrs S D Taylor

Cost of works:              $850,964

Reason for referral:      The adjoining landowner is a Councillor

Recommendation

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/929/2018 for alterations and additions to existing dwelling house including new pool, new first floor addition, new carport, rear ground floor alterations, front fence, landscaping and associated site works (Heritage Conservation Area), at No.13 McDougall Street, Kensington subject to the development consent conditions attached to this report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.       Executive summary

 

The application is referred to the Randwick Local Planning Panel (RLPP) by the General Manager as the subject property is adjacent to a Councillor’s residence and a submission has been received from the Councillor’s family member.

 

The proposal seeks development consent for alterations and additions to existing dwelling house including new pool, new first floor addition, new carport, rear ground floor alterations, front fence, landscaping and associated site works.

 

The key issues associated with the proposal relate to potential privacy impacts associated with a first floor rear balcony and minor DCP height variation associated with the proposed single storey carport structure.

 

The proposal is recommended for approval subject to conditions provided in the attached Conditions of Consent.

 

2.       Site Description and Locality

 

The subject site is known as 13 McDougall Street, Kensington and is legally described as Lot 7, Section 11, DP 5759. The site is 706m2 and regular in shape, with an approximate 15.24m frontage to McDougall Street in the east. The side boundaries have considerable depths of 45.2m.

 

The site contains a single level residential dwelling with associated landscaping and pool. A single storey timber former stables building exists to the rear of the subject lot which abuts the rear south west boundary between the site and 14 Virginia Street. The stables span the greater portion of the rear boundary to a height of approximately 3.8m as per the survey plan submitted with this DA. The stables will remain as per this proposal.

 

The site is adjoined to the immediate north by a single storey residential dwelling at No. 11 McDougall Street.

 

The site is adjoined to the immediate south by a two storey residential dwelling at No 15 McDougall Street.

 

The site is adjoined to the west by a single storey residential dwelling at No. 14 Virginia Street. A swimming pool is located to the rear of this property.

 

The site is located within the West Kensington Heritage Conservation Area and surrounding development generally includes low density residential development.

 

The site exhibits minor sloping topography from the rear of the site to the McDougall Street frontage of approximately 1m.

 

Photographs of the site and surrounding area are shown below.

 

Photograph 1: Streetscape orientation of the subject property at No. 13 McDougall Street

Photograph 2: Rear orientation of the subject property

 

Photograph 3: Looking west from the subject property toward existing stables - pitch of No. 14 Virginia Street visible toward the centre of frame.

Photograph 4: Looking north east along existing driveway - No. 11 McDougall Street to the right of frame.

 

Photograph 5: No. 14 McDougall Street - note prevailing pattern of carport additions constructed to the boundary.

 

3.  Relevant history

 

An application was approved on 20/03/1997 for DA/56/1997 - To use the premises as a residence / home beautician therapy business.

 

4.  Proposal

 

The proposal seeks development consent for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including new pool, new first floor addition, new carport, rear ground floor alterations, front fence, landscaping and associated site works.

 

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:

 

·    14 Virginia Street, Kensington

 

Is Issue

C Comment

Visual privacy issues associated with the proposed first floor rear balcony.

Potential privacy issues associated with the rear balcony have been addressed in the discussion of Key Issues section in 9.1 below.

 

 

 

Request for height poles

A request for height poles was deemed to be unnecessary in this instance as the proposed development is compliant with RLEP maximum building height standard and no view loss impacts are associated with the proposal.

Request that proposed balustrade of rear first floor balcony should be of solid material and height as per the BCA.

The imposition of a solid balustrade was deemed to be unnecessary in this instance as this condition would not reasonably increase privacy of the property to the rear. A solid balustrade would not yield a substantial improvement to the amenity of rear open space areas of the adjoining site.  As shown in the key issues section below, the balustrade and balcony will not be visible from the rear of No. 14 Virginia Street and hence no ability for views to this area.

 

The height of the proposed balustrade will be required to comply with BCA requirements and a condition is attached to ensure this.

Request for W16 to be a window and not a door.

The assessing officer has confirmed with the Architect that W16 is a window as per the submitted Architectural Plans.

 

5.1.         Renotification

 

Renotification is not required.

 

6.  Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

6.1.         SEPP (BASIX)

A BASIX certificate was submitted with the development application (A334151). It is noted that BASIX targets were achieved, and the development will meet the NSW Government’s requirements for sustainability.

 

6.2.         SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land

The objectives of SEPP 55 are:

 

(1)   The object of this Policy is to provide for a Statewide planning approach to the remediation of contaminated land.

(2)   In particular, this Policy aims to promote the remediation of contaminated land for the purpose of reducing the risk of harm to human health or any other aspect of the environment:

(a)   by specifying when consent is required, and when it is not required, for a remediation work, and

(b)   by specifying certain considerations that are relevant in rezoning land and in determining development applications in general and development applications for consent to carry out a remediation work in particular, and

(c)   by requiring that a remediation work meet certain standards and notification requirements.

 

Clause 7 of SEPP 55 requires the consent authority to consider whether the land is contaminated and whether the land is or can be made suitable for the purpose for which development is proposed.

 

The site has traditionally been developed for residential purposes and there are no immediate contamination issues that would reasonably impact works associated with the proposed development.

 

6.3.         Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential 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 will provide for the housing needs of the community whilst enhancing the aesthetic character and protecting the amenity of local residents.

 

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)

0.5:1

0.47:1

Yes

Cl 4.3: Building height (max)

9.5m

9.35m

Yes

Cl 4.1: Lot Size (min)

N/A

N/A

N/A

 

6.3.1.      Clause 4.6 - Exceptions to development standards

 

The proposed development does not incorporate variations to development standards that would require additional clause 4.6 assessment.

 

6.3.2.      Clause 5.10 - Heritage conservation

 

The site is located within the Kensington Heritage Conservation Area and this clause applies.

 

The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a)   to conserve the environmental heritage of Randwick,

(b)   to conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views,

(c)   to conserve archaeological sites,

(d)   to conserve Aboriginal objects and Aboriginal places of heritage significance.

 

A Heritage Impact Statement was prepared by Ruth Daniell and submitted with the application. Council’s Heritage Planner has assessed the proposal and provided the following site comments:

 

The site is within the West Kensington heritage conservation area and is occupied by a Federation style dwelling retaining much if its original character, including face brick walls, original timber windows and unusual verandah valance and gable detailing.  Original terracotta tiled roofing (visible in historic aerial photographs) has been replaced with slate-like cement tiles.  The return verandah has been partially enclosed and the south eastern side elevation painted.  An early weatherboard stables building remains at the rear of the site.  The dwelling sits within a mixed context including a number of unusual and highly intact dwellings, some with minor alterations, some with upper level additions set towards the rear, and some significantly altered.  The dwelling contributes to the heritage value of the area through its scale, form, materials and detailing.

 

Heritage referral comments indicate that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives provided in clause 5.10. The development as proposed will continue to conserve the heritage significance of Randwick and the West Kensington Conservation Area. The ground and first floor additions, swimming pool, front fence and carport have been assessed by Council’s Heritage Planner against relevant DCP Heritage controls and found to be consistent with the DCP and prevailing heritage building design in the Kensington locality.

 

Council’s Heritage Planner supports the proposed development, subject to conditions provided in the attached Consent Conditions.

 

7.       Clause 4.6 exception to a development standard

 

The proposal does not seek to vary the following development standard/s contained within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012):

 

8.       Development control plans and policies

 

8.1.    Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013

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

 

The relevant provisions of the DCP are addressed in Appendix 3.

 

9.       Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

Section 4.15 ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

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

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

 

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

Nil.

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

The proposal 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.

 

 

9.1.    Discussion of key issues

 

Variation to Height and Length of Proposed Carport

The proposal incorporates the following variations to Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan C1 -  6.6:

·      The maximum carport height proposed at 3.6m incorporates a variation of 600mm to DCP controls; and

·      The proposed carport width incorporates a variation of 300mm to DCP controls

 

These variations have been assessed against the car parking and access objectives of the DCP and found to be consistent with Council’s intent for the following reasons:

 

·      The carport is set back a significant distance behind the front building alignment and will not visually dominate the property frontage or streetscape;

·      The carport design has been integrated into the greater architectural façade of the dwelling; and

·      The variations will not contribute to detrimental impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring property.

 

Visual Privacy

Background

Three submissions were provided to Randwick Council from the owner of the property at No. 14 Virginia Street. Kensington. The submissions were related to potential privacy impacts associated with the use of the proposed first floor balcony addition to the rear.

 

No. 14 Virginia Street adjoins the subject property in the rear and consists of a single storey brick dwelling with pool and associated landscaping. Several outbuildings exist on the property with no formal fence delineating the south western rear boundary.

 

A building separation of approximately 42m currently exists between the two dwellings.  Should the proposed extension be approved, the separation of the two dwellings will be reduced to approximately 35m. Within the rear setback of the subject dwelling currenlty exists a timber outbuilding (former stables) with a height of approximately 3.8m per the survey plan submitted with the subject DA.

 

A site visit was conducted at the subject property and 14 Virginia Street on 21 March, 2019. Photos were taken from internal areas at the rear of No. 14 Virginia Street and at ground level. A level difference of approximately 4-500mm exists between existing ground level and the single storey internal area orientated toward the subject property.

 

The minor visibility of the existing roof pitch associated with the subject property was noted from internal and ground level areas at No. 14 Virginia Street and shown in photographs 5 and 6 below. An approximate representation of the viewing height line to the proposed balcony is then provided in Figure 1 for reference.

 

Randwick DCP 2013 C1 - 5.3 - Visual Privacy

The following visual privacy objective is provided in Randwick Comprehensive DCP - Low Density Residential:

 

To ensure development minimise overlooking or cross - viewing to the neighbouring dwellings to maintain reasonable levels of privacy.

 

Assessing officer’s comment:

The proposal remains consistent with the DCP visual privacy objective and a reasonable level of privacy will be maintained for surrounding residential development. Overlooking is minimised by the existing outbuilding located within the rear setback of the subject lot and privacy is enhanced by existing boundary vegetation.

 

An approximate viewing height line from the rear of No. 14 Virginia Street has been ascertained from the assessing officer’s photographs at ground level and internal floor level, and architectural plans of the western elevation. This elevation provides a representation of the existing roof line and can be used to aid the general evaluation of potential privacy impacts associated with the proposed rear balcony.

 

The visibility of the existing roof pitch associated with the subject property was noted from internal and ground level areas at No. 14 Virginia Street and shown in photographs 5 and 6 below. An approximate representation of the viewing height line to the proposed balcony is then provided in Figure 1 for reference.

 

Figure 1 indicates that sightlines from No. 14 Virginia Street would be confined to an approximate area of the proposed balcony above average standing height. This dramatically reduces opportunities for direct sightlines and visual privacy impacts between the two properties. In addition to the significant building separation of approximately 35m between the two dwellings, the existing outbuilding located to the rear of the subject property at a maximum building height of 3.8m is to be retained as per this DA.

 

Further to the above, first floor additions proposed at No. 13 McDougall Street are associated with bedrooms, bathrooms and an ensuite. These rooms are not considered to be traditional entertaining areas and there are no living or dining spaces that would reasonably facilitate unacceptable acoustic impacts through use of the rear balcony. It is noted that a screened outdoor entertaining area with BBQ is provided at ground level orientated to kitchen/ living/ dining areas.

 

Vegetation exists along the rear boundary of the sites and ultimately acts as an additional mechanism for screening for the central site area as shown in Photos 5 and 6 below. Note rear vegetation will not be modified per this DA.

 

Solid balustrade amendments were not considered to be beneficial in this instance as the balustrade would not be visible from No. 14 Virginia Street and no mitigative visual privacy benefit would exist. Refer to Figure 1 below for clarification. Further, dense vegetation exists along the eastern boundary of No. 11 McDougall Street and no potential sightlines to windows or eastern rear private open space were identified. Rear balcony screening elements for the subject proposal were not considered in this instance due to the existence of the vegetation to the east, building separation to the rear and the potential increase to bulk within a Heritage Conservation Area.

 

Photograph 5: Photo taken from standing height in the rear of No. 14 Virginia Street

- existing pitch of No. 13 McDougall Street visible in the centre of the frame.

 

Photograph 6: Photo taken from standing height at rear ground level of 14 Virginia Street.

Top of existing roof pitch of No. 13 McDougal Street shown.

 

 

Figure 1: Extract from Architectural West Elevation showing approximate viewing height line from No. 14 Virginia Street

 

Conclusion

 

That the application for alterations and additions to existing dwelling house including new pool, new first floor addition, new carport, rear ground floor alterations, front fence, landscaping and associated site works be approved (subject to conditions) for the following reasons:

 

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

 

·      The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the R2 Low Density residential zone in that the development will provide additional housing provisions for the community whilst further contributing to the character of the area.

 

·      The scale and design of the proposal is consistent with the West Kensington Heritage Conservation Area and is compatible with the desired future character of the locality.

 

·      The development enhances the visual quality of the public domain/streetscape without detrimental impact on the amenity of the area.

 

 

 

 

 


Appendix 1: Referrals

 

1.    External referral comments:

 

No external referrals.

 

2.    Internal referral comments:

 

2.1.    Heritage Planner

Council’s Heritage Planner supported the proposed development, subject to conditions, and provided the following heritage referral comments:

 

The Site

The site is within the West Kensington heritage conservation area and is occupied by a Federation style dwelling retaining much if its original character, including face brick walls, original timber windows and unusual verandah valance and gable detailing.  Original terracotta tiled roofing (visible in historic aerial photographs) has been replaced with slate-like cement tiles.  The return verandah has been partially enclosed and the south eastern side elevation painted.  An early weatherboard stables building remains at the rear of the site.  The dwelling sits within a mixed context including a number of unusual and highly intact dwellings, some with minor alterations, some with upper level additions set towards the rear, and some significantly altered.  The dwelling contributes to the heritage value of the area through its scale, form, materials and detailing.  To the north of the site are no.7 and no10 Mc.Dougall Street, listed as heritage items under Randwick LEP 2012.  The Heritage Inventory Data Sheet for no.7 describes it as an “excellent example of its style, unusual and in very good condition.”  The Heritage Inventory Data Sheet for no.10 describes it as a very good design with a number of outstanding features. 

 

Proposal

The application proposes alterations and additions to the dwelling, including an upper level addition.  At ground floor level, internal and external changes are proposed to provide a new bathroom, laundry, “butler’s pantry”, and open planned kitchen, dining and living (2) area, and rear patio.  At first floor level, it is proposed to provide three bedrooms, two bathrooms, two walk-in robes and a rear balcony.  The existing swimming pools is to be replaced with a new swimming pool having a different orientation on the block.  The existing outbuilding at the rear of the block is to be retained.  A new side carport is proposed, as well as new gates and metal palisades to the existing brick base and piers. 

 

Submission

The application has been accompanied by a Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Ruth Daniell.  In terms of significance, the HIS considers that “No. 13 McDougall Street has representative values as a Federation era detached house, which is a key period of development in the West Kensington Conservation Area.”  The HIS addresses the relevant controls within the Heritage section of Randwick DCP 2013.  The HIS notes that the existing house with the addition presents as a single storey building in the streetscape.  The HIS concludes that:

 

The house has good Federation style detailing on the front facade and the verandah.  The proposal retains the contributory principal building form and adds the first floor behind the existing ridge of the main roof.  The proposal retains the fabric of the principal building form existing house.  The single storey scale is still visible in the streetscape appearance. The proposal retains a front garden setting.  The existing front fence is retained.  A new carport is well setback from the front of the house.  This will not impact on the streetscape and the conservation area.  Views and vistas to No. 13 McDougall Street and the adjoining houses will not be affected by the proposed addition due to its location at the rear of the site.  The existing front and side setbacks are retained.  A typical rear garden setback, that is the average of the adjoining properties at the rear will be retained.  The proposed design utilises a number of design devices to articulate the building.  The two levels of the new addition are defined by a change in materials, i.e. rendered masonry on the ground floor and light weight weatherboard cladding on the first floor, with further articulation by fenestration and varied roof forms.  This an approach endorsed by the Randwick DCP.

 

 

 

Controls

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

 

Clause 5.10(4) of Randwick LEP 2012 requires Council to consider the effect of a proposed development on the heritage significance of the heritage item. 

 

The Heritage section of Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 provides Objectives and Controls applying to development in a heritage conservation area, including Design and character; Scale and form; Detailing; and Materials, finishes and colour schemes.  In relation to Design and character, Clause 2.2 of the DCP includes a Control that the design of alterations and additions must complement the existing building in its scale, form and detailing, but that it should be possible to distinguish the new work from the old.  In relation to Scale and Form, Clause 2.3 of the DCP includes Controls that in streetscapes where development is of a consistent single storey height, upper floor additions are appropriate only if not visible from the street.  The DCP includes further Controls that additions must not visually dominate, compete with or conceal the original form and massing of the existing buildings, and must not contain any major or prominent design elements which compete with existing architectural features or detailing.  The DCP notes that any upper level addition should be set well to the rear to minimise streetscape visibility and retain the integrity of the main roof, and preferably use pavilion-type forms with a lower scale linking structure between the original building and any double storey addition.  A Control requires that upper floor additions to the rear of any single storey dwelling house should preferably use pavilion-type forms, with a lower scale linking structure between the original building and any double storey addition.  If a pavilion-type form is not suitable or desirable, an upper floor addition may be acceptable, set well to the rear of the building to minimise impact on the main roof and to minimise streetscape visibility. 

 

In relation to Garages, Carports, Carspaces and Driveways, Clause 2.9 of the DCP includes a Control that carparking structures are to be unobtrusive and must be of materials, form and details which harmonise with and do not obscure views of the building.  They must not be made larger by the provision of a bulky pitched roof. 

 

In relation to Fences, clause 2.10 of the DCP includes a Control that new fence heights and form must be appropriate to the character of the heritage item or the heritage conservation area. 

 

In relation to Gardens, Garden Elements and Swimming Pools, clause 2.11 of the DCP includes a Control that swimming pools must be located at the rear of the property and where possible should retain important trees and areas of soft landscaping.  Swimming pools must not result in significant changes to ground levels on the site. 

 

Comments

The original form of the dwelling comprises a hipped roof with front and side gables over the four main rooms, with a narrower hipped roof projecting to the rear and an adjacent skillion. 

 

Ground floor changes

The application proposes changes in the rear western corner of the dwelling to provide a new bathroom, laundry, “butler’s pantry” and stair to the upper level.  Externally, it is proposed to replace all existing windows on the north (north western) side elevation.  Internally, within the original living room it is proposed to widen an existing doorway to provide double doors to the hallway.  The proposed changes to the layout of the dwelling area restricted to the rear corner of the dwelling- the three original main rooms towards the front of the dwelling area retained.  The windows on the side elevation relate to secondary building fabric, and are located well to the rear.  A consent condition should be included that changes to openings be carefully carried out to avoid damage to original brickwork, as consent is not given for rendering and painting of existing brick surfaces.  The application proposes to demolish the rear hipped roof and rear skillion to provide a new open planned kitchen dining and living (2) area.  The proposed demolition will affect secondary building fabric, located well to the rear. 

 

 

 

 

Upper level addition

The L-shaped upper level addition is generally consistent with DCP Controls and will not visually dominate, compete with or conceal the original form and massing of the dwelling.  The proposed upper level is set well to the rear, minimising impact on the main roof and to minimising streetscape visibility.  The proposed upper level retains around 75% of the original main roof form, including the front and side gables and the original gablet.  The proposed setback from the south eastern side boundary will further reduce its prominence in the streetscape of Mc.Dougall Street.  When viewed along the driveway setback.  Due to the proposed 2.82m ceiling height, the eaves line of the upper level will match the ridge height of the original roof.  The proposed hipped roof forms will minimise the bulk of the new roof and the proposed new gablet is set well to the rear and will have minimal streetscape visibility.  Details of proposed materials and finishes have been submitted and are satisfactory.  

 

Proposed carport

The proposed carport is set well to the rear, behind the existing projecting side gable.  Although the proposed carport is to have a pitched roof, its discreet location will ensure that is does not dominate or compete with the original dwelling and will not impact on the streetscape of the heritage conservation area.  The existing side driveway comprises brick paving, similar to the brick paved footpath along Mc.Dougall Street.  The application proposes to re-level the existing brick paving.  The reuse of the existing brick paving to the side driveway is supported. 

 

Front fence and gates

The existing front fence comprises a non-original brick base and brick piers.  The existing brick base and piers are to be retained and new metal gates and palisade fencing provided.  Elevations provide little detail of the proposed fencing and gates and an appropriate consent condition should be included. 

 

Proposed swimming pool

The existing swimming pool is located parallel to the rear boundary, while the proposed swimming pool is to be located parallel to the side boundary.  The proposed swimming pool will not result in significant level changes on the site and will retain a reasonable area of soft landscaping along the south eastern side of the site. 

 

2.2. Development Engineer

 

Undergrounding of power lines to site

It is noted that the proposed works are located towards the rear and there are no alterations or additions proposed at the front of the dwelling where the existing electricity connects. It is therefore considered a nexus cannot be established between the council resolution and the proposed works and subsequently the condition has not been recommended in this instance.

 

2.3. Landscape Comments

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

 

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

 

No development standards are contravened in this application.

 

Appendix 3: DCP Compliance Table

 

3.1     Section C1: Low Density Residential

 

DCP Clause

Controls

Proposal

Compliance

 

Classification

Zoning = R2

Yes

2

Site planning

 

 

2.1

Minimum lot size and frontage

 

Minimum lot size (RLEP):

·   R2 = 400sqm

·   R3 = 325sqm

No change to minimum lot size proposed.

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

Min = 12m

Existing =15.2m

Yes

2.2

Layout Detached dual occupancy

 

i)    Detached dual occupancies may be developed only if:

-     Dual frontage

-     Secondary access

-     Street frontage of at least 18m in width.

Dual occupancy is not proposed.

N/A

 

Minimum separation:

-     Dual frontage = 10m min.

-     Secondary access: Merit assessment

-     Detached in R2 = 1800mm min. (18m minimum frontage)

As above.

N/A

 

900mm minimum footpath at rear lane

Note: N/A to corner allotment.

As above.

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%

Maximum= 45%

Proposed = 34%

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 = 35%

Proposed = 29%

No.

The non-compliance is considered to be acceptable however and does not constitute a reason for refusal of the proposed development.

 

Significant areas capable of deep soil planting are proposed and the development is consistent with the objectives provided in this clause.

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 = 8m x 8m

Proposed = 12m x 15m

Yes

 

Dual Occupancies (Attached and Detached) POS

 

 

 

451 to 600 sqm = 5m x 5m each

601sqm or above = 6m x 6m each

ii) POS satisfy the following criteria:

·      Situated at ground level (except for duplex

·      No open space on podiums or roofs

·      Adjacent to the living room

·      Oriented to maximise solar access

·      Located to the rear behind dwelling

·      Has minimal change in gradient

Dual occupancy not proposed

 

 

 

 

N/A

3

Building envelope

3.1

Floor space ratio LEP 2012 =

Maximum = 0.5:1

Proposed FSR = 0.47:1

Yes

3.2

Building height

 

 

 

Maximum overall height LEP 2012 = 9.5m

Proposed = 9.35m

Yes

 

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

ii)   Sloping sites = 8m

iii)   Merit assessment if exceeded

Maximum = 7m

Proposed = 6.7m

Yes

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

Minimum = established building line

 

Proposed = 6.25m. Front setback as existing and remains consistent with surrounding development.

Yes

3.3.2

Side setbacks:

Semi-Detached Dwellings:

·      Frontage less than 6m = merit

·      Frontage b/w 6m and 8m = 900mm for all levels

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

Minimum = 1.2m

 

Proposed =

Northern - 1.24m

Southern - 2.595

 

Note proposed carport incorporates nil side setback - see 6.3 below.

Yes

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 of this DCP.

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

Minimum =8 m

 

Proposed = 20 m

 

Note an existing timber shed / stables is located within the rear setback.

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 proposed design incorporates considered architectural design to enhance the streetscape. Side elevations do not extend further than 12m.

Yes

4.2

Additional Provisions for symmetrical semi-detached dwellings

 

i)       Enhance the pair as coherent entity:

·      behind apex of roof; low profile or consistent with existing roof

·      new character that is first floor at front after analysis streetscape outcome

ii)      Constructed to common boundary of adjoining semi

iii & iv) avoid exposure of blank party walls to adjoining semi and public domain

 

Semi-detached dwelling not proposed.

N/A

4.3

Additional Provisions for Attached Dual Occupancies

 

Present similar bulk as single dwellings and street;

i)    Parking single garage width

ii)   Articulate and soften garage entry

iii)   Minimise driveway width

iv)  Maximum 2m setback of front entry from front façade

v)   Maximise landscape planting at front

Dual occupancy not proposed.

N/A

4.4

Roof Design and Features

 

 

 

i)    Rooftop terraces on dwelling (not roof)

ii)   Roof terraces above garages (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.

Roof terraces not proposed.

N/A

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 climatic to withstand natural weathering, ageing and deterioration.

vi)  recycled and re-use sandstone

(See also section 8.3 foreshore area.)

External schedule of materials was submitted. Colours and materials are sympathetic to the relevant heritage conservation area.

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)  site conditions allow for side or rear setback less than 900mm (max 2.2m)

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.

Proposed excavation to 0.5m.

 

Excavation area will be setback 1540mm from the nearest boundary.

Yes.

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.

Shadow diagrams indicate that living room windows and private open space within the proposed development will receive a minimum 3 hours direct sunlight 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 acceptable be subject 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.

Shadow diagrams indicate that surrounding developments will receive a minimum 3 hours of direct solar access to living room windows and private open space.

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

·      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 design of the proposed development facilitates effective energy efficiency and natural ventilation.

Yes

5.3

Visual Privacy

 

Windows

 

 

 

i)    minimise any direct viewing habitable of proposed and neighbours habitable room windows by one or more of the following measures:

-    windows are offset or staggered

-    minimum 1600mm window sills

-    Install fixed and translucent glazing up 1600mm minimum effective sill.

-    Install fixed privacy screens to windows.

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

ii)   orientate living and dining windows away from similar opposite (that is front or rear or side courtyard

Two window openings exist on the first floor level northern orientation of the neighbouring property at No 15 McDougall Street.

 

The two north facing first floor windows at No 15 McDougall Street are located to the east of proposed windows W18 and W19.

 

It is considered that no unacceptable alignment of first floor windows between the subject site and 15 McDougall Street will exist.

 

The property to the immediate north at No. 11 McDougall Street is single storey and no unacceptable overlooking is proposed.

Yes

 

Balcony

 

 

 

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

ii)   Privacy screens

iii)   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)

iv)  Supplementary privacy devices:  Screen planting and planter boxes Not sole privacy protection measure)

v)   vi) For sloping sites, step down and avoid large areas of ground floor decks or terraces.

First floor rear balcony addition is orientated to the rear yard to increase building separation between balcony and adjacent properties. The proposed balcony is setback approximately 20m from the rear boundary.

 

Privacy screens have been integrated into the ground floor rear patio and BBQ area to reduce unacceptable privacy impacts on adjacent properties.

Yes

 

Refer to Key Issues Discussion for further justification.

 

 

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.

Living and entertaining areas are located at ground level and the proposed development does not increase opportunities for unacceptable acoustic 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)

Main entry orientated to McDougall Street.

 

Sufficient opportunities for passive surveillance from street facing windows on ground and first floor.

 

No obstructions to casual surveillance associated with front fence, carport or landscaping.

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)

No existing view corridors or view impacts associated with the subject site or neighbouring properties.

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 or

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

Note: See 6.2 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 and scale of the front elevation

vi)  Avoid long driveways (impermeable surfaces)

One vehicular access remains from McDougall Street.

 

Proposed single width carport located to the side of the dwelling and behind the front façade.

 

 

 

6.2

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

 

i)    - 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;

iii)   Regardless of site’s frontage, the forward parking structures are only considered where:

-     no alternative or feasible location

-     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 significant contributory landscape elements (such as rock outcrop or sandstone retaining walls)

N/A

 

Proposed carport is located behind the front façade alignment.

N/A

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

 

Nil side setback to western boundary proposed.

Merit.

 

Nil side setback is consistent with the McDougall Street landscape and West Kensington Heritage Conservation Area.

6.4

Driveway Configuration

 

Maximum driveway width:

-     Single driveway – 3m

-     Double driveway – 5m

Must taper driveway width at street boundary and at property boundary

 

Driveway width = 2.6m.

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

No garage proposed.

N/A

 

 

6.6

Carport Configuration

 

i)    Simple post-support design (max. semi-enclosure using timber or metal slats minimum 30% open).

ii)   Roof: Flat, lean-to, gable or hipped with pitch relates to dwelling

iii)   3m maximum width.

Iv   5.4m minimum length

v)   2.6m maximum height with flat roof or 3.0m max. height for pitched roof.

vi)  No solid panel or roller shutter door.

vii)  front gate allowed (minimum 30% open)

viii) Gate does not open to public land

Minimum openness = 30%

Proposed openness = 68%

 

Maximum width = 3m

Proposed width = 3.3m

 

Minimum Length = 5.4m

Proposed length = 6.0m

 

Maximum height = 3m

Proposed height = 3.6m

Partially complies.

 

The proposed carport incorporates width and height non-compliance that is acceptable on assessment of merit. 

 

The width and height variation is considered to be minor and no immediate amenity impacts can be expected from the carport proposal.

 

See key issues discussion above for further.

6.7

Hardstand Car Space Configuration

 

i)    Prefer permeable materials in between concrete wheel strips.

ii)   2.4m x 5.4m minimum dimensions

 

Hard stand car space not proposed.

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

Suitable materials proposed which remain compatible with the streetscape and heritage significance of the area.

Yes

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)   light weight 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).

-     avoid continuous blank walls (using a combination of materials, finishes and details, and/or incorporate landscaping (such as cascading plants))

iv)  150mm allowance (above 1800mm) 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.

Maximum height = 1.2m

Proposed height = 1.2m

 

Maximum solid portion = 600mm

Proposed solid portion = 600mm

 

Fence continues to align with predominant fence setback and property line.

Yes

7.3

Side and rear fencing

 

i)    1800mm 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)   Tapper down to front fence height once past the front façade alignment.

iv)  Both sides treated and finished.

1.8m fence proposed

Yes

7.4

Outbuildings

 

i)    Locate behind the front building line.

ii)   Locate to optimise backyard space and not over required permeable areas.

iii)   Except for laneway development, only single storey (3.6m max. height and 2.4m max. wall height)

iv)  Nil side and rear setbacks where:

-     finished external walls (not requiring maintenance;

-     no openings facing neighbours lots and

-     maintain adequate solar access to the neighbours dwelling

v)   First floor addition to existing may be considered subject to:

-     Containing it within the roof form (attic) - Articulate the facades;

-     Use screen planting landscaping to visually soften the outbuilding;

-     Not be obtrusive when viewed from the adjoining properties;

-     Maintain adequate solar access to the adjoining dwellings; and

-     Maintain adequate privacy to the adjoining dwellings.

vi)  Must not be used as a separate business premises.

No additional outbuildings proposed.

N/A

7.5

Swimming pools and Spas

 

i)    Locate behind the front building line

ii)   Minimise damage to existing tree root systems on subject site and adjoining.

iii)   Located to minimise noise impacts on the adjoining dwellings.

iv)  Pool and coping related to site topography (max 1m over lower side of site).

v)   900mm minimum coping from 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.

Swimming pool located in a suitable position behind the front building line. No unacceptable acoustic impacts associated with the proposal.

 

Pool incorporates the following compliant setbacks:

Northern = 1.54m

Southern = 9.2m

Rear =6.3m

 

 

Yes

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.

Information not supplied.

Conditioned.

7.7

Communications Dishes and Aerial Antennae

 

i)    Max. 1 communications dish and 1 antenna per dwelling.

ii)   Positioned to minimise visibility from the adjoining dwellings and the public domain, and must be:

-     Located behind the front and below roof ridge;

-     minimum 900mm side and rear setback and

-     avoid loss of views or outlook amenity

iii)   Max. 2.7m high freestanding dishes (existing).

Information not supplied.

N/A

7.8

Clothes Drying Facilities

 

i)    Located behind the front alignment and not be prominently visible from the street

Clothes drying facilities not supplied although sufficient site area exists to the rear of the property.

Yes

8

Area Specific Controls

8.1

Development in Laneways

 

i)    Max. 6m height. Max. 4.5m external wall height. Mass and scale to be secondary to primary dwelling and upper level contained within roof form (attic storey).

ii)   1 operable window to laneway elevation (casual surveillance)

iii)   Aligns with consistent laneway setback pattern (if no consistent setback then 1m rear setback). (Refer to Sub-Section 6 for controls relating to setback to garage entry.)

iv)  Nil side setback allowed subject to:

-     adjoining building similarly constructed

-     no unreasonable visual, privacy and overshadowing impacts

v)   Screen or match exposed blank walls on adjoining properties (ie on common boundary).

Not applicable.

N/A

8.2

Development in Laneways Nominated for Road Widening

 

Notwithstanding minimum RLEP 2012 lot size and minimum DCP frontage, the subdivision of land for a dwelling house fronting a nominated laneway may be permitted having regard to the following criteria:

i)    The merits of the proposal and compliance with the objectives of this DCP; and

ii)   The dedication to Council of a strip of land 4.57m in depth along the frontage of the lane for road widening purposes.

Not applicable.

N/A

8.3

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

 

i)    Consider visual presentation to the surrounding public domain, including streets, lanes, parks, reserves, foreshore walkways and coastal areas. All elevations visible from the public domain must be articulated.

ii)   Integrated outbuildings and ancillary structures with the dwelling design (coherent architecture).

iii)   Colour scheme complement natural elements in the coastal areas (light toned neutral hues).

iv)  Must not use high reflective glass

v)   Use durable materials suited to coast

vi)  Use appropriate plant species

vii)  Provide deep soil areas around buildings

viii) Screen coping, swimming and spa pools from view from the public domain.

ix)  Integrate rock outcrops, shelves and large boulders into the landscape design

x)   Any retaining walls within the foreshore area (that is, encroaching upon the Foreshore Building Line) must be constructed or clad with sandstone.

Not applicable

N/A

 

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Dev Consent Conditions (mixed-use) - DA/929/2018 - 13 McDougall Street, Kensington

 

 

 

 


Dev Consent Conditions (mixed-use) - DA/929/2018 - 13 McDougall Street, Kensington

Attachment 1

 

 

PDF Creator


 

 



 

 

 


 


 

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Randwick Local Planning Panel    13 June 2019

 

 

Development Application Report No. D25/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                  96-98 Mason Street, Maroubra (DA/642/2018)

 

Folder No:                     DA/642/2018

Author:                          Barker Ryan Stewart, Pty Ltd     

 


Proposal:                      First floor alterations and additions to rear of existing dwelling.

Ward:                            Central

Applicant:                     Ms Y Smetannikov

Owner:                          Mr M Mann

Cost of works:              48,500.00

Reason for referral:      Variation to Clause 4.4 of RLEP 2012 exceeds 10%

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 development standard for floor space ratio contained in Clause 4.4 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.The concurrence of the Director of the Department of Planning & Environment may be assumed.

 

B.      That the RLPP grant consent under Sections 4.16 and 4.17 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/642/2018 for first floor alterations and additions to the rear of the existing dwelling, at Nos. 96 – 98 Mason Street, Maroubra, subject to the development consent conditions attached to this report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=a9b9306c-48ca-4d10-b16f-469786e61750&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

 

Ù

North

 

 

Locality Plan

 

1.       Executive summary

 

The application is referred to the Randwick Local Planning Panel (RLPP) as the proposed development contravenes the development standard for floor space ratio contained within the Randwick LEP 2012 by more than 10%. The Applicant has submitted a Clause 4.6 request for variation pursuant to the Randwick LEP 2012 and this is considered in further detail below.

 

The proposal seeks development consent for the enclsoure of an existing rear first floor balcony including new metal roof.

 

The key issues associated with the proposal relate to the variation to the development standard for floor space ratio. The proposed development is relatively minor in nature and will not result in any unreasonable impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties.

 

The proposal is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.       Site Description and Locality

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Mason Street, east of its intersection with Hannan Street. The site has a frontage to Mason Street of 12.19m, a maximum depth of 27.485m and an overall site area of 325m².

 

The site supports a two storey brick and tile dwelling with the existing first floor balcony extension at the rear elevation supporting a metal roof. The existing site supports a dual driveway entry from Mason Street, and two single garages at the ground floor level.

 

The surrounding area is primarily residential developments, with the adjoining properties supporting dwellings. The land opposite the site in Mason Street supports a medium density apartment building development. The site is located west of the commercial/retail precinct along Anzac Parade.

 

Photographs 1 - 2 illustrate the existing structure on site.

 

Photograph 1 – View of Existing Dwelling from Mason Street

 

 

Photograph 2 – Rear elevation view of Existing Dwelling from ground floor level

 

3.       Relevant history

 

An application, BA/292/89, seeking consent for a glass enclosure of the existing first floor balcony was assessed and refused on 14 April 1989 on the basis that the FSR exceeded the maximum permissible for the site. An amended plan was submitted to Council identifying the screen of the balcony in lieu of the glass enclosure. The screens were approved on the basis that this would not constitute floor area and therefore will not result in a breach to the development standard.

 

There are no other relevant matters relating to this property.

 

4.       Proposal

 

The application seeks consent to enclose the existing first floor balcony located at the northern elevation (rear) of the dwelling.

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. As a result of this notification, there were no submission received.

 

6.       Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

6.1.    SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

A BASIX certificate was not required to be submitted in accordance with the requirements of the SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

 

6.2.    SEPP (Coastal Management) 2018

The site is not designated within a Coastal Environment Area or Coastal Use Area therefore this SEPP is not applicable.

 

6.3.    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

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

 

The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will provide for the housing needs of the community, whilst enhancing the aesthetic character and protecting the amenity of the local residents.

 

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

 

Clause

Development Standard

Proposal

Compliance

(Yes/No)

Cl 4.4: Floor space ratio (max)

0.75:1

Existing FSR = 0.71:1

Proposed FSR = 0.83:1

No – Refer to Clause 4.6 request for variation below.

Cl 4.3: Building height (max)

9.5m

Approx. 7.3m, however no modification to height proposed.

Yes

Cl 4.1: Lot Size (min)

400m²

No change

N/A

 

6.3.1.      Clause 4.6 - Exceptions to development standards

The non-compliances with the development standards are discussed in section 7 below.

 

7.       Clause 4.6 exception to a development standard

 

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

 

Clause

Development Standard

Proposal

Proposed variation

Proposed variation (%)

Cl 4.4:

Floor space ratio

0.75:1

0.83:1

26m2

10.7%

 

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. 

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The applicant’s written justification demonstrates that this objective is satisfied by noting that the proposed works will result in a dwelling house that is consistent with the prevailing built environment in this location, and further, does not substantially alter the form and scale of the existing dwelling as it exists currently.

 

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

 

The applicant’s written justification demonstrates that this objective is satisfied by noting that the proposed changes to enclose the existing balcony, allow for the inclusion of window openings in the northern elevation that soften the presentation of this elevation that is currently screened.

 

The proposed additions do not modify the energy criteria for this dwelling.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The applicant’s written justification demonstrates that this objective is satisfied by noting that the proposed works will not impact on adjoining properties by way of visual bulk, overshadowing, loss of privacy or views. The windows provided in the northern elevation represent a smaller field of vision than what exists currently, and the enclosure of this space will mitigate any noise issues experienced by the use of this space as a first floor balcony.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The objectives for the zone have been identified in the application and the proposed works are considered to be consistent with the objectives. The proposed additions reinforce the use of the site as a dwelling house and are consistent with the housing needs of the community in this location.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

·      Is compliant with building height and side setbacks, and the rear setback which shares a similar rear alignment with that of the neighbouring western two storey dwelling;

·      Is contained within the footprint and envelope of the existing building;

·      There will be no overshadowing to any rear (northern) neighbouring property; and

·      The proposed balcony enclosure will reduce the potential for overlooking to the rear yards and elevations of the neighbouring dwellings thereby resulting in increased  visual (and acoustic) privacy.

 

Therefore having regard to the relevant objectives of the maximum FSR development standard, and the relevant objectives for development in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone the proposal is considered to perform favorably on environmental planning grounds and is in the public interest.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposed additions do not alter the established building envelope bound by the height and established setbacks of the existing dwelling, and will result in the creation of habitable floor space that will no more contribute to the bulk and scale of the building than what already exists in the present circumstances. This is due to the screening already provided to the balcony that is in a poor condition and contributes to a sense of enclosure to the existing elevation. The new works provide an opportunity to improve the aesthetic presentation of the rear of the building and relief in the wall height by the inclusion of window openings.

 

To create a sunroom in this location does not contribute to an increased use of the space, that is currently already used for passive recreation. The enclosure of this space offers the opportunity to ameliorate any noise or overlooking opportunities currently experienced by the adjoining properties.

 

It is agreed that due to the improvements that the proposed development affords to the amenity of surrounding properties, the aesthetic presentation of the building, and the largely indiscernible physical impacts on the built envelope of the existing dwelling, there are sufficient planning grounds to support the variation to this standard.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Assessment against objectives of floor space ratio standard

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The size and scale of the proposed development is compatible with the ‘desired future character of the locality’ as it results in a dwelling house that is consistent with the prevailing built environment in this location, and further, does not substantially alter the form and scale of the existing dwelling as it exists currently.

 

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposed changes to enclose the existing balcony, allow for the inclusion of window openings in the northern elevation that softens the presentation of this elevation that is currently screened. These openings in the rear elevation provide relief in the massing of this wall where no opportunity for articulation is available.

 

The amendments allow for passive heating and cooling of the space as a consequence of the northerly orientation, and promotes opportunities for natural ventilation.

 

The proposed additions will therefore satisfy the environmental and energy needs.

 

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposed development is not located within a conservation area or near a heritage item.

 

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

 

The assessment that must be made is whether or not the development will adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views.

 

· Visual bulk: The development does not alter the existing building envelope of the existing dwelling as it encloses an existing balcony.

 

· Loss of privacy: A detailed assessment of privacy impacts is provided in Appendix 3 (Item 5.3 – Visual Privacy). The proposed development will not result in any unreasonable adverse privacy impacts.

 

· Overshadowing: A detailed assessment of the overshadowing impacts is provided in Appendix 3 (Item 5.1 – Solar access and overshadowing). This assessment shows that the subject development will not impact on the adjoining properties to diminish their solar amenity.

 

· Views: A detailed view loss assessment is provided in section 9.1. This assessment shows that there are no significant views that will be impacted by these alterations and additions.

 

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that development will not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views.

 

This is further supported by the fact that no public submissions were received by Council in response to the neighbour notification.

 

The development is consistent with the objectives of the floor space ratio standard.

 

Assessment against objectives of the R3 Medium Density zone

 

The objectives of the R3 Medium Density Development zone are:

 

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

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

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

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

•    To protect the amenity of residents.

•    To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposed development will provide for the housing needs of the community by maintaining the current use of the existing dwelling. The proposed works are located at the rear of the site so will have no visual presentation to the street, however are consistent with the form and scale of the existing dwelling house. The proposed additions are considered to improve the finish and presentation of the existing dwelling and therefore result in a positive contribution to the built environment in this location.

 

As demonstrated above, the proposed alterations and additions at the first floor level will not impact on the amenity of surrounding properties.

 

The development is consistent with the objectives of the floor space ratio standard and the R3 Medium Density Residential zone. Therefore the development will be in the public interest.

 

 

 

 

4.    Has the concurrence of the Secretary been obtained?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Is there public benefit from maintaining the development standard?

 

While the previous BA292/89 was refused on the basis of the variation to the development standard, the provisions of Clause 4.6 of the Randwick LEP were not available to the assessment at the time of this determination. Clause 4.6 allows for the consideration of the variation within the context of the objectives of the zone and development standard, and is provided to allow flexibility in the application of these standards where there are suitable planning grounds and the circumstances of the application warrant support a variation. The subject variation can be supported on the basis of the assessment provided above, and will not erode the application of the standard by this instrument.

 

Variation of the maximum floor space ratio standard will allow for the orderly use of the site and there is a no public benefit in maintaining the development standard due to the particular circumstances of this case.

 

Conclusion

 

On the basis of the above assessment, it is therefore considered that the requirements of Clause 4.6(4) have been satisfied and that development consent may be granted for development that contravenes the FSR development standard.

 

8.       Development control plans and policies

 

8.1.    Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013

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

 

The relevant provisions of the DCP are addressed in Appendix 3.

 

9.       Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

Section 4.15 ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

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

The site is zoned Residential R3 Medium Density Residential under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent. See table below for compliance with development standards.

 

The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will provide the housing needs of the community whilst protecting the amenity of the local residents.

 

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

 

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

Nil.

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

The proposal 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 residential character in the locality.

 

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

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

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

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

 

There were no submissions received in response to the public notification period.

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

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

 

9.1.    Discussion of key issues

The proposed additions result in a variation to the FSR applicable to the site, where the variation proposes an FSR of 0.83:1 on land mapped as having a maximum FSR of 0.75:1 pursuant to Clause 4.4 of the Randwick LEP 2012. The FSR represents a variation to the development standard of 10.67%.

 

The reasons the variation to the development standard are supported in summary are;

 

·      The proposed enclosure of the balcony does not give rise to an amenity impacts on the adjoining properties, and in relation to overlooking and aural amenity, improves these circumstances than as experienced currently;

·      The enclosure supports the continued use of the site as a dwelling house and will improve the aesthetic presentation of the dwelling as well as the amenity of the dwelling for the occupants;

·      The variation to the development standard will be largely indiscernible in the physical landscape as it relates to an increase in gross floor area at the rear of the dwelling, and to a space that is largely enclosed in its present circumstances; and

·      The resultant FSR is not out of character with the zone objectives or the prevailing built environment in this location.

 

The Applicant has submitted a Clause 4.6 request for variation pursuant to the Randwick LEP 2012 and this is considered in further detail at Section 7.1.

 

10.     Conclusion

 

That the application be approved (subject to conditions) for the following reasons:

 

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

 

·      The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the R3 zone in that the proposed activity and built form will provide for the housing needs of the community whilst enhancing the aesthetic character and protecting the amenity of the local residents.

 

·      The 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.

 

 

 

 

 


Appendix 1: Referrals

 

There were no referrals required to support this application.

 

 

 


 

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

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Appendix 3: DCP Compliance Table

 

3.1     Section C1: Low Density Residential

 

DCP Clause

Controls

Proposal

Compliance

 

Classification

Zoning = R3

Permissible

2

Site planning

 

 

2.1

Minimum lot size and frontage

 

Minimum lot size (RLEP):

·   R3 = 325sqm

325sqm

Yes

 

Minimum frontage

 

 

 

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

N/A

2.3

Site coverage

 

301 to 450 sqm = 55%

 

Site = 325sqm

No additional site cover proposed.

N/A

2.4

Landscaping and permeable surfaces

 

i)      Up to 300 sqm = 20%

ii)     301 to 450 sqm = 25%

iii)    Deep soil minimum width 900mm.

iv)    Maximise permeable surfaces to front

v)     Retain existing or replace mature native trees

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

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

Site = 325sqm

No change to landscaping or permeable surfaces.

N/A

2.5

Private open space (POS)

 

Dwelling & Semi-Detached POS

 

 

 

301 to 450 sqm = 6m x 6m

Site = 325sqm

Primary POS areas are at ground floor level and this application makes no changes to this.

Yes

3

Building envelope

3.1

Floor space ratio LEP 2012 =

Site area= 325sqm

Existing FSR= 0.71:1

Proposed FSR= 0.83:1

No – addressed pursuant to Clause 4.4 of RLEP 2012.

3.2

Building height

 

 

 

Maximum overall height LEP 2012  = 9.5m

Existing = Approx 7.3m

Proposed = No change

N/A

 

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

ii)   Sloping sites = 8m

iii)   Merit assessment if exceeded

Existing= 5.65m

Proposed= 5.65m

Yes

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

No change to front setback.

N/A

3.3.2

Side setbacks:

Dwellings:

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

 

Refer to 6.3 and 7.4 for parking facilities and outbuildings

Minimum= 1.8m

Existing=

East – 926mm

West – 881mm

Proposed=  Min 900mm

No, however the proposed enclosure utilizes the existing building footprint so does not alter the setbacks already established.

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

 

Refer to 6.3  and 7.4 for parking facilities and  outbuildings

Minimum = 6.87m

Existing = 4.9m

Proposed = No change to existing setbacks.

No change to existing setback as established on site.

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

No modifications to the existing dwelling as it presents to the street, wall length or articulation.

N/A

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.

 

N/A

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.)

Proposed infill work will be consistent with the existing dwelling house.

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.

N/A

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.

Shadow diagrams submitted identify 3 hours to proposed north facing sunroom.

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.

Shadow diagrams submitted identify adjoining properties can retain sufficient solar access.

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

Proposed sunroom benefits from northerly aspect and provides operable windows to allow for 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)

Windows in the rear elevation have a sill height of 1.05m however are orientated to the rear and reduce the field of vision from the current balcony.

Separation between the adjoining property is considered to be adequate.

Yes

 

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.

 

N/A

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.

Enclosure of the existing balcony will improve acoustic amenity.

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)

 

N/A

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 proposed works are within the existing building envelope and therefore retain existing views of the surrounding locality as established.

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)

No modification is proposed to the existing on site parking arrangements.

N/A

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)

No modification is proposed to the existing on site parking arrangements.

N/A

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

 

No modification is proposed to the existing on site parking arrangements.

N/A

6.4

Driveway Configuration

 

Maximum driveway width:

-     Single driveway – 3m

-     Double driveway – 5m

Must taper driveway width at street boundary and at property boundary

 

No modification is proposed to the existing on site parking arrangements.

N/A

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

No modification is proposed to the existing on site parking arrangements.

N/A

6.6

Carport Configuration

 

i)    Simple post-support design (max. semi-enclosure using timber or metal slats minimum 30% open).

ii)   Roof: Flat, lean-to, gable or hipped with pitch that relates to dwelling

iii)   3m maximum width.

iv)  5.4m minimum length

v)   2.6m maximum height with flat roof or 3.0m max. height for pitched roof.

vi)  No solid panel or roller shutter door.

vii)  front gate allowed (minimum 30% open)

viii) Gate does not open to public land

 

N/A

6.7

Hardstand Car Space Configuration

 

i)    Prefer permeable materials in between concrete wheel strips.

ii)   2.4m x 5.4m minimum dimensions

 

 

N/A

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

No modification is proposed to the existing on site fencing.

N/A

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)   light weight 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.

 

N/A

7.3

Side and rear fencing

 

i)    1800mm 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.

 

N/A

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Dev Consent Conditions (dwellings dual occ) - DA/642/2018 - 96-98 Mason Street, Maroubra

 

 

 

 


Dev Consent Conditions (dwellings dual occ) - DA/642/2018 - 96-98 Mason Street, Maroubra

Attachment 1

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Randwick Local Planning Panel    13 June 2019

 

 

Development Application Report No. D26/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                  127 Darley Road, Randwick (DA/532/2018)

 

Folder No:                     DA/532/2018

Author:                          Brenton Pearce, Development Assessment Officer     

 

 

Proposal:                      Demolition to existing and construction of a new extension to rear of                                   the dwelling, including internal alterations and additions including new                                ground floor balcony and lower floor paved terrace area, part                                       demolition of existing rear detached garage and convert to secondary                      dwelling with new extension, and construction of a new garage.

Ward:                            North Ward

Applicant:                     Brooke Aitken Design

Owner:                          Mr T Stavrakis

Cost of works:              $1,593,326.00

Reason for referral:      Heritage Item

Recommendation

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/532/2018 for demolition to existing and construction of a new extension to rear of the dwelling, including internal alterations and additions including new ground floor balcony and lower floor paved terrace area, part demolition of existing rear detached garage and convert to secondary dwelling with new extension, and construction of a new garage at No. 127 Darley Road Randwick, subject to the development consent conditions attached to this report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

 

Ù

North

1.       Executive summary

 

The application is referred to the Randwick Local Planning Panel (RLPP) as the development involves partial demolition of a heritage item.This proposal is for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including the demolition and reconstruction of the rear part of the house, conversion of the back garage into a secondary dwelling with an extension in the garden. The majority of the works to the dwelling will involve the demolition and reconstruction of existing alterations that were added to the dwelling throughout the 90’s. The front of the dwelling which faces Darley Road will remain largely untouched. 

 

2.       Site Description and Locality

 

The site is located at 127 Darley Road, Randwick and is named “Alhawa” which is currently a single detached residence on Lot 6 & 7 of Lot 19 in DP 4698. The dwelling is listed on the Local Heritage register (for its Federation street façade). This proposal is for alterations and additions to the existing house including reconstruction of the demolished part of the house at the rear, transformation of the back garage into a self-contained unit with an extension in the garden. The site is located on the south side of Darley Road, opposite Centennial Park and is double fronted, accessible also from the rear through Darley Lane. The dwelling also includes a garage at the back on Darley Lane and a swimming pool. There are no opposite neighbours as the dwelling faces Centennial Park. The site is a group of two long lots with the total combined area of 910sqm, with a street frontage of 24.27m wide to the north and side boundaries of 44.32m long at the west and 43m long at the east. The lane frontage to the South is 17m wide. The site level drops 1.13m down from Darley Road where the level of the street is 52.34m to Darley Lane level which is 51.21m. Darley Road is the primary frontage as Darley Lane is a service road and is primarily for garage entries along the street.

 

Figure. 1 Darley Road frontage

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure. 2 Darley Lane frontage

3.       Relevant history

 

The dwelling has retained many of its original features with only minor alts and adds being carried out at the site in the past, the most recent being DA/165/1995 (Approved) of which will be mostly demolished under the subejct application. There are no outstanding works and the subject application proposes a new scheme for the dwelling, a brief outline of previous works to the site is addressed in the report prepared by Council’s Heritage Officer below.

 

4.       Proposal

 

The proposal seeks development consent for the following:

 

·      Demolition of rear extension façade and roof built in 1994, which includes the kitchen, dining area, master bedroom, ensuite and WIR, the main bathroom and 2 bedrooms, the lower floor laundry.

·      Demolition of existing side garage and demolition of one of the façade of the back garage, maintaining the roof, sides and laneway façade.

·      Construction of a new extension at the back of the existing Heritage Federation house with kitchen, dining and living area, powder room, main bathroom and master suite on the ground floor and lounge, bedrooms, bathroom, powder room and laundry on the lower floor. A mezzanine with a studio and lounge area is integrated into the attic without affecting existing roof heights

·      Construction of a new balcony on ground floor and new paved terrace on lower floor.

·      Conversion of the back garage into a self-contained unit with addition of an extension on same floor level.

·      Additions of energy efficient/environmental items such as Solar Panels, Whirlybird for continual air ventilation, movable awnings for solar protection, cross ventilation and rainwater tanks.

 


 

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 submission was received as a result of the notification process:

 

·      22 Earl Street, Randwick NSW 2031

 

Issue

Comment

Objection to the use of Darley Lane and Clove Lane for construction related purpose as this will create a nuisance to neighbouring properties.

Standard conditions relating to work-site safety, operating hours and nuisance will be included in any consent issued for this application.

 

 

6.       Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

6.1.    State Environmental Planning Policy Affordable Rental Housing (2009)

 

- State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) - Affordable Rental Housing 2009

The SEPP was introduced on 31 July 2009 to increase the supply and diversity of affordable rental and social housing in NSW. The SEPP was amended on 20 May 2011 to require new in-fill development; low rise development; boarding houses, and Housing NSW proposals to be subject to a local character test to ensure that developments are consistent with the design of the local area and the affordable housing component being provided as a percentage of the total floor space. The amendment does not change provisions for other types of accommodation such as granny flats, group homes and supportive accommodation.

 

This application has been submitted seeking consent under Division 2 of the SEPP: Affordable housing 2009 for Secondary dwellings and its provisions will not be affected by the abovementioned review. Under Division 2 the following clauses are relevant:

 

Clause 19 Definition

The proposed development falls within the scope of the definition of a secondary dwelling in that it entails development for the purposes of a secondary dwelling by use of a structure which is not an individual lot in a strata plan or community title scheme.

 

Clause 20 Land to which this division applies

This subject site is located on Zone R2 Low Density Residential identified under the SEPP Affordable Rental Housing 2009 and the development for the purposes of a secondary dwelling is permissible on the land.

 

Clause 21 Development to which Division applies

The proposed development for a secondary dwelling may be carried out with consent under this SEPP subject to Clause 22 below.

 

Clause 22   Development may be carried out with consent

Under Subclause 3(a) & (b) the following criteria apply:

 

(a)        the total floor area of the principal dwelling and the secondary dwelling must be no more than the maximum floor area allowed for a dwelling house on the land under another environmental planning instrument, and

 

(b)        the total floor area of the secondary dwelling is no more than 60 square metres or, if a greater floor area is permitted in respect of a secondary dwelling on the land under another environmental planning instrument, that greater floor area.

 

A maximum FSR of 0.6:1 applies to development for the purposes of a dwelling house on the subject site; the proposal complies with the LEP for dwelling houses with a floor space ratio of 0.46:1. The proposed floor area of the secondary dwelling does not exceed the 60m² allowable in the SEPP for Affordable Housing.

Clause 23   Complying development

The proposed development is not complying development as defined under the SEPP as it forms part of the proposed development of the existing structures which are detailed in a Development Application.

 

Clause 24   No subdivision

The proposed development does not result in any subdivision of the lot on which development for the purposes of the secondary dwelling has been carried out under this Division.

 

Comment

The development is generally compliant with the controls of the ARH SEPP and can be considered to satisfy the objectives in relation to being compatible with the streetscape character and local area. The development will provide a form of affordable housing of reasonable amenity and impact and is therefore considered worthy of approval.

 

6.2.    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

The site is zoned R2 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 will provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

 

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)

0.6:1

0.46:1

Yes

Cl 4.3: Building height (max)

9.5m

Existing 9.85m

Proposed 9.31m

Yes

 

6.2.1.      Clause 5.10 - Heritage conservation

The subject house is listed as an item of local heritage significance on Schedule 5 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2012 as item number I345, “Alhawa”, Federation house. It is also located within the North Randwick Heritage Conservation Area and is in the vicinity of a number of other listed items, the closest being Centennial Park and a house at 135 Darley Road. The subject site was part of the Centennial Park Lands subdivision which began in 1905 and ended in 1919, when the last three allotments were offered for sale. Consisting of Lots 6 and 7 in Section 19 of the Centennial Park Lands subdivision, the property was transferred to Matilda Louise Fitzgerald, the wife of grocer William Patrick Fitzgerald from Sydney, on 2 March 1914. The Certificate of Title issued to Matilda Fitzgerald included a covenant restricting her from erecting any terrace or timber buildings on the site or from building more than one building on each allotment. Buildings were to be of brick or stone, with slate or tile roofs. The Fitzgeralds constructed the existing building at the site as their home, submitting a building application to Randwick Municipal Council in 1913 (BA 2417/1913). The building was constructed in 1914 and the Sydney Sands Directory listed alderman William Fitzgerald, J.P. at ‘Alhaioa’ for the first time in 1915.10 From 1916, the name appeared as ‘Alhawa’ and by 1920 street numbering had been introduced, locating the property at No. 119 Darley  Road. By 1933, the numbering had changed to 127 Darley Road.

 

Further to the individual Heritage Listing of the dwelling, the site is located within the North Randwick Conservation Area which is listed in Schedule 5 of the Randwick LEP 2012. Council’s DCP describes the North Randwick Heritage conservation Area as continuing Federation and Inter War housing associated with the development of Centennial Park. A large area to the south of Centennial Park, originally reserved for water supply purposes, delaying its release for housing.

 

The Application is accompanied by a Heritage Impact Statement (HIS) complied by NBRS Architecture which evaluates the proposal against Schedule 5 of RLEP (2012), the criterion of the Heritage Division of the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage guidelines: Assessing Heritage Significance (2001).

 

The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a)  to conserve the environmental heritage of Randwick,

(b)  to conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views,

(c)  to conserve archaeological sites,

(d)  to conserve Aboriginal objects and Aboriginal places of heritage significance.

 

The proposed development has been reviewed against the relevant objectives and it is the opinion of the Assessing Officer that the resulting built form will present a skillful design that respects the existing heritage features of the dwelling. In this regard, the alterations and additions retain significant detail where relevant and ensures the historical character of the dwelling is preserved. It is also considered that the development addresses the character of the HCA more broadly and that after considering the heritage significance of a heritage item and the extent of change proposed to it, that the development will not adversely affect the heritage significance of the heritage item, including its setting, or the heritage significance of the HCA.

 

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

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

 

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

Nil.

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

The proposal generally satisfies the objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. See table in Appendix 2 and the discussion in key issues below

 

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

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

 

The 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.

 

8.1.    Discussion of key issues

 

·      Side Setbacks

 

West

The subject site has a frontage width of 12.075m which requires development upon the site to adhere to 1.2m side setbacks. The rear addition proposes a minor non-compliance with this control by proposing to match the existing eastern side setback of the principle dwelling at 1.1m. The roof form of the rear addition excludes eaves to alleviate any additional bulk and scale at first floor level and it is the opinion of the Assessing Officer that strict application of the 1.2m side setback control would not result in a better planning outcome in this instance, primarily due to the fact that the side elevation of the rear addition consists of an extension of continuous wall length of only 2.4m, followed by a mostly open balcony. Moreover, the bulk and scale of the development has been constrained having a lower roof form compared to the principle dwelling and flat pergola roof over the balcony section. On this occasion, if the setback were increased by an additional 100mm it is unlikely that the resulting built form would provide any additional benefit or better planning outcome to the neighbouring property and as such the non-compliance can be considered acceptable in this instance. 

 

East

The proposal includes the demolition and reconstruction of the primary garage which currently encroaches upon the required 1.2m side setback from the eastern boundary as existing. The subject application proposes a lesser, yet still non-compliant setback at 900mm from the eastern boundary which is not considered to be a suitable outcome given the garage’s proximity to the neighbouring dwelling at No. 129 Darley Road. Whilst it is acknowledged that the application proposes soft landscaping within the setback between the eastern boundary and the garage, it is the opinion of the Assessing Officer that this measure itself is not enough to ensure the neighbouring dwelling does not experience a sense of overbearing vertical massing and bulk. In addition to this, the proposed 2.91m external wall height of the garage presents a sheer and imposing built form toward No. 129 Darley Road that is not in keeping with a typical flat roof garage. Accordingly, to ensure the visual amenity of No. 129 Darley Road is preserved, a condition will be included in any consent issued for this application requiring the ground floor eastern wall of the garage to be setback 1.2m from the eastern boundary.

 

·      Privacy – Rear Elevation

 

Proposed development to the rear of the dwelling includes a 3.1m deep x 12.315m wide balcony at first floor level, which will be directly accessible from a kitchen, living and formal living room. Connecting high-use living spaces with outdoor entertaining areas provides high levels of amenity and practical usability to the occupants. However, in response to the sloping topography the FFL of the balcony is substantially elevated above existing ground levels compared to the rest of the first floor. This feature, along with the 1.3m side setback (measured from the boundary to the western side of the balustrade) is likely to result in adverse overlooking and acoustic impacts to the neighbouring property at No. 12 Darley Road. In this instance, the application of a glass balustrade is not considered sufficient to mitigate adverse acoustic/privacy impacts to the neighbouring property and as a result a proposed condition of consent will require the installation of a 1.6m high privacy screen on the western end of the balcony. The eastern end of the balcony is setback 5.387m from the eastern side boundary and is partially intersected by a staircase on the far south-eastern edge of the balcony. As a result, it is not envisaged that the eastern end of the balcony will result in any significant, adverse privacy impacts to the neighbouring property at No. 129 Darley Road to the east and therefore is not required to be screened. 

 

·      First floor addition above garage

 

The bedroom extension over the main garage presents a departure from the existing building envelope, jutting out toward the east and will be discernable as an addition when viewed from within the site. The overall bulk, scale and massing of the addition is contained below the eave height of the principle dwelling roof and the sides are set well back from the external walls of the ground floor garage. Whilst it cannot be said that the addition sits passively next to the dwelling, the overall visual impact is not considered to detract from the heritage significance of the dwelling and can be considered to be in-keeping with overall aesthetic in general. Case in point, an extract from Council’s internal heritage referral is noted below in general agreeance to the Assessing Officer’s opinion.

 

The two storey side extension would replace the existing single storey garage and comprise a garage at lower ground level (using the existing vehicle access available from Darley Road) with additional level above to accommodate two new bedrooms with linking element at ground floor to the original dwelling. Due to the slope of the site towards the rear, the garage at lower ground level would not be significantly visible from the Darley Road frontage. In addition, the ground level would be setback from the eastern boundary by approximately 1.8m and setback significantly from the main front building line, and its low pitched roof would be situated well below the ridge line of the original gutter on the eastern elevation and the circular tower located on the north eastern frontage.

 

Conclusion

 

That the application to demolition to existing and construction of a new extension to rear, including internal alterations and additions including new ground floor balcony and lower floor paved terrace area, part demolition of existing rear detached garage and convert to secondary dwelling with new extension, and construction of a new garage. At No. 127 Darley Road, Randwick NSW 2031 be approved 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 proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of Clause 5.10 Heritage Conservation and the North Randwick Heritage Conservation Area,

 

·      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,

 


 

Appendix 1: Referrals

 

1.    Internal referral comments:

 

1.1.    Heritage planner

 

Site

The site is located on the southern side of Darley Road between Avoca Street intersection to the east, and Clovelly Road intersection to the west. The site is occupied by a detached two storey Federation house known as ‘Alhawa’ occupying  Lot 6, Section 19, DP 4698; Lot 7, Section 19, DP 469.

 

The site is located with a residential context of primarily detached one and two storey l dwellings, located on the southern side of Darley Road. To the east of the site is an early twentieth century single storey brick house, and to the west is a two storey rendered contemporary residential dwelling dating from the 1990s. 

 

The heritage inventory sheet prepared by Perumal Murphy Pty. Ltd, dated January 1988 provides the following description of the site:

 

‘Excellent Federation style house on large block. Beautifully maintained and virtually unaltered except for security door. Complex roof form and plan arrangement. Outstanding feature is low circular tower on corner end of verandah. Stone balustrade, piers and foundation. Excellent slate roof with pattern. Vented gambrel at apex. Simple tall roughcast chimneys (English rural style). Extensive use of shingling on gable below bay window and on top of tower. Recently replaced but quite sympathetic. Simple timber decoration to verandah. Main door has sidelights and skylight. Simple casement windows and “oeil de boeuf”. Also of special note are original path and steps, verandah tiling and outstanding front fence. Fence is stone with wrought iron infill. Immaculately maintained lawn and garden areas.’

 

The dwelling has undergone some additions and alterations since 1988, however the majority of its significant external and internal architectural features have been retained and are in good condition. This is confirmed within the photographs provided within the Statement of Heritage Impact prepared by NBRS Architecture. Heritage dated August 2018 and submitted with the development application.

 

Council’s records indicate that there were a number of approved works to the site since the 1988 observations including:

 

-     New carport at the rear of the dwelling in approved July 1991 (BA/541/1991);

-     Alterations and additions including new garage along the eastern boundary and rear extension to the existing dwelling. Internal alterations including the bathroom to hallway and en-suite to the master bedroom at ground floor level. The application also proposed a new driveway and a swimming pool within the south eastern rear corner of the site, however this was not constructed. Approval was granted October 1995 (BA/779/1995 and DA/165/1995).

 

These changes and copies of the previous plans are documented within the applicant’s Statement of Heritage Impact prepared by NBRS Architecture. Heritage. The dwelling is situated within a landscaped front and rear setback with vehicle access available from Darley Road via concrete driveway along the eastern side of the property. Rear vehicle access to the site is also available via Darley Lane and a single storey gable fronted garage structure is located on the Daley Lane boundary. The original stone and iron fencing along the Darley Road boundary frontage is retained and conserved.

 

A meeting between the architects and Lorraine Simpson regarding a proposal for new upper level and side garage extension was carried out on 26 June 2018. The following provides a summary of the points noted during the meeting:

 

-     Due to the fall of the site, the existing dwelling has a single storey scale to the street and two storey scale at rear;

-     Side addition above existing car port is set well to the rear with minimal streetscape visibility;

-     New upper level contained within the extension of hipped roof form to create new rear gable;

-     Existing hipped roof extruded original main roof and is inconsistent with DCP.

-     Concerns raised regarding extension of existing roof would create a 3 storey scale to rear and suggestions of redesign as a large dormer to reduce bulk and heritage impact.

-     Single storey addition to early garage was less intrusive than upper level addition.

 

Proposal

The current development application proposes the demolition of the existing garage structure and two storey rear addition, and construction of a new two storey rear and side extension to the existing dwelling with lower ground parking. More specifically, the proposal involves the following works to the main dwelling:

 

-     Alterations and extension to the rear of the lower ground level to remove the laundry and basement lounge rooms and form a smaller basement lounge area, with two new kids bedrooms, as well as accommodate a bathroom, laundry and storage area;

-     Internal alterations and additions to the rear at ground level involving demolition of internal walls currently separating the rear bedrooms (2 and 3), kids’ bathroom, kitchen, and master bedroom suite and the rear balcony and creation of new open formal living, dining and kitchen area with rear balcony and glazed bi-fold doors. The proposal involves the installation of external spiral stairs at the eastern end of the rear balcony which lead to the lower ground floor level.

-     The proposal also involves the demolition of the garage structure located along the eastern side of the dwelling and construction of a new garage at lower ground level with creation of two new bedrooms above which will form a side wing extension to the main dwelling;

-     The awning located within the rear setback on the eastern side of the site is also proposed for demolition;

-     Alterations to the rear garage are proposed for its conversion to a granny flat;

-     Landscaping works to the rear involve the levelling of the rear garden, removal of three trees, removal of pond/basin structures along the western boundary, installation of new paving to the rear of the dwelling and removal of paving at the rear of the site. 

 

Submission

The development application is accompanied by a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Brook Aitken Design dated August 2018 and Statement of Heritage Impact prepared by NBRS Architecture. Heritage, dated 24 August 2018. The Statement of Heritage Impact provides an assessment of the significant of the site, a statement of significance as well as grading of significance to the various architectural elements within the dwelling. The statement also provides an assessment against the NSW Heritage Division criteria, and against the relevant planning controls within the Randwick LEP and DCP.

 

The reports identifies that the site is located within the North Randwick Heritage Conservation Area and concludes that the proposal would have an ‘acceptable impact on the heritage significance of the item ‘Alhawa’, the North Randwick Conservation Area and the listed heritage items in the vicinity’. A set of drawings dated July 2018 and prepared by Brook Aitken Design was submitted with the application.

 

Relevant controls

Randwick LEP 2012

Clause 5.10 Heritage conservation

(1) Objectives; (2) Requirements for consent; (4) Effect of a proposed development in heritage significance; and (5) Heritage assessment.

 

Randwick DCP 2013

Section B2 of the Randwick DCP 2013 applies to development within a heritage conservation area, including Design and character (2.2); Scale and form (2.3); Siting and setbacks (2.4); Detailing (2.5); Materials, Finishes and Colour Schemes (2.6); Garage and Driveway (2.9); and Gardens, garden elements and swimming pools (2.11).

 

Section B4.9 of the DCP relates to the North Randwick Heritage Conservation Area.

 

Comments

Demolition works

The proposed demolition of the existing rear additions (c.1995), and the removal of some internal walls at ground and lower ground levels would retain the front portion of the dwelling, including its general external form and massing, and its significant external features and presentation to the street. The proposal would also retain the majority of the internal layout and configuration of the principal dwelling, including the wide entrance hall, and rooms located within the front portion of the dwelling.

 

There would be some removal of internal walls between the bedrooms on the eastern side of the ground floor, to create a new master suite and associated en-suite, WIR and separate bathroom. A condition has been included to incorporate 300mm nib walls and beams projecting below ceiling level along the original layout of the ground floor bedrooms as evidence and additional interpretation of the original layout of the building and facilitate patching of plasterwork. The formation of the master suite would also require the removal and infill of an existing doorway off the main entrance hall. While this would affect some of the original internal significant fabric, its proposed relocation and re-use of the door to the new ‘powder room’ on the opposite side of the hallway is supported.

 

The proposed removal of additional walls on the western side of the dwelling would open up the internal living and dining spaces. The majority of the demolition would affect the rear portion of the dwelling already altered during the 1990s. The proposal would retain the majority of the internal significant features such as ceiling detail, skirtings, architraves, flooring and decorative fireplaces within the front rooms, as well as the retention of the majority of the original doors, door lights and architraves.

The proposed removal of the existing skylight within the eastern roof plane and its extension would allow additional light to penetrate the central parts of the dwelling. The removal of the existing doorway and part of the wall along the ground floor eastern side elevation would be required to accommodate access to the new two storey side extension and is considered to be minimal intervention of original external fabric to accommodate the new additions.

 

The proposed demolition of the garage structure (c.1995) located on the eastern side of the dwelling, as well as the removal of the existing carport awning (c.1991) located within the rear setback on the eastern side of the site between the rear garage structure and the dwelling are supported. These elements are not original although provide evidence of the historical changes to fabric, are of little significance and do not need to be conserved.

 

Two storey rear and side extension

The proposed additions to the rear comprise extensions at lower ground, ground floors and new part first floor addition at the rear. The design of the rear extension includes a hipped roof form with a rear dormer style. The overall bulk and scale of the additions to the rear would not dominate or compete with existing form and scale of the original dwelling. The proposed additions would extend approximately 3.17m from the rear main building line with a ground floor balcony structure extending another 2.5m from the proposed rear elevation.

 

The proposed rear roof form would be situated 880mm below the original ridge line of the dwelling and would be set in 0.7m and 0.6m from the western and eastern gutter sides respectively. The roof form comprises a central dormers style structure with skylight glazing on the angled surrounds of the rear roof planes. The dormer has been designed to accommodate a partial first floor level within the extended roof space. The hipped form of the extension would be contemporary yet sympathetic in its design and visually compatible with the original hipped and gabled roof. The design of the rear dormer would enable the rear elevation to read as a two storey (not three storey) built form.

 

The two storey side extension would replace the existing single storey garage and comprise a garage at lower ground level (using the existing vehicle access available from Darley Road) with additional level above to accommodate two new bedrooms with linking element at ground floor to the original dwelling. Due to the slope of the site towards the rear, the garage at lower ground level would not be significantly visible from the Darley Road frontage. In addition, the ground level would be setback from the eastern boundary by approximately 1.8m and setback significantly from the main front building line, and its low pitched roof would be situated well below the ridge line of the original gutter on the eastern elevation and the circular tower located on the north eastern frontage.

 

Rear garage conversion

The proposed conversion of the rear garage structure to a self-contained unit would involve the construction on internal walls and a new contemporary single storey extension towards the north to accommodate bedroom, living area and bathroom. The new extension would be a similar form and scale to the existing building and to a maximum height below the existing roof ridgeline. It would be clad with metal side walls and full length glazing panels with side glazed louvres to the northern elevation. The contemporary addition would be visually sympathetic to the original face brick and roughcast rendered walls. In addition, it would not be visible from the Darley Lane frontage, or from significant views along Darley Road.

 

Landscaping

The proposal retains the existing and original lawn garden path, front boundary fence and vehicle and pedestrian gates within the front setback. The proposed relocation of the existing fountain (currently located within the rear setback on the eastern side of the property) would allow for the retention and reuse of the decorative garden element and would complement the setting and character of the dwelling. New uniformed and shrub planting and shrubs are proposed around the front verandah and along the western side boundary as well as along the eastern wall of the dwelling.

 

At the rear of the site, landscaping would comprise removal of three trees, and the retention of the mature tree centrally located within the rear yard. New works would comprise sandstone paving and new lawn bounded by a new planting and garden bed along the southern and western boundaries.

 

There are no heritage objections to the proposed landscaping works as the works would retain and conserve existing landscaped setting of the dwelling.

 

Materials and finishes

The proposed materials and finishes are described within the ‘Materials board’ submitted with the application and received by Council on 27 August 2018. 

 

The proposed material and finishes for the two storey rear addition involve new colorbond (Monument) roof cladding and steel framed balcony, glazing and aluminium louvres to the rear elevations at lower ground and ground levels, metal roofing over and applied to the rear dormer shape, and a steel structured spiral staircase. Metal cladding will be applied to the eastern and western side elevations of the rear extension. It is considered the contemporary metal cladding and glazing would be sympathetic, and visually subservient to the original dwelling and able to be identified as ‘new’ fabric.

 

The proposed side extension comprises a colorbond metal roof form (Monument) over the garage and new bedrooms and timber shingle cladding to the side and rear walls. The front elevation would comprise glazing and external vertical dark finish timber shutters to the ground floor level and timber panelled garage door and full length glazed windows to the ground and lower ground levels of the linking element. The use of timber panels and shingles would provide a soft backdrop to the original face brick and sandstone construction and provide a matching and interpretative response to the shingled decorative elements on the front elevation. Colorbond (monument) steel panels and glazing are also proposed for the extension to the original garage.

 

The proposed materials are considered satisfactory and consists of sympathetic fabric and colours including the steel cladding and neutral tones of the timber which would match the existing shingle work and would not compete with the significant external fabric or detract from longer views appreciated from the Darley Road streetscape.

 

Recommendations

Overall, there are no heritage objections to the proposed development. The proposal would have a neutral impact on the significance of the subject site, the nearby heritage item at No. 135 Darley Road, and the North Randwick Heritage Conservation Area.

 

 

 

 

 

The following conditions should be included in any consent:

 

·      The layout of the bedrooms on ground floor of the existing building shall incorporate 300mm nib walls and beams projecting below ceiling level, as evidence of the original layout of the building and facilitate patching of plasterwork.

 

·      A brief archival recording of the property shall be prepared and submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.  This recording shall be in accordance with the NSW Heritage Office 2006 Guidelines for Photographic Recording of Heritage Items using Film or Digital Capture.  Two copies of the endorsed archival recording shall be presented to Council, one of which shall be placed in the Local History Collection of Randwick City Library. 

 

1.2.    Development Engineer

 

An application has been received for alterations and additions at the above site which includes constructing a new garage accessed from Darley Road and converting the existing single car garage fronting Darley lane into a 1 bedroom Granny Flat.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Architectural Plans by Brooke Aitken Design and dated July 2018;

·      Statement of Environmental Effects by Brooke Aitken Design;

·      Site Drainage Plan by NB Consulting Engineers dated Aug 2018;

·      Detail & Level Survey by Veris dated 22.02.2018;

·      Landscape Plans by Robert Finnie Design, dwg’s DA01-03, rev A, dated 22/08/18.

 

Undergrounding of power lines to site

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

 

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

 

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

 

Tree Management Comments

The inspection of 25 January 2019 revealed a row of trees on the public verge, being a semi-mature, 4-5m tall Ulmus parvifolia (Chinese Weeping Elm), past the existing driveway/eastern site boundary, in front of the adjoining property at 129-129A, then to its west, centrally across the width of the subject site, a 5m tall Corymbia ficifolia (Flowering Gum) of poor health and condition, a 4m Cupaniopsis anacardioides (Tuckeroo), a similarly sized Harpephyllum caffrum (Kaffir Plum), then just past the western site boundary, a juvenile, 4-5m tall Angophora costata (Sydney Red Gum).

 

All are covered by the provisions of Council’s DCP due to their location on public property, and given an absence of any external works, as well as their physical distance from any construction, should remain unaffected, and while they need to remain, conditions are not required.

 

The stand of mature, 5m tall Yucca’s in the rear yard, along the eastern boundary, between the southeast corner of the dwelling and the free-standing shed, are an exotic species that are not significant in anyway, so can be removed as part of works associated with the new garage, paving and detached building in this same area as shown.

 

To their southwest, located centrally in the rear setback, there is a mature, 8m x 8m Schinus areira (Peppercorn) of fair health and condition, which is covered by the DCP, and is the only established vegetation within this whole site, assisting with partial screening and privacy between this site and those other dwellings on the opposite side of Darley Lane.

 

All plans as well as the SEE (page 11) show this tree as being retained and incorporated into the new landscape scheme as an existing site feature, and as all work along the eastern boundary will be contained mostly within the footprints of existing structures/surfacing, being the awning and garage, at such an offset that no direct impact should result from these components, this should be possible.

 

However, in order to achieve this, the infiltration trench that is currently shown as encroaching into the southwest quarter of its root plate would need to be slightly relocated, and as there appears ample space in this area to allow this, protection conditions formally requiring this have been included in this report.

 

Appendix 2: DCP Compliance Table

 

3.1     Section B2 Heritage

 

DCP Clause

Control

Proposal

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA/ Conditioned)

2.1 Heritage Items and Heritage Conservation Areas

 

v) Street elevations and visible side elevations must not be significantly changed. Additions must be located to the rear or to one side of the building to minimise impact on the streetscape. vi) The design of any proposed additions or alterations must complement the existing building in its scale, form and detailing. However, it should be possible to distinguish the new work from the old, on close inspection, so that old and new are not confused or the boundaries/junctions blurred. vii) All new work and additions must respect the proportions of major elements of significant existing v) Street elevations and visible side elevations must not be significantly changed. Additions must be located to the rear or to one side of the building to minimise impact on the streetscape. vi) The design of any proposed additions or alterations must complement the existing building in its scale, form and detailing. However, it should be possible to distinguish the new work from the old, on close inspection, so that old and new are not confused or the boundaries/junctions blurred. vii) All new work and additions must respect the proportions of major elements of significant existing

The existing dwelling is setback substantially from Darley Road and the subject application does not propose works forward of the front façade.

 

The addition to the garage is considered to be in keeping with the character of the existing dwelling and will not be highly perceptible from the street.

Yes

2.3 Scale and Form

 

iv) Additions must not visually dominate, compete with or conceal the original form and massing of the existing buildings. v) Additions to heritage items must not contain any major or prominent design elements which compete with the architectural features or detailing of the existing building. vi) Where single storey rear additions are proposed to dwelling houses, the addition must not compromise the integrity of the main roof and is to be lower in scale and secondary to it. vii) Upper floor additions to the main roof of any single storey dwelling house may be acceptable if contained wholly within the existing roof space without change to the roof pitch or eaves height. viii) Upper floor additions to the rear of any single storey dwelling house should preferably use pavilion-type forms, with a lower scale linking structure between the original building and any double storey addition. ix) If a pavilion-type form is not suitable or desirable in the location, an upper floor addition may be acceptable, set well to the rear of the building to minimise impact on the main roof and to minimise streetscape visibility. x) Where rear lanes exist, it may be possible to provide additional floor space in an outbuilding at the rear of the site, rather than as an upper level addition to the dwelling itself. xi) Where rear additions are proposed to semi-detached dwellings, the additions must not compromise the symmetry and integrity of the front elevation or dominate the other house in the pair. xii) Where rear additions are proposed to attached dwellings (e.g. terrace houses), the additions must not compromise the integrity of the front elevation or the forms of relatively intact rear wings.

The majority of the additions are concentrated towards the rear of the dwelling. Notwithstanding, the proposed additions are considered to result in a good planning outcome by providing high-quality spaces, including indoor-outdoor living rooms.

 

The additional living spaces have been achieved without compromising the heritage significance of the property and do not result in any conflicting elements that detract from the architectural expression, aesthetic or otherwise of the existing dwelling.

 

The development of a secondary dwelling within the existing rear garage to Darley Lane is an appropriate form of development for the site and is in-keeping with the existing character of the Laneway. The secondary dwelling does result excessive bulk, scale or adverse privacy issues to neighbouring properties and is generally considered to be compatible with the desired future character of the area. 

 

Yes

2.4 Siting and Setbacks

 

i) Development must conform to the predominant front setbacks in the streetscape. ii) Development must respect side setbacks and rear alignments or setbacks of surrounding development. iii) Front and rear setbacks should be adequate to ensure the retention of the existing landscape character of the heritage item or conservation area and important landscape features. iv) Any significant historical pattern of subdivision and lot sizes must be retained. Subdivision or site amalgamation involving heritage items or contributory buildings must not compromise the setting or curtilage of buildings on or adjoining the site.

The new development complies with the required 1.2m side setbacks and is compatible with the existing development upon the site.

Yes

2.5 Detailing

 

ii) Retain and repair original doors, windows, original sunhoods, awnings, gable detailing and other decorative elements to principal elevations. Original leadlight and coloured glass panes should be retained. iii) Where original windows, doors and façade detailing have been removed and replaced with modern materials, consideration should be given to reconstructing original features. iv) Authentic reconstruction is encouraged. Decorative elements must not be introduced unless documentary or physical evidence indicates the decorative elements previously existed. Undertake thorough research before attempting to reconstruct lost detail and elements. v) Alterations and additions should incorporate new doors and windows which are compatible with the position, size, and proportions and detailing of original windows and doors. vi) Alterations and additions should adopt a level of detailing which complements the heritage fabric and should (in

Council’s Heritage Officer has not raised any issues relating to the removal of, or potential for damage to significant heritage details.

 

The rear addition includes the addition of substantial glazing and openings that reflect a more contemporary design scheme. In this instance, the application of a contemporary design approach is considered necessary given that the existing rear of the dwelling was substantially modified during the 90’s and more importantly, that the subject proposal will result in a better design that is more in-keeping with the character of the dwelling and surrounding heritage development.

Yes

2.6 Materials, Finishes and Colour Schemes

 

ii) Changes to materials (including roofs and walls) on elevations visible from a public place are not favoured. Original face brickwork must not be rendered, bagged or painted. The removal of external brickwork skin is not supported. iii) Matching materials must be used in repairing the fabric of external surfaces. In the case of new face brickwork, the colour and texture of the brick, the type of jointing and mortar colour should be carefully matched.

iv) New or replacement roof materials must match existing materials. Alternative materials may be considered appropriate to the architectural style of the building and the streetscape context, and must be submitted for approval. v) Alterations and additions must use materials and colours similar to, or compatible with, the original material or colours.

Colours and materials board submitted with the application is has been reviewed by Council’s Heritage Officer and is generally considered to satisfy the relevant controls.

Yes

2.7 Roofs and Chimneys

 

ii) Roofs must not be repitched or have their eaves line raised to allow for the provision of attic rooms. iii) Chimneys must be retained.

No original chimneys will be impacted.

N/A

2.8 Verandahs and Balconies

 

ii) Original front verandahs and balconies must be retained and conserved. Consider opening up verandah enclosures or infills, to reinstate an original open verandah. iii) Infilling or enclosure of front verandahs and balconies is not supported. iv) Additional verandahs must not compete with the importance of the original and should be simple in design and based on existing detail or an understanding of appropriate designs for each period or style.

Existing rear balcony offers little to no heritage value to the dwelling and will be demolished. The new development is considered to result in a more sympathetic design overall.

Yes

2.9 Garages, Carports, Carspaces and Driveways

 

i) Existing rear lane access or side street access (where available) must be utilised for carparking in preference to front access. ii) Carparking structures are to be located to the side, or preferably to the rear of the building. Garages and carports must not be located forward of the building line. iii) Open hard stand carspaces may be provided forward of the building line, but must be located adjacent to a side boundary, and generally not be greater than single car width. iv) Existing building fabric, including verandahs and balconies, must not be altered to allow for the provision of a carparking structure or an open stand carspace. v) Open hard stand carspaces must not dominate the setting of the building in terms of loss of planting, fencing or retaining walls. vi) Carparking structures are to be unobtrusive and must be of materials, form and details which harmonise with and do not obscure views of the building. They must not be made larger by the provision of a bulky pitched roof. vii) Existing driveways constructed of two separate wheel strips contribute to the character of the streetscape and must be retained where possible. viii) Large areas of concrete should be avoided and alternative materials such as pavers, gravel or permeable paving must be considered. ix) Buildings housing original stables, coach houses and interwar motor garages should be retained and conserved wherever possible.

Existing 90’s era garage to be demolished and replaced. The proposed garage is to be constructed using traditional finishes and will be more indicative of the early 20th century architecture exhibited by the principle dwelling. Overall, the dwelling will retain its primary street presentation and notable aesthetic merits and presentation along its

primary elevation.

 

The first floor addition is considered to be a skill full design that harmonises and ties in the original dwelling with the new development. In general it is the opinion of the Assessing Officer that the proposed addition to the garage requires some intervention with original building fabric and that the subject application successfully achieves this.

Yes

2.10 Fences

 

(vi) Retain, repair or reconstruct original fences and retaining walls where possible. (vii) Where an original fence has been lost, new fencing should try to match the original style.

No fencing proposed

N/A

2.11 Gardens, Garden Elements and Swimming Pools

 

(i) Significant trees and landscape elements such as pathways, garden beds and structures must be retained. (ii) Large areas of hard paving are to be minimised. (iii) Garden and ancillary structures must be appropriate to primary buildings in terms of scale, style and materials. (iv) Swimming pools must be located at the rear of the property and where possible should retain important trees and areas of soft landscaping. Swimming pools must not result in significant changes to ground levels on the site.

Compliance demonstrate

Yes

3 Landscape Elements

 

(i) Significant sandstone and brick retaining walls must not be removed or replaced. (ii) Significant sandstone and brick retaining walls or natural rock faces must not be modified to accommodate vehicular access. (iii) New surface mounting of infrastructure including water and gas supply pipes, storm water and sewerage pipes, service conduits and other fixings on retaining walls must be minimised. (iv) Maintenance and repairs by Council must use the same materials and techniques as the original construction, and should be carried out by experienced tradespeople. (v) Any reconstruction by Council works are to match the existing retaining wall in terms of block size, texture, bond pattern, alignment of blocks, mortar joint colour and capping detail. (vi) Replacement by Council of associated elements such as handrails should preferably be carried out to match existing materials and details. (vii) Cyclical maintenance programs (including inspections) should be established by Council to ensure that significant and contributory landscape elements are conserved. (viii) New plantings by Council associated with retaining walls and associated landscape elements should be consistent with Council’s Street Tree Masterplan and of a type that will not cause physical damage by excessive root growth etc. (ix) Retaining walls and natural rock faces must not be modified by adjacent property owners, including rendering and painting or replacement of handrails. (x) Other landscape elements which are not heritage listed should be individually assessed for their contributory value if threatened.

The existing site currently contains large expanses of paving in the rear yard, which will be removed under the subject application. This is considered a good outcome and satisfies the provisions relating to providing high quality POS. Beyond the paving, there are no significant landscape elements heritage or otherwise that will be adversely impacted.

Yes

4.9 North Randwick Heritage Conservation Area

 

4.9.4 Guidelines for change

 

Alterations & Additions

Part of the heritage significance of the area is its predominantly single storey scale. Single storey rear additions are therefore preferred so as not to compromise this aspect of significance. The dwellings are generally modest workers cottages on small blocks, and in order to increase the size of the dwelling, may be necessary to provide some upper level floor space. The bulk and prominence of any upper level addition should be minimised however. Any upper level addition should be set well to the rear to minimise streetscape visibility and retain the integrity of the original roof. Additions should utilise attic roof forms located to the rear of the main ridgeline Additions set back from the existing ridgeline retain the form and detail of the existing residences. Use of simple roof forms and subtle detailing further enhances the relationship of new and existing works. Additions to the rear of residences on corner sites should provide greater emphasis to the secondary street frontage.

 

 

Outbuildings to the Rear

The scale and bulk of outbuildings to the rear should not dominate the main building on the site. Outbuildings should be of a 1 ½ storey scale with upper floor accommodation within available attic space. The maximum wall height of outbuildings is to be 3.5m and roof pitch is to be consistent with that of the main building on the site.

 

Carparking

Most of the properties within the conservation area have rear lane access allowing for carparking at the rear of the site. Where rear lane access is available, carparking to the front or side of the property will not be supported.

The existing dwelling contains a first floor addition at the rear which is currently partially developed with a high pitched roof. The existing roof form is an important heritage feature, however the upper portions of the roof are currently under-utilised. The proposed development makes use of this space by proposing a similar pitched but marginally lower roof form at the rear, including an attic level studio. The proposed development does not disrupt the principle ridge line and nor does it detract from the visual importance of the façade when viewed from the north. Overall the the proposal has been designed to retain important features such as the general external

form, massing and character of the house, the internal layout at the front of the dwelling,

fireplaces, timber flooring and patterned ceilings and can be considered to satisfy the relevant objectives in this regard.

 

The proposed secondary dwelling does not increase the bulk and scale of the existing rear garage beyond an acceptable extent. The majority of the addition will be located within the rear yard and not seen from within the public forum. The overall height and scale of the existing garage will be retained when viewed from Darley Lane.

Despite the conversion of the rear garage for us as a secondary dwelling, the property will retain the required off-street parking rates for the dwelling. 

Yes

 

3.2     Section C1: Low Density Residential

 

DCP Clause

Controls

Proposal

Compliance

 

Classification

Zoning = R2

 

2

Site planning

 

 

2.3

Site coverage

 

601 sqm or above = 45%

Site = 910sqm

Proposed

= 323.14sqm

=35.5%

Yes

2.4

Landscaping and permeable surfaces

 

i)  601 sqm or above = 35%

i)  Deep soil minimum width 900mm.

ii) Maximise permeable surfaces to front

iii) Retain existing or replace mature native trees

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

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

Site = 910sqm

Proposed

= 340sqm

= 37%

Yes

2.5

Private open space (POS)

 

Dwelling & Semi-Detached POS

 

 

 

601 sqm or above = 8m x 8m

Site = 910sqm

Proposed = 176sqm

Yes

3.2

Building height

 

 

 

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

ii)       Sloping sites = 8m

iii)      Merit assessment if exceeded

Proposed = 6.3m

Yes

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

As per existing

N/A

3.3.2

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.

West = 1.1m

 

East = 900mm

No, see discussion in key issues. 

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

West = 14m

 

East = 14.4m

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 proposed development has been designed to support the scale and context of the surrounding site. It does not adversely affect the neighbouring properties.

Yes

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.

Existing development upon the site is elongated north-south, with the southern elevation maximising glazing to counter the lack of windows on side elevations. Due to heritage constraints the development is limited in its capacity to install new north facing windows. The proposed development is considered to result in an acceptable level of solar access to principle living areas.

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 supporting shadow diagrams illustrate that the neighbouring properties will receive adequate sunlight thought-out the day and that no adjoining living rooms or neighbouring POS will receive less than 3 hours of continuous solar access throughout the day.

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

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

ii) 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

Compliance demonstrated

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)

There are no windows that directly face neighbouring properties

Yes

 

Balcony

 

 

 

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

iii) 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)

iv)      Supplementary privacy devices:  Screen planting and planter boxes (Not sole privacy protection measure)

v) For sloping sites, step down any ground floor terraces and avoid large areas of elevated outdoor recreation space.

A condition will be included requiring the installation of a privacy screen to the western end of the balustrade. Beyond this, the balcony is considered to be substantially setback from the neighbouring properties on all other sides to result in any significant, adverse overlooking impacts.

Yes

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.

 

 

7.4

Outbuildings

 

i)       Locate behind the front building line.

ii)       Locate to optimise backyard space and not over required permeable areas.

iii)      Except for laneway development, only single storey (3.6m max. height and 2.4m max. wall height)

iv)      Nil side and rear setbacks where:

-        finished external walls (not requiring maintenance;

-        no openings facing neighbours lots and

-        maintain adequate solar access to the neighbours dwelling

v)      First floor addition to existing may be considered subject to:

-        Containing it within the roof form (attic)

-        Articulating the facades;

-        Using screen planting to visually soften the outbuilding;

-        Not being obtrusive when viewed from the adjoining properties;

-        Maintaining adequate solar access to the adjoining dwellings; and

-        Maintaining adequate privacy to the adjoining dwellings.

vi)      Must not be used as a separate business premises.

Compliance demonstrated

Yes

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.

Refer to conditions of consent

Yes

8

Area Specific Controls

8.1

Development in Laneways

 

i)       Max. 6m height. Max. 4.5m external wall height. Mass and scale to be secondary to primary dwelling and upper level contained within roof form (attic storey).

ii)       1 operable window to laneway elevation (casual surveillance)

iii)      Aligns with consistent laneway setback pattern (if no consistent setback then 1m rear setback). (Refer to Sub-Section 6 for controls relating to setback to garage entry.)

iv)      Nil side setback allowed subject to:

-        adjoining building similarly constructed

-        no unreasonable visual, privacy and overshadowing impacts

v)      Screen or match exposed blank walls on adjoining properties (ie on common boundary).

The proposed development will have a negligible impact upon Darley Lane and will not adversely impact Laneway character 

Yes

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

RDAP Dev Consent Conditions (dwellings dual occ) - DA/532/2018 - 127 Darley Road, Randwick

 

 

 

 


RDAP Dev Consent Conditions (dwellings dual occ) - DA/532/2018 - 127 Darley Road, Randwick

Attachment 1

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Randwick Local Planning Panel    13 June 2019

 

 

Development Application Report No. D27/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                  1 Hill Street, Coogee (DA/31/2018)

 

Folder No:                     DA/31/2018

Author:                          Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

 

Proposal:                      Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including the                                 construction of new first floor addition, rear double garage, boundary                        fence and conversion of the existing studio as a secondary dwelling.

 Ward:                           East Ward

Applicant:                     Nagy Khoury Design Pty Ltd

Owner:                          B & V Johnson

Cost of works:              $481 096

Reason for referral:      The existing dwelling is a heritage item

Recommendation

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. 31/2018 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling at 1 Hill Street Coogee subject to the development consent conditions attached to this report. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

1.       Executive summary

 

The application is referred to the Randwick Local Planning Panel (RLPP) as the development involves demolition and works to a heritage item.

 

The proposal seeks development consent for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling including the fomalisation of an existing self contained studio in the dwelling as a secondary dwelling. The construction of a new double garage, alterations to the existing fencing and associated works.

 

The key issues associated with the proposal relate to the impact that the development will have upon the significance of the dwelling as a heritage item.

 

The proposal is recommended for approval subject to non-standard conditions that relate to heritage conservation.

 

2.       Site Description and Locality

 

The site is on the corner of Hill and Arcadia Streets and has a frontage of 10.06m, depth of 40.845m and area of 411m². The locality is residential in nature and contains a mixture of semi detached and free standing dwellings and multi unit housing development. As noted above the property is a heritage item.

 

3.       Relevant history

 

The existing building was converted from a single dwelling into two dwellings under Building Application, BA/418/1964. The building as existing is consistent with that approval.

 

A previous development application, DA/804/2017, was withdrawn by the applicant as insufficient information was provided with that application and the applicant wished to reassess the proposed scope of works and re lodge the application at a later stage.

 

4.       Proposal

 

The application details the demolition of the existing studio and garage and alterations and additions to the existing dwelling including a new first floor and construction of a new double garage with access from Arcadia Street, alterations to the existing fencing and associated site works. The existing building contains a primary and self contained studio, this application seeks to formalise the use of that studio as a secondary dwelling. The property is a Heritage Item.

 

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:

 

Issue

Comment

3-5 Hill Street Coogee

 

-There are concerns in relation to     drainage from the new garden beds.

 

 

 

 

Conditions of consent are included with respect to details of drainage being submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

 

 

6.       Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

6.1.    SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

The SEPP was introduced on 31 July 2009 to increase the supply and diversity of affordable rental and social housing in NSW. The SEPP was amended on 20 May 2011 to require new in-fill development; low rise development; boarding houses, and Housing NSW proposals to be subject to a local character test to ensure that developments are consistent with the design of the local area and the affordable housing component being provided as a percentage of the total floor space. The amendment does not change provisions for other types of accommodation such as granny flats, group homes and supportive accommodation.

 

This application has been submitted seeking consent under Division 2 of the SEPP: Affordable housing 2009 for Secondary dwellings and its provisions will not be affected by the abovementioned review. Under Division 2 the following clauses are relevant:

 

Clause 19 Definition

The proposed development falls within the scope of the definition of a secondary dwelling in that it entails development for the purposes of a secondary dwelling by use of a structure which is not an individual lot in a strata plan or community title scheme.

 

Clause 20 Land to which this division applies

This subject site is located on Zone R2 Low Density Residential identified under the SEPP Affordable Rental Housing 2009 and the development for the purposes of a secondary dwelling is permissible on the land.

 

Clause 21 Development to which Division applies

The proposed development for a secondary dwelling may be carried out with consent under this SEPP subject to Clause 22 below.

 

Clause 22   Development may be carried out with consent

Under Subclause 3(a) & (b) the following criteria apply:

 

(a)        the total floor area of the principal dwelling and the secondary dwelling must be no more than the maximum floor area allowed for a dwelling house on the land under another environmental planning instrument, and

 

(b)        the total floor area of the secondary dwelling is no more than 60 square metres or, if a greater floor area is permitted in respect of a secondary dwelling on the land under another environmental planning instrument, that greater floor area.

 

The proposal complies with the LEP for dwelling houses with a floor space ratio of 0.49:1. The proposed floor area of the secondary dwelling does not exceed the 60m² allowable in the SEPP for Affordable Housing, being 39m².

 

Clause 23   Complying development

The proposed development is not complying development as defined under the SEPP as it forms part of the proposed development of the existing structures which are detailed in a Development Application.

 

Clause 24   No subdivision

The proposed development does not result in any subdivision of the lot on which development for the purposes of the secondary dwelling has been carried out under this Division.

 

6.2.    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

The site is zoned R3 Medium Density 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 will provide for the housing needs of the community whilst enhancing the aesthetic character and protecting the amenity of the local residents.

 

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

 

Clause

Development Standard

Proposal

Compliance

(Yes/No)

Cl 4.4: Floor space ratio (max)

0.75:1

0.49:1

Yes

Cl 4.3: Building height (max)

9.5m

8.3m

Yes

 

6.2.1.      Clause 5.10 - Heritage conservation

The property is a heritage item listed in Schedule 5 of the RLEP. Therefore as required by Clause 5.10 of the RLEP consideration must be given to the impact that the proposal will have upon the significance of the item.

 

The proposal has been referred to Council’s Consultant Heritage Planner for consideration and comment. Issues were raised by the Heritage Planner which were conveyed to the applicant. Amended plans and details were received which addressed those concerns and the advice from the Heritage Planner was that subject to recommended conditions there were no objections to the proposal on heritage grounds. The two final recommended conditions relate to a detailed photographic archival recording and schedule of conservation works.

 

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

See discussion in sections in key issues.

 

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

Nil.

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

The proposal generally satisfies the objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. See table in Appendix 2 and the discussion in key issues below

 

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

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

 

The 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.

 

Conclusion

 

That the application to carryout alterations and additions to the dwelling 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 proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the R3 zone in that the proposal will continue to provide for housing needs of the community with a medium density residential environment and will protect the amenity of residents.

 

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

 

 

Appendix 1: Referrals

 

1.    Internal referral comments:

 

1.1.    Heritage planner

 

The application has been referred to Council’s Consultant Heritage Planner for consideration and comment. The following comments have been received.

 

 

 

 

 

The plans as submitted have been amended to address the concerns as raised by Council’s Consultant Heritage Planner and are the plans referenced in condition 1. The final comments from Council’s Consultant Heritage Planner are addressed below.

 

The design of the first floor addition has been readdressed with further setbacks from the main front ridge and the side corner of the building, which now have a lesser impact on the overall prominent views and presentation of the heritage item. This is only acceptable due to the adjoining flat building’s height at that point as it will be as a backdrop to the new first floor level addition. It would probably be better to have the ceiling height of the first floor at the minimum 2.7m but I can see that would not make any difference to the overall ridge height due to the eave/gutter height of the bathroom and rear sections of the first floor addition. All gutter levels are the same and making changes to that for little benefit would create a more complicated presentation. Therefore, I am happy with the additional setbacks provided in the amended drawing dated June 2018.

 

An assessment of the structural condition of the single garage has been provided, which outlines the inadequacy of the structural integrity of the timber framed structure. Although an additional heritage assessment for the timber framed garage has not been provided, I can conclude that the subject garage structure is from the original Federation period of the site and contributes to its layered historical development. Notwithstanding, the replacement of the fabric that will be required for the stabilization of the existing timber frame and cladding elements will produce a replica of the existing and in my opinion is not a good heritage outcome. Based on the structural issues and limited visibility of the existing structure as a contribution to the main house its replacement is considered an acceptable compromise. A detailed archival recording including measured drawings of the existing timber garage is recommended as a Condition of any future consent for the subject DA/31/2018.

 

An existing floor plan (Drawing No. 02/09 – G) for the ground floor has been provided and comparison with the proposed ground floor drawing (03/09 – G) defines the areas that will be affected by the proposed new layout. A separate demolition plan indicating ‘where internal c1915 detailing/items are affected and where they are retained’ is not considered necessary as it is assumed that all areas that have not been shown as being modified will remain as is including the original cornices, timber joinery and ceilings wherever exist in the original sections of the dwelling.

 

A methodology for undertaking the works has not been provided, and a Condition of consent has been recommended in this regard.

 

Conclusion and Recommendations:

Based on the amended documentation dated June 2018, the proposed development under DA/31/2018 is supported (in its amended form) in relation to the heritage matters subject to the satisfaction of the recommended Conditions. The following Conditions have been recommended for inclusion in any future Consent for the subject DA/31/2018:

 

A detailed photographic archival recording of the property including the measured drawings of the existing timber garage shall be prepared and submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.  This recording shall be in accordance with the NSW Heritage Office 2006 Guidelines for Photographic Recording of Heritage Items using Film or Digital Capture.  Two copies of the endorsed archival recording shall be presented to Council, one of which shall be placed in the Local History Collection of Randwick City Library. 

 

A schedule of Conservation Works for the existing buildings shall be prepared in accordance with the principles embodied in the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter and the methodology outlined in J.S. Kerr’s The Conservation Plan.  This Plan shall be prepared by an architect suitably qualified and experienced in heritage conservation, and shall be to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

Further detail is to be submitted in relation to the alterations to north (Arcadia Street) boundary wall, in particular on the design and functioning of the ‘metal sliding gate’ in a larger scale (1/50 or 1/20) prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

1.2.    Development Engineer

 

An application has been received for alterations and additions at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Architectural Plans by Nagy Khoury Design P/L and dated Jan 2018;

·      Statement of Environmental Effects by Nagy Khoury Design P/L;

·      Detail & Level Survey by W Buxton P/L dated 7.12.2017.

 

Council Footpath Comments

The submitted plans show a flat/level driveway entrance across the Council footpath (RL 24.45). This is not supported by Development Engineering as it would require lowering the Council footpath at the eastern edge of the driveway opening by approximately 350mm – 400mm.

 

Development Engineering has issued alignment levels for the driveway entrance which it considers satisfactory and which will have to be shown on the plans submitted for the Construction Certificate

 


 

Tree Management Comments

The inspection of 26 October 2018 confirmed that while the various juvenile trees on both the Hill Street (1 tree) and Arcadia Street (4 trees+) frontages should not be directly affected given an absence of any external works in these same areas, minimal protection measures and a bond still need to be imposed so as to prevent secondary impacts.

 

The two mature, 8m tall Golden Cypress that are located wholly on the adjoining site at 3-5 Hill Street, close to the common boundary, adjacent the existing subject dwelling, will not be affected given an absence of any works in this area of the site, so conditions are not needed, with the same also applying to the larger, Broad Leafed Paperbark, further to the east, also within no.3-5, and adjacent the southeast corner of the house at no.1, as demolition of the existing ground floor deck and works for the first floor as shown will have no effect on this tree, with .

 

Whilst there is no established vegetation within the rear setback of the subject site at all, there are several trees on neighbouring sites around the perimeter, which provide valuable screening, privacy and amenity for all parties.

 

They comprise firstly, to the east, wholly in the front setback of 11 Arcadia Street, a mature, 6m tall Bottlebrush, on higher ground, against the common boundary, whose western aspect overhangs partially into the subject site, so conditions allow minimal clearance pruning, and as there is already an existing concrete crossing and internal driveway, no major impact is expected, particularly given the difference in ground levels, with these works to simply involve replacing the same structure, in the same location, in the same material.

 

The other Bottlebrush as well as the larger Gum to its east will not be affected.

 

To the south, beyond the southeast site corner, wholly on the adjoining private property at 3-5 Hill Street, there is from east to west, a semi-mature, 10m tall Corymbia maculata (Spotted Gum), which was measured to be about 1300mm from the fence line, then a similarly sized Melaleuca quinquinervia (Broad Leafed Paperbark) at an offset of 1500mm, with the smaller, 6m tall Melaleuca stypheloides (Prickly Paperbark) being 900mm away.

 

The existing free standing shed/garage is 1500mm from the rear boundary, and is shown as being demolished and replaced with a new masonry garage, right up onto the southern boundary, closer to the trees, encroaching their SRZ’s.

 

However, existing site conditions; being the differences in ground level between the two sites (where the trees are is lower), existing structures such as walls/terraces within the subject as well as the existing koppers log wall within no.3-5, parallel with the common boundary, to have all modified normal, radial root growth, and importantly, all works will also be performed on the less critical, compression side of their root plates.

 

On this basis, works could proceed as shown, providing that the site specific protection conditions included in this report are adhered to, and includes the requirement for Council’s officer to attend the site following demolition, but prior to constructing the southern wall of the new garage, to ensure the proper treatment of any roots encountered (if any), and may involve a slight re-design/relocation of the whole structure in order to preserve them.

 

Conditions have been provided for inclusion with any development consent issued.

 

Appendix 2: DCP Compliance Table

 

Section C1: Low Density Residential

 

DCP Clause

Controls

Proposal

Compliance

 

Classification

Zoning = R3

 

2

Site planning

 

 

2.3

Site coverage

 

301 to 450 sqm = 55%

 

Site = 411m²

Proposed = 47%

Yes

2.4

Landscaping and permeable surfaces

 

i)      301 to 450 sqm = 25%

ii)     Deep soil minimum width 900mm.

iii)    Maximise permeable surfaces to front

iv)    Retain existing or replace mature native trees

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

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

Site = 411m²

Proposed =28%

Yes

2.5

Private open space (POS)