BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Randwick Local Planning Panel

Meeting

 

 

 

Thursday 11 July 2019      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Randwick City Council		1300 722 542
30 Frances Street			council@randwick.nsw.gov.au
Randwick NSW 2031			www.randwick.nsw.gov.au
 



Randwick Local Planning Panel            11 July 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, 11 July 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

D31/19         15 Dutruc Street, Randwick (DA/477/2018)................................................................... 1

D32/19         1B Yarra Road, Phillip Bay (DA/788/2018).................................................................. 55

D33/19         25 Wansey Road Randwick (DA/108/2019)................................................................. 73

D34/19         7 Seaside Parade, South Coogee (DA/279/2019)...................................................... 109

D35/19         7 Seaside Parade, South Coogee (DA/502/2018/B)................................................... 151

D36/19         200 Oberon Street, Coogee (DA/407/2018)............................................................... 165

Miscellaneous Reports

M2/19          Planning Proposal: 18-26 Ascot St Kensington......................................................... 243     

 

 

 

 

Roman Wereszczynski

ACTING Director City Planning


Randwick Local Planning Panel            11 July 2019

 

 

Development Application Report No. D31/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      15 Dutruc Street, Randwick (DA/477/2018)

 

Folder No:                      DA/477/2018

Author:                          Barker Ryan Stewart, Pty Ltd     

 

 

Proposal:                       Alterations to existing dwelling including two storey addition to rear,                                       basement level car parking, laundry, storage and paint studio,                                       alterations to existing pool, landscaping and associated works (Heritage                                       Item).

Ward:                             North Ward

Applicant:                      Dr J C L Birch

Owner:                           Dr T M Fountaine

Cost of works:                1,287,579.00

Reason for referral:        Development involving the demolition of 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. 477/2018 for Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling including a basement floor level, at No. 15 Dutruc Street, Randwick 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 of part of a heritage item.

 

The proposal seeks development consent for alterations and additions to the rear of the existing dwelling house, as well as the construction of a basement floor level. The application includes the demolition of the existing garage.

 

The key issues associated with the proposal relate to heritage and non-compliances with the DCP.

 

Heritage

The subject site is a nominated local heritage item pursuant to the Randwick LEP 2012. The subject application proposes a significant addition to the rear of the existing dwelling and the demolition of the existing garage.

 

Council’s Heritage Planner has reviewed the application and provides the following comments in summary as it relates to the proposed rear addition,

 

The proposed addition will be wider than the existing addition, extending around 3m beyond the existing southern side wall of the front section of the dwelling.  The addition however is set well to the rear and will not be prominent in the streetscape of Dutruc Street and will not impact on the main roof form.  The proposed addition will be lower than the existing rear wing, having a ridge height below the eave height of the front section of the dwelling.  The proposed rear addition adopts a pavilion-type form, separated from the original building by a glazed link.  The scale of the proposed addition will remain secondary to the original building and will not visually dominate, compete with or conceal the original form and massing of the existing buildings.  The contemporary detailing of the proposed addition will distinguish it from the original building. 

 

The proposal materials and finishes, including white rendered walls, colorbond roofing and black anodized aluminum windows, will be compatible with materials and finishes of the existing dwelling. 

 

Further detailed comments are provided below by Council’s Heritage Planner.

 

Non-Compliances with DCP

A detailed assessment of the proposed works against the applicable provisions of the DCP is included at Appendix 2. This assessment identifies non-compliances as they relate to wall height, excavation and setbacks and these variations are assessed in the key issues section of this report (see Section 8.1).

 

As part of this assessment, and in response to the variation to the side setback control of the DCP, an amendment is proposed, via condition, to the basement and ground floor level terrace to minimize the impact on the adjoining property at the southern side. Conditions 2.a. and 2.b. propose an increase to the setback to the southern side boundary to 1.0m.

 

While these DCP non-compliances represent small numerical variations to these controls the application is supported, subject to a minor amendment, as the development demonstrates consistency with the objectives of these controls.

 

The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.       Site Description and Locality

 

The subject site is described as Lot 7 DP 245089 and known as 15 Dutruc Street, Randwick. The site is located on the eastern side of Dutruc Street with a total area of 625.8m². The site has a frontage to Dutruc Street of 15.215m and a depth of 41.05m, and is a rectangular shaped allotment.

 

The site supports large canopy tree plantings adjacent to the property boundaries. The site has a fall from the street to the rear with an average change of 3.2m in topography across the depth of the site.

 

The site currently supports a two storey painted brick and tile dwelling and attached single storey garage. The existing structures are identified as a late Victorian style dwelling and is listed as a local heritage item under the Randwick LEP 2012. The site is located in the St Marks Heritage Conservation Area. There is an in-ground swimming pool located in the south eastern corner of the site. Private open space areas are currently directed to the east and include the rear yard area as well as a ground floor level terrace.

 

Photographs 1 - 4 indicate the existing improvements on site.

 

IMG_9565   IMG_9564 

Photograph 1 – Existing Dwelling as viewed from Dutruc Street

 

IMG_9568

Photograph 2 – Rear view of Existing Dwelling

 

IMG_9581

Photograph 3 – Rear yard area and existing swimming pool

 

IMG_9574

Photograph 4 – Southern side setback and trees proposed to be removed

 

Photograph 5 – Existing single storey garage proposed to be demolished

 

The site is surrounded by other residential dwellings on the eastern side of Dutruc Street, and the opposite side of Dutruc Street supports medium density residential unit developments.

 

3.       Relevant history

 

There are no matters relating to this property. The history of the property is detailed in the Heritage Planners comments included in Appendix 1.

 

4.       Proposal

 

The application seeks approval for alterations and additions to the rear of the existing dwelling house, including the construction of a basement floor level, two storey addition to the rear, civil works, landscaping and resurfacing of the existing swimming pool.

 

The application includes the demolition of the existing garage.

 

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:

 

·      60 St Marks Road, Randwick

Issue

Comment

Loss of privacy to internal living areas and rear backyard.

No. 60 St Marks Road is located to the east of the subject site and the proposed works are provided with 16m separation to the rear boundary. No. 60 does not share a common boundary with the subject site.

 

This property is shown in photograph 3 above, taken from the ground floor level of the subject site.

 

The subject works do not propose any modification to the landscape plantings established on site on the eastern and south eastern corner of the site. The canopy trees to be removed are located in the side boundary to the south of the site.

 

Any opportunity for overlooking into the property would come from the first floor level and these are low use rooms. The existing screening adjacent to the common boundaries enhances the privacy between these two properties, and the topography and distance of separation additionally contribute to the protection of privacy to this property.

Loss of winter sunlight to our living areas and backyard area, no shadow diagrams submitted to assess the impact to No. 60 St Marks Road.

Upon review of the shadow diagrams submitted, the proposed additions will not impact on the adjoining property at No. 60 St Marks Road until the late afternoon period during the winter solstice.

 

While the shadow diagrams haven’t shown the location of No. 60 St Marks Road, the overshadowing assessment of the potential impact on No. 60 St Marks Road has been undertaken by the assessment officer using information extrapolated from the survey, aerial imagery and the shadow diagrams provided.

 

Shadow cast will be in the afternoon period, during winter, and will impact a portion of the rear open space area. As a result of the orientation of the lot, the impact caused by the proposed additions will occur only during this period and will not impact on No. 60 St Marks Road for a period greater than 2 hours.

 

This potential impact on No. 60 St Marks of up to 2 hours is consistent with the level of impact that the DCP allows and does not therefore warrant refusal of the application.

Stormwater run-off to our property and overflow arrangements from the rainwater tank. Where is the pool overflow discharged?

Overflow from the proposed rainwater tank is to be directed to Dutruc Street and no overflow is proposed to be directed to the rear.

 

The Landscape Plan submitted in support of the application includes additional subsoil improvements in the rear yard area with the replacement of the lawn and planting in the rear garden beds which will assist with overland flow absorption.

 

There are no changes to the existing pool overflow discharge arrangements.

Tree removal and the loss of screening provided to No. 60 St Marks Road.

Council’s Landscape Officer has reviewed the application and provides comments in Appendix 1 to this report. The tree removal as proposed is supported in these comments.

 

Smaller tree specimens are proposed as replacement tree plantings that will attain a maximum height between 4 – 8m along the southern boundary and will assist with the screening replenishment.

 

Given the orientation and separation that is naturally afforded between the subject site and No. 60 St Marks Road, the proposed screen planting will support the protection of privacy of No. 60 St Marks Road.

The proposed rear additions offer no heritage value.

The additions to the existing dwelling have been assessed by Council’s Heritage Planner and these are included in comments provided below.

 

The Heritage Planner supports the proposed works, subject to condition, and the practice of proposing additions that are not a direct replication of the original heritage style is consistent with Part B2 of the Randwick DCP.

There are inconsistencies in the SEE relating to the scale of the proposal. FSR, site cover and landscaping are misrepresented and the rear setback of 16m appears inaccurate.

The Applicant submitted in response to the objection the following detail,

 

Standard

Proposed

FSR

0.53:1

Site Coverage

174m²

Deep Soil

230m²

 

The setback indicated on the plans is consistent with the survey plan submitted.

 

The detail provided in the application is therefore considered to be reliable and in accordance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulations 2000, to enable assessment

The proposed works may affect the swimming pool in 60 St Marks Road and there is no geotechnical report submitted in support of this application.

The Applicant has submitted a Geotechnical Assessment and this has been included in the subject assessment.

 

6.       Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

6.1.    SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

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

 

6.2.    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 contained in the RLEP 2012 apply to the proposal:

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

0.75:1

(Clause 4.4(2A)(c) 0.6:1)

0.53:1

Yes

Height of Building (Maximum)

9.5m

9.5m

Yes

 

6.2.1.      Clause 5.10 - Heritage conservation

The subject site is nominated as a local heritage item in Schedule 5 of the Randwick LEP 2012. The provisions of Clause 5.10 are therefore applicable to the subject application and consent is required pursuant to this clause.

 

The Applicant has submitted a Heritage Impact Assessment Report prepared by John Oultram Heritage & Design dated August 2018 and this report addresses the matters identified in items 4 and 5 of Clause 5.10 and provides the following comments;

 

There are many heritage items in the immediate vicinity and in the surrounding streets.

 

Despite this clustering of heritage items, it is considered that the proposed works will not have any major impact on the significance or setting of the heritage items in the vicinity.

 

The works are confined to the rear of the current building and the new rear addition will not be readily visible due to the large setback from the street. Only a small portion of the new work will be visible when viewed from the street along the southern boundary and this is in a traditional skillion form.

 

The new basement parking, garage doors and driveway will be visible from the street but replaces the existing garage and side driveway. Removal of the unsympathetic modern addition will have a positive impact on the streetscape.

 

No major trees or screen vegetation is proposed for removal. This is relevant for the heritage items at the rear of the site whose privacy will continue to be protected by the established screen plants.

 

The house is one of a pair with 11A Dutruc Street and the removal of the garage and the verandah infill will reinforce the pairing. The houses have lost their handed relationship at the rear though the works will have a similar alignment and roof form to the handed house.

 

While the application does propose tree removal in the southern side boundary, this is proposed to be replaced with screen planting to protect the amenity of surrounding properties.

 

The Heritage Impact Statement is considered to address the matters in Clause 5.10 of the Randwick LEP and the subject works are therefore supported. Further detailed comments are provided below by Council’s Heritage Planner in Appendix 1.

 

There are no further provisions of the RLEP 2012 that are applicable to the subject application.

 

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 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 residential character in the locality.

 

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

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

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

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

 

The issues raised in the submission 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

The primary issue for the subject application relate to the heritage value of the site and the potential impacts created by the proposed works. This has been addressed in earlier sections of this report as well as in detailed comments provided by Council’s Heritage Planner in Appendix 1.

 

Additional issues arise in non-compliances with the comprehensive DCP as addressed in detail in Appendix 2. Non-compliances arise against the provisions relating to wall height, setbacks and excavation. These are all largely related to the proposed basement carpark and result as a consequence of the topography of the site. The inclusion of the basement addition, which will accommodate a garage, is considered to be a positive outcome for the site and removes any impact on the street by proposed garaging.

 

The impacts that arise from the proposed excavation and reduced setbacks are managed in the circumstances of this application. Appendix 2 includes detailed discussion against the applicable objectives of these controls and the justification for the numerical variation to the controls are provided as follows;

 

Clause 3.2 – Building Height

The wall height control is intended to support the maximum building height control contained within the Randwick LEP 2012. The objective of this control is to ensure the scale and mass of development complement the desirable streetscape character and achieve a suitable urban design outcome.

 

The proposed variation to the building wall height control occurs at the rear of the proposed additions. The application seeks an 3.75% variation to the maximum 8m height control and is largely as a consequence of the topography of the site and the height of the existing dwelling. The location of the breach to the wall height will have no impact on the streetscape or the built character in this location given the generous setback to the street and the visibility of the proposed works.

 

The proposed additions are designed to match the heights of the existing floor levels that were more generous than envisaged by this DCP control. This is demonstrated by the variation to the wall height standard exhibited by the original component of the existing dwelling, and typical of the architectural style and form of the time.

 

It is therefore appropriate that the proposed additions are built to complement these existing scale relationships and the location of the proposed additions will result in a negligible impact on the streetscape character. The proposed variation can therefore be supported in the circumstances of this application.

 

Clause 3.3.2 - Side setbacks

The proposed additions will result in a variation to the side setback controls of this clause of the DCP. The setback to the northern side boundary continues the separation established by the existing dwelling and proposes a setback of 1.5m to the new works at each floor level. This is consistent with established building envelope of the existing dwelling and is complementary to the style and architectural form of the existing dwelling and is therefore supported.

 

The setback to the southern side boundary complies with the controls, with the exception of the basement floor level. The basement floor level is assessed against the setback controls as it sits approximately 1.5m above natural ground level. The basement proposes a nil setback to the side boundary.

 

The proposed variation to the basement floor level at the southern side boundary may result in impacts on the privacy and amenity of the adjoining property to the south. As such, it is recommended that the setback of the basement be increased to a 1.0m setback to the southern side boundary. This will allow for further separation at both the basement and ground floor level and will enable the retention of the existing fencing to this boundary. Conditions 2.a. and 2.b. provides for modifications to the plans to allow this additional separation as well as minimizing the impact of the ground floor terrace that sits at an elevated level to the adjoining property.

 

The amended basement floor level will not impact on the amenity or privacy of the adjoining property given the height of this structure and that it is proposed to be used for non-habitable purposes. The ground floor level, adopts an increased setback to 2.4m, and combined with the additional amendments proposed via conditions, this separation will maximise separation and solar amenity to this boundary.

 

The subject site, across the footprint of the dwelling, including the proposed additions, exhibits a fall of approximately 2.15m. The proposed additions maximise the use of this fall by including a basement floor level for garage accommodation. The proposed garage, as amended by condition, will result in a 1.0m setback at the southern boundary and will allow sufficient turning area for vehicles to exit the site in a forward direction.

 

At the southern elevation, the proposed basement wall will not protrude past the existing fence height, and proposes a planter at the ground floor level which will screen the proposed works. The building element of the proposed basement is unlikely to be visible to the adjoining property at No. 17 Dutruc Street.

 

The southern side boundary will not be visible to Dutruc Street as a consequence of the topography, whereby the site falls away from the street. The height of the basement roof/planter will sit at the same level as the street.

 

The variation to the side setbacks in these circumstances will not have any impact on the streetscape or amenity of the adjoining properties and will therefore achieve the objectives of this control despite the numerical non-compliance.

 

Clause 5.1 – Solar Access and Overshadowing

The existing development impacts on the POS areas of the adjoining property at No. 17 Dutruc in the afternoon period only. The proposed additions will increase the extent of this impact, however as it only occurs during the later afternoon period, the adjoining property will still achieve the requirements of this clause.

 

North facing windows will be impacted by the additions at variable intervals throughout the day. Photograph 4 indicates the northern elevation of the adjoining property at No. 17 Dutruc Street.

 

There are 3 ground floor, north facing windows that are impacted by the proposal. The windows at the first floor level will have a limited impact and can achieve the requirements of this clause.

 

At 8am, the most western ground floor window on the northern elevation will be cast in shadow at 8am and remain in shadow for the day during the winter solstice. The middle window is impacted at 12 noon and the final window is impacted at 4pm. These windows sit at an elevated height of RL74.13 where NGL is 71.91 adjacent to this boundary. There is existing canopy tree and screen planting within the southern boundary of the subject site that would contribute to shading of these windows in the present circumstances.

 

While the proposed additions will impact on the windows of the adjoining property at No 17 Dutruc Street during the winter solstice period, the proposed additions will enable No. 17 to retain a portion of windows within the northern elevation with a minimum of 3 hours access to sunlight when considered across the extent of the northern elevation. On merit, the assessment of the subject additions allows consideration of the following elements;

 

·      The proposed additions comply with the primary development standards as they apply to the site;

·      The subdivision pattern of this location results in the allotments having an east/west orientation that limits the opportunity for solar amenity, and primary living and POS areas orientated towards the rear boundary;

·      The topography of the site;

·      The location of existing vegetation on site; and

·      The sill height of the windows affected are elevated from the natural ground level.

 

It is therefore considered that on balance, despite the impact of the proposed development, the constraints on the land and the circumstances of the existing shadow, the proposed dwelling additions can be supported.

 

One submission was received in objection to this application and the matters raised in this submission have been addressed in further detail in Section 5.

 

The application performs against the objectives of the zone, complies with the primary development standards for the site, and meets the objectives of the DCP. The proposal will not impact on the amenity of adjoining properties and the proposed additions will have a minimal visibility in the streetscape.

 

9.       Conclusion

 

That the application for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling, including a basement floor level, be approved (subject to conditions) for the following reasons:

 

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

 

·      The 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

 

1.    Internal referral comments:

 

The following comments have been provided by the technical staff of Randwick Council and are subject to the conditions included;

 

1.1.  Heritage planner

 

The Site

The site is occupied by a two storey Victorian style dwelling, part of a pair comprising nos.11A and 15 Dutruc Street, listed as a heritage item under Randwick LEP 2012.  The property is also within the St Mark’s heritage conservation area.  The surrounding area comprises a mixture of Victorian villas and post war residential flat buildings.  Immediately to the south are several 1970s dwelling houses.  To the north of the site, at no.9S Dutruc Street is a heritage listed substation.  To the south of the site, the Victorian villa at no.21 Dutruc Street is a heritage listed Victorian Italianate villa.  To the rear of the site (east) is a substantial group of heritage listed Italianate houses comprising nos.48, 50, 52 – 56, 60, 62, 64 and 66 St Marks Road.  The Randwick Heritage Study Inventory Sheet for the pair identifies the significance of each as “one of a good matching pair of Victorian houses, and one of the better examples surviving on the former St. Marks Glebe estate.”  The Inventory Sheet describes no.15 as “one of a matching pair, each a mirror reverse of the other.  grand two storey Victorian houses, both recently restored.  Balconies and verandahs across whole front extending around side recess.  Main roof hipped with bullnosed balcony.  Outstanding features are original main doors with sidelights and skylights.  Cast iron verandah posts with extensive lacework on balcony and verandah.  Reconstruction authentic except for concrete roof tiles and balustrade rail to No. 15.  No. 15 also has balcony without lace fringes and garage addition at side.  Retains original tiles to verandah and path, which No. 13 has lost.  No. 13 also has security grilles, and lattice work to balcony.  These are not unsympathetic.  Both retain very good palisade fences and decorative mouldings. Probably about 1880.”

 

Proposal

The application proposes alterations and additions to the dwelling comprising demolition of the existing two storey rear wing and construction a rear addition comprising two storeys over basement garage.  At basement level, it is proposed to provide parking for 2 cars, laundry/mud room, paint studio, a store/heating and ac pool equipment area.  An existing garage to the side of the dwelling is to be removed.  At ground floor level, it is proposed to provide a pantry, kitchen, casual dining area, playroom area and rear terrace.  At first floor level, it is proposed to provide three bedrooms, a study and two bathrooms.  An existing partial enclosure of the side balcony is to be removed.  The existing rear bedroom is to be partitioned to provide an ensuite bathroom and walk-in robe.  Modifications are proposed to the existing stair to provide access to the rear addition, as well as changes to openings between spaces.  An existing swimming pool in the rear garden is to be retained. 

 

The application has been accompanied by a Heritage Impact Statement prepared by John Oultram.  The HIS notes that the villas at nos.13 (11A) and 15 Dutruc Street were constructed in 1886 and converted into three self-contained flats by 1928.  While the HIS suggests that no.11 Dutruc Street, constructed at the same time as nos.11A and 15, was demolished, it appears that it may survive behind a 1920s façade.  The site included a coach house and stables at the rear.  In relation to the exterior of the building the HIS notes that the house retains its original external form and much intact original detailing.  In relation to the interior of the building the HIS notes that the floor plan and the principal spaces of the original villa survive substantially intact, but that conversion into self-contained flats and subsequent conversion back into a single residence means that many of the internal spaces have been altered and original decorative features removed, particularly to the rear.  The HIS observes that the original spaces are no longer legible, and that the kitchen, laundry and bathrooms are all modern. 

 

In relation to demolition and excavation, the HIS notes that the proposed demolition can be justified on the grounds that the rear of the building and many of the internal spaces have been heavily altered over time, while the main portion of the house with its Italianate façade, filigree verandah, substantially intact principal rooms, fireplaces and the internal decorative features will be conserved and maintained.  In relation to alterations at ground floor and first floor level, the HIS makes recommendations in relation to the enlarged opening between the hallway and formal dining room, and in relation to salvaged doors, floors and ceilings.  In relation to the additions to the house, the HIS advises that the new work is linked to the old via a narrow skylight, thereby clearly distinguishing old from new, and that the new addition will have its own separated roof and will appear as a modern, separate pavilion style addition.  In relation to the garage and driveway, the HIS considers that the demolition of the existing 1970s/1980s garage is a strong positive in heritage terms.  The HIS notes that the new driveway from the front gates will alter the garden setting of the villa, but this impact will be mitigated by provision of additional garden beds, and could be further mitigated by designating the front portion of the drive (forward of the house) as twin concrete strips to reduce the extent of hard paving. 

 

The HIS concludes that the proposal will have a limited and acceptable impact on the item and maintain its significance. The proposal will have no impact on the heritage items in the vicinity, a limited and acceptable impact on the surrounding conservation area and are in line with the heritage provisions of the DCP.

 

Controls

Clause 5.10(1) of Randwick LEP 2012 includes an objective of conservation of 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 or heritage conservation area. 

 

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; Verandahs and Balconies; and Garages, Carports, Carspaces and Driveways.  In relation to Design and character, clause 2.2 of the DCP includes a Control that 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.  A further Control requires that the design of any proposed additions or alterations must complement the existing building in its scale, form and detailing, but 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.  In relation to Scale and form, clause 2.3 of the DCP includes 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 the architectural features or detailing of the existing building.  In relation to Verandahs and Balconies, clause 2.8 of the DCP includes a Control that original front verandahs and balconies must be retained and conserved, and consideration should be given to opening up verandah enclosures or infills, to reinstate an original open verandah.  In relation to Garages, Carports, Carspaces and Driveways, clause 2.9 of the DCP includes a Control that carparking structures are to be located to the side, or preferably to the rear of the building.  A further Control requires that large areas of concrete should be avoided and alternative materials such as pavers, gravel or permeable paving must be considered.

 

Council’s electronic records list building applications for the property in 1977, 1981, 1988 and a development application in 1994. 

 

Demolition of existing rear wing

The existing rear wing includes a number of original or early internal and external features including several windows, joinery, ceilings and a fireplace.  As a result of a series of renovations however, the extent of the original rear wing and the original room layout is unclear, and the majority of original detailing has been replaced.  The proposal affects secondary building fabric towards the rear which has been substantially altered, but retains primary building fabric at the front of the dwelling.  A consent condition should be included requiring archival recording of arears of the building affected by the proposed works. 

 

Driveway excavation and basement garage

There are no heritage objections to the removal of the existing garage to the side of the dwelling which has an unsatisfactory relationship to the dwelling.  The removal of the existing garage will restore views of the south side elevation of the dwelling.  The new basement garage is located to the rear of the building consistent with DCP requirements, and will not be prominent in the streetscape.  Access to the basement garage is via a new excavated driveway along the south elevation.  Deep soil planters are to be provided to each side of the driveway to provide a transition between the level of the driveway and natural ground levels, and will contribute to the setting of the dwelling. 

 

Ground floor changes to existing dwelling

The proposed enlarged opening between the hallway and formal dining room will apparently improve access between the two spaces.  In accordance with the recommendations to the HIS, the opening should match the height of the existing door to allow existing ceilings to remain.  An appropriate consent condition should be included.  Drawings indicate that the proposed new opening between the dining room and the new link will reuse the existing door and joinery salvaged from the existing opening between the dining room and the hallway.  The proposed enlarged opening between the hallway and the new link will affect an existing opening which is partially screened by the existing stair.  Subject to consent conditions, there are no heritage objections to proposed changes at ground floor level. 

 

First floor changes to existing dwelling

The proposed removal of the existing partial enclosure of the side verandah will reinstate the original first floor return balcony, to match the ground floor verandah.  The original french doors were reused in the existing ensuite enclosure and can be reinstated in their original location.  It appears that the original balcony railing was removed when the ensuite enclosure was constructed, and drawings indicate the new balcony balustrade is to match existing.  Drawings indicate inward opening “second skin” internal doors to existing outward opening french doors to the front bedroom and the study nook.  A consent condition should be included that the new internal doors be fitted to avoid damage to original french doors, fanlights, door frames and architraves. 

 

The provision of a new ensuite bathroom and walk in robe within the existing first floor rear bedroom will involve new partitioning, blocking of an existing opening to the hall, and provision of two new openings to the front bedroom.  In accordance with the recommendations of the HIS, any wall and floor tiling should be carried out by over-boarding existing finishes, rather than replacement, and the pressed metal ceiling should be retained, even if covered by a new lower ceiling.  The original fireplace in the rear bedroom should also be retained.  Appropriate consent conditions should be included. 

 

The existing stair is to be modified to provide remove the existing intermediate landing, with one long flight providing access to the new rear first floor level and one short flight providing access to the existing front first floor level.  Drawings note that existing stair and balustrades will be retained and repaired.  The HIS notes that the works will require the alteration of the stair handrail and risers around the landing and provided that this is done is carried out by an experienced carpenter or stair company the detail can be such as to marry in with the existing detail with balusters salvaged for reuse or with new to match existing.  An appropriate consent condition should be included. 

 

The proposed enlarged opening between the hallway and the new link will affect an existing arched opening.  The HIS notes that the opening will provide a detail commensurate with the scale of the primary section and the detail will retain an arch at this level.  A consent condition should be included that the detail of the proposed arch does not seek to replicate the detail of the original arch, in order to allow the new enlarged opening to be distinguished from original fabric.  An appropriate consent condition should be included.  Subject to consent conditions, there are no heritage objections to proposed changes at first floor level. 

 

Rear addition

The proposed addition will be wider than the existing addition, extending around 3m beyond the existing southern side wall of the front section of the dwelling.  The addition however is set well to the rear and will not be prominent in the streetscape of Dutruc Street and will not impact on the main roof form.  The proposed addition will be lower than the existing rear wing, having a ridge height below the eaves height of the front section of the dwelling.  The proposed rear addition adopts a pavilion-type form, separated from the original building by a glazed link.  The scale of the proposed addition will remain secondary to the original building and will not visually dominate, compete with or conceal the original form and massing of the existing buildings.  The contemporary detailing of the proposed addition will distinguish it from the original building. 

 

The proposal materials and finishes, including white rendered walls, colorbond roofing and black anodized aluminum windows, will be compatible with materials and finishes of the existing dwelling. 

 

Recommendation

The following conditions should be included in any consent:

 

·      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. 

 

·      The enlarged opening between the hallway and formal dining room at ground floor level should match the height of the existing door opening to allow existing ceilings to be retained. 

·      The proposed inward opening “second skin” internal doors to the existing outward opening french doors to the first floor front bedroom and study are to be fitted to avoid damage to original french doors, fanlights, door frames and architraves. 

·      Any wall and floor tiling to the proposed ensuite bathroom and walk in robe within the existing first floor rear bedroom should be carried out by over-boarding existing floor and wall finishes, rather than replacement. 

·      Existing pressed metal ceilings within the existing first floor rear bedroom are to be retained in the proposed ensuite bathroom and walk in robe, even if covered by a new lower ceiling.  The original fireplace in the rear bedroom is also be retained in conjunction with the new works. 

·      Proposed alterations to the original stair handrail and risers around the landing are to be carried out by an experienced carpenter or stair company, balusters should be salvaged for reuse or alternatively new balusters should match existing, and new detail should marry in with the existing detail. 

·      The detail of the proposed enlarged opening between the hallway and the new link at first floor level should not seek to replicate the detail of the original arch, in order to allow the new enlarged opening to be distinguished from original fabric. 

 

(Refer to conditions 5 and 11)

 

1.2.    Development Engineer

 

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. A suitable condition has been included in this report.

 

Tree Management Comments

The site inspection of 25 January 2019 revealed two Sapium sebiferum (Chinese Tallowoods) on the public verge, being firstly, a mature, 12m tall specimen closest to the northern edge of the existing vehicle crossing, then a smaller, 6m tall tree immediately to its north, both of which are covered by the DCP and provide a positive contribution to the streetscape and St Mark’s Conservation Area.

 

The plans show that the existing entry will be maintained in its current position, and will be used for machinery/truck access during the significant earthworks and excavations to be performed in the rear yard for the new basement level.

 

While this should not directly impact these trees, protection measures still need to be imposed to prevent mechanical damage, with clearance pruning to also be required, which will be wholly at the applicant’s cost, with relevant conditions and a bond provided.

 

The other established street trees also growing in the verge, being a Gum and Paperbark beyond the northern site boundary, in front of no.11A, as well as the two Cypress Pines to the south, in front of no.17 should not be directly impacted by these works.

 

In the rear yard of the subject site, beyond the southeast corner of the existing dwelling, in the southern side setback/courtyard, close to the southern boundary, there is from west to east, a 10-12m tall Brachychiton acerifolius (Flame Tree), and then a similarly sized Magnolia grandiflora (Magnolia), which are both covered by the DCP, with their co-joined canopies observed to assist with partial privacy and screening between the subject site and the adjoining two story dwelling to the south, no17.

 

While both are recognized as desirable feature species, they were observed to only be in fair health and condition as past heavy pruning has affected their form and habit. In the case of the Flame tree, all lower growing branches and foliage have been removed to a height of about 6m above ground level, leaving it with an exposed, sparse crown; and for the Magnolia, almost its entire southern aspect has also been removed (presumably by the neighbor) in order to provide a clearance off their house, and also has a sparse upper crown, with its trunk being covered in climbing Ivy.

 

The plans show that significant earthworks will be performed in this same area for the new garage/basement, as well as for the casual dining and play rooms at the ground floor level, meaning that if the retention of either tree was sought, the exclusion zones required would prevent construction of the new driveway and parking arrangement altogether, with the southern half of the ground level also needing to be completely deleted from the plans.

 

While being established trees, and in a Heritage Conservation Area, any contribution they provide is minimal, and limited to the subject site and immediate area only, and for the reasons outlined above, their retention cannot be justified in this case given the major impacts this would have on the layout of the whole proposal, and as such, permission has been granted for their removal, subject to replacement screen planting that is suitable for the space available being provided in their place in this same area of the site.

 

The existing 6m x 6m tree on the rear/eastern site boundary, between the pool and dividing fence, was observed to provide effective screening between this site and the neighbours to the east, but as it is sited well away from all works, and will remain completely unaffected due to being excluded by the pool fence, conditions are not needed, and have not been provided.

 

There is a mature, 6-7 Eriobotrya japonica (Loquat) on the northern site boundary, of good health and fair condition due to past crown lifting, which is an exotic species that is covered by the DCP, and was observed to assist with screening and privacy by preventing overlooking into the area of private open space and pool from the two story dwelling on higher ground to the north, no 11A.

 

Dwg’s DA02-03 show that the northeast corner of the new basement level (storage/pool equipment) and ground floor terrace will be constructed in roughly the same location as the existing terrace and stairs, at an offset of about 4335mm from its trunk, which is well outside of its SRZ, so will not result in any major impact, with relevant protection measures provided.

 

Landscape Plan Comments

Whilst these works will necessitate the removal of two existing canopy trees, the new landscape scheme will actually increase the amount of plant material at this site, and as it will result in a high quality treatment for the occupants, conditions in this report require that it be fully implemented as part of any approval at this site.

 

 


 

Appendix 2: DCP Compliance Table

 

2.1     Section B2: Heritage

The provisions of this section of the DCP have been addressed below and further in Appendix 1 in the Heritage Officer’s comments.

 

DCP Clause

Controls

Proposal

Compliance

 

Streetscape Analysis

The SEE and Heritage Impact Statement have addressed this requirement.

Yes

2.2

Design & Character

i)   Development must demonstrate how it respects the heritage values of the heritage item or the heritage conservation area (as detailed in the statements of significance and key characteristics outlined in this section of the DCP).

ii)  Common elements and features of the streetscape are to be identified in a streetscape analysis and incorporated into the design (e.g. view corridors, built form, fencing styles, extent of soft landscaping, significant trees and driveway locations).

iii) New development should be consistent with important horizontal lines of buildings in the streetscape, in particular ground floor levels and eaves lines, where appropriate.

iv) Large blank areas of brick or rendered walls should be avoided. Where this is not possible in the design, contrasting building materials and treatments must be used to break up the expanse of wall.

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 Heritage B2 fabric including doors, windows, openings and verandas.

The proposed additions are integrated into the design, however the additions are designed as a pavilion so as to differentiate between the old and new.

 

The proposed works occur at the rear of the building and therefore have a limited visual presentation to the street.

 

The Heritage Impact Statement has addressed in detail how the proposal responds to the heritage significance of the existing item.

 

 

Yes

2.3

Scale & Form

i)   In streetscapes where development is of a consistent single storey height, upper floor additions are appropriate only if not readily visible from the street. However, ground floor rear addition remains the preferred option.

ii)  Attic style additions may be permissible, but there should be no visible alteration to the front of previously unaltered buildings. Front dormer windows are especially discouraged where a building itself is a heritage item, or part of a relatively unaltered semi-detached pair or row.

iii) Dormer windows and skylights must not be located to street elevations or where they will be prominent from a public place or dominate the original roof form. The design of dormer windows should generally be appropriate to the style of the building.

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 existing dwelling is a large two storey dwelling and the proposed additions adopt a proportionate scale to the existing dwelling.

The additions are located at the rear elevation of the dwelling, and while they will have a presentation to the street via a side view point, the additions will not dominate the streetscape.

The architectural style of the additions is complementary to the existing dwelling and does not introduce any competing style.

Yes

2.4

Siting & 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.

With the exception of the southern side setback, the proposed setbacks adopt a consistent line to the existing dwelling. Notwithstanding, the southern setback is proposed to be amended to adopt a 1.0m separation from the boundary and this will allow separation consistent with the heritage character of the existing dwelling.

 

While the application proposes tree removal in the southern side boundary, these are not considered to be prominent specimens as they are currently located behind the existing garage.

 

The application does not propose any change to the arrangement of the existing allotment.

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 general) be less elaborate than the original.

The subject additions include reinstating earlier components of the building at the ground and first floor level verandah.

 

The new windows proposed in the rear pavilion are consistent in size and scale as the existing dwelling.

Yes

2.6

Materials, Finishes and Colour Schemes

i)   Materials for pathways and driveways must be consistent with the character of the heritage item or heritage conservation area.

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.

The application includes a schedule of external colours and finishes and these are considered to be compatible with the original dwelling.

Yes

2.7

Roofs & Chimneys

i)   Attic rooms are to be contained within roof forms and should not dominate the street and visible side elevations.

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.

The proposal allows for the retention of two of the existing three chimneys.

Yes

2.8

Verandahs & Balconies

i)   Consider the provision of front verandahs and balconies at a compatible scale where these are a characteristic feature of the heritage conservation area.

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.

The additions do not modify the existing front verandah at both the ground and first floor level, with the exception of reinstating a portion of the verandah at the first floor level.

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.

The application proposes the demolition of the existing garage and the construction of basement carparking. The basement is accessible via the existing driveway within the southern side setback. This will not be a visible structure and is an improvement on the current circumstances.

Yes

2.10

Fences

(i)  New and replacement front fences must not obscure building facades. High solid front fences are not appropriate.

(ii) New fence heights and form must be appropriate to the character of the heritage item, or to the heritage conservation area.

(iii) Lych gates must not be provided unless there is evidence that they originally existed.

(iv)     Side fencing forward of the building line must be simple with a level of detail and of materials and height compatible with the heritage item, contributory building or heritage conservation area.

(v) Side and rear boundary fences should be preferably of traditional timber construction or otherwise of masonry construction. Colorbond metal fences are not appropriate.

(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.

Front and side fencing is not proposed to be amended as part of this application.

Yes

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.

The application proposes tree removal within the southern side boundary. These trees, while mature canopy plantings, are not significant specimens warranting particular retention.

 

The existing swimming pool is located in the rear corner of the site and is only proposed to be resurfaced under this application.

Yes

2.12

Access & Mobility

(i)   Modifications and alterations to facilitate access and mobility must be sympathetic to the heritage values and heritage fabric of the original building.

(ii)   Alterations and additions to facilitate access and mobility must be reversible.

(iii) Preserve heritage items or heritage fabric of higher significance if a compromise is required.

No modification is made to the existing pedestrian access to the site via the front door. The basement garage will only be accessible via the internal stair, although this does not degrade existing access which also has access restricted by stairs.

Yes

2.14

Services & New Technologies

(i)   Air exhaust or ventilation systems, skylights, air conditioning systems, solar energy panels, TV antennae and satellite dishes should not be visible on the main elevation of the building or attached to chimneys where they will be obvious. Services and equipment should be installed at the rear, within the roof space or flush with the roof cladding and at the same pitch. They are to be of modest size and not prominent from the street.

(ii)   Essential changes to cater for electrical or telecommunications wiring, plumbing or other services should be limited to what is essential to permit the new use to proceed.

(iii) Rainwater tanks are to be located at the rear or side of the dwelling and suitably screened. They should not be obvious from the street.

Services are proposed to be located within the basement floor level.

Yes

 

2.2     Section C1: Low Density Residential

 

DCP Clause

Controls

Proposal

Compliance

 

Classification

Zoning = R3

 

2

Site planning

 

 

2.1

Minimum lot size and frontage

 

Minimum lot size (RLEP):

·    R3 = 325sqm

625.8m²

Yes

 

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 = 9m

Existing =15.215m

Yes

2.3

Site coverage

 

601 sqm or above = 45%

Site = 625.8m²

Proposed = 28%

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 = 625.8m²

Proposed = 36%

Yes

2.5

Private open space (POS)

 

Dwelling & Semi-Detached POS

 

 

 

601 sqm or above = 8m x 8m

Site = 625.8m²

Proposed = Min 15m x 15m

Yes

3

Building envelope

3.1

Floor space ratio LEP 2012 = 0.6:1

Site area = 625.8m²

Proposed FSR = 0.53:1

Yes

3.2

Building height

 

 

 

Maximum overall height LEP 2012  = 9.5m

Existing = Approx 11.3m

Proposed (New roof only) = 9.5m

Yes

 

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

ii)    Sloping sites = 8m

iii)   Merit assessment if exceeded

Existing = Approx 9.3m

Proposed = Approx 8.3m

No – Refer comments below.

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 = 6m

Existing = 5.57m

Proposed = N/A

No change to the existing street setback.

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 = 1.2m and 1.8m

Existing = 1.5m

Proposed = 1.5m (north) and nil (south)

No – refer comments below. Condition 2 requires the setback of the basement garage to be increased by a minimum of 1m from the southern side boundary.

3.3.3

Rear setbacks

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

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

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

-     protect the privacy and solar access

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

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

-     Compatibility

-     POS dimensions comply

-     minimise solar access, privacy and view sharing impacts

 

Refer to 6.3  and 7.4 for parking facilities and  outbuildings

Minimum = 8m

Existing = 15.59m

Proposed = 16.94m

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 additions are well articulated and proposed as a pavilion to the existing dwelling to reduce the massing of the wall length.

Yes

4.4

Roof Design and Features

 

 

 

Rooftop terraces

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

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

Dormers

iii)   Dormer windows do not 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

Clerestory windows and skylights

vii)  Sympathetic to design of dwelling

Mechanical equipment

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

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 climate to withstand natural weathering, ageing and deterioration.

vi)   recycle and re-use sandstone

(See also section 8.3 foreshore area.)

A schedule of finishes and materials is included in the application.

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.

Excavation for basement >1m and up to 2.5m. The proposed basement is setback with a nil setback to the southern side boundary. The retaining wall adjacent to the basement is setback 900mm to the southern side boundary.

 

The proposed works will not be visible to the street.

No, however will achieve the objectives of the control and can be supported.

 

See discussion above regarding setbacks.

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.

Living areas provided with eastern and northern orientation,

 

POS areas can achieve these controls.

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 have been submitted with this application and assessed against the provisions of this clause below.

 

See comments below.

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

 

Yes

5.3

Visual Privacy

 

Windows

 

 

 

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

-    windows are offset or staggered

-    minimum 1600mm window sills

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

-    Install fixed privacy screens to windows.

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

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

The proposed ground floor windows will be offset to the windows at the ground floor level of No. 17 Dutruc, as well as additional screen planting provided within the southern side boundary. Key living areas are orientated to the east.

Similarly, windows to the northern elevation are offset to the ground floor windows on the southern elevation of No. 11A Dutruc.

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.

No upper floor balcony proposed.

 

The additions propose an extension of the existing ground floor level terrace at the eastern elevation, with a wrap around pathway to the southern elevation. Privacy to the adjoining property is protected by the planter proposed, the small trafficable section of the terrace adjacent to the boundary, and the offset of windows in this elevation.

Yes

5.4

Acoustic Privacy

 

i)     noise sources not located adjacent to adjoining dwellings bedroom windows

Adequate separation provided.

Yes

5.5

Safety and Security

 

i)     Dwelling’s 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)

Existing front entry is retained.

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)

Local neighbourhood views are retained.

Yes

6

Car Parking and Access

6.1

Location of Parking Facilities:

 

 

 

i)     Maximum 1 vehicular access

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

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

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

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

Double width if:

-     Frontage >12m,

-     Consistent with pattern in the street;

-     Landscaping provided in the front yard.

v)    Minimise excavation for basement garages

vi)   Avoid long driveways (impermeable surfaces)

Existing vehicle access is retained, driveway width is as existing 3.04m.

Basement carparking proposed that will not be visible to the street.

Yes

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 is provided to basement garage.

Yes

6.4

Driveway Configuration

 

Maximum driveway width:

-     Single driveway – 3m

-     Double driveway – 5m

Must taper driveway width at street boundary and at property boundary

3.05m width (existing)

Yes

6.5

Garage Configuration

 

i)     recessed behind front of dwelling

ii)    The maximum garage width (door and piers or columns):

-     Single garage – 3m

-     Double garage – 6m

iii)   5.4m minimum length of a garage

iv)   2.6m max wall height of detached garages

v)    recess garage door 200mm to 300mm behind walls (articulation)

vi)   600mm max. parapet wall or bulkhead

vii)  minimum clearance 2.2m AS2890.1

The proposed basement garage does not present to the street.

Yes

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

A carport is not proposed.

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

Carparking is proposed in the basement garage.

N/A

7

Fencing and Ancillary Development

7.1

General - Fencing

 

i)     Use durable materials

ii)    Sandstone not rendered or painted

iii)   Do not use steel post and chain wire, barbed wire or dangerous materials

iv)   Avoid expansive surfaces of blank rendered masonry to street

No change to existing 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.

No change to existing fencing.

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.

No change to existing fencing.

N/A

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.

Outbuildings are not proposed as part of this application.

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 and adjoining sites.

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

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

v)    Setback coping a minimum of 900mm from the rear and side boundaries.

vi)   Incorporate screen planting (min. 3m mature height unless view corridors affected) between setbacks.

vii)  Position decking to minimise privacy impacts.

viii) Pool pump and filter contained in acoustic enclosure and away from the neighbouring dwellings.

The proposed works only relate to the resurfacing of the existing pool, otherwise no changes are proposed to the location and siting of the existing swimming pool.

N/A

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.

A/C enclosed in existing basement floor level.

Yes

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).

Not proposed as part of this application.

N/A

7.8

Clothes Drying Facilities

 

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

Existing clothes drying facilities retained.

Yes

 

While the proposed additions do result in variations to the DCP controls as discussed above, the proposed works will achieve the overall objectives of the clauses and will result in a development that is consistent with the objectives of the DCP.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Dev Consent Conditions - DA/477 2018 15 Dutruc Street Randwick

 

 

 

 


Dev Consent Conditions - DA/477 2018 15 Dutruc Street 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


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Randwick Local Planning Panel            11 July 2019

 

 

Development Application Report No. D32/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      1B Yarra Road, Phillip Bay (DA/788/2018)

 

Folder No:                      DA/788/2018

Author:                          William Jones, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

 

Proposal:                       Torrens title subdivision of an existing dual occupancy

Ward:                             South Ward

Applicant:                      Harrison Friedmann & Associates Pty Ltd

Owner:                           1b Yarra Road Pty Ltd

Cost of works:                nil

Reason for referral:        Variation to Clause 4.1D 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 minimum subdivision lot size and lot width development standard in Clause 4.1D of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The concurrence of the Director of the Department of Planning & Environment may be assumed.

B.   That the RLPP grant consent under Sections 4.16 and 4.17 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 788/2018 for Torrens title subdivision of an existing dual occupancy at No. 1B Yarra Road, Phillip Bay 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 contravenes the development standard for minimum subdivision lot size and lot width by more than 10%.

 

The proposal seeks development consent for the Torrens Title subdivision of an existing dual occupancy into 2 allotments (lot 131 = 219m2 with 8.3m lot width at the building line), and lot 132 = 189m2 with 4.6m lot width at the building line).

 

The key issue relates to the non-compliance with the minimum subdivision lot size for dual occupancies (240m2) for which development consent was granted before 6 July 2018, and the minimum lot width measured at the building line (6m). The Applicant submitted a written request to vary the development standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012) that has adequately addressed the matters that are required to be demonstrated by subclause (3) of Clause 4.6. The variation is supported given Council’s Subdivision Code applies to the development, which states Torrens Title subdivision of a dual occupancy approved prior to 8 May 1995 is not subject to the minimum allotment size. The proposed development is within the public interest as it is consistent with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone and objectives of Clause 4.1 of the RLEP 2012.

 

The proposal is recommended for approval subject to standard conditions.

 

2.       Site Description and Locality

 

The subject site is known as 1B Yarra Road and is legally described as Lot 13 in DP 598440. The site is 408m2, is irregular in shape and has a 13.42m frontage to Yarra Road to the north. The site contains an attached dual occupancy and limited vegetation.

 


 

3.       Relevant history

 

The existing attached dual occupancy was approved on 7 September 1990 (DA/246/1990) under delegated authority.

 

4.       Proposal

 

The proposal seeks development consent for the Torrens Title subdivision of an existing dual occupancy into 2 allotments (lot 131 = 219m2 with 8.3m lot width at the building line), and lot 132 = 189m2 with 4.6m lot width at the building line).

 

5.       Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

5.1.    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 subdivision will provide for the housing needs of the community, contribute to the desired future character of the area (in that it is in accordance with the Subdivision Code), and will encourage housing affordability.

 

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

 

Clause

Development Standard

Proposal

Compliance

Cl 4.1D: Subdivision of dual occupancies (attached) in Zone R2

Clause applies to a dual occupancy (attached) on land in Zone R2 for which development consent was granted before 6 July 2018.

 

Torrens title lots to comply with Clause 6.4 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008.

The attached dual occupancy was approved in 1990.

 

 

 

 

 

Lot size and lot width does not comply (refer to assessment table below).

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does not comply – refer to clause 4.6 assessment below.

 

The table below assesses the proposal against each of the development standards contained in Clause 6.4 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008:

 

Development standard

Proposal

Compliance

There must only be 1 dwelling on each resulting lot at the completion of the development.

There will be only one dwelling per lot.

 

Complies

Each resulting lot must be at least 6m wide (measured at the building line) and have lawful access, and frontage to, a public road.

Lot 131 = 8.3m

Lot 132 = 4.6m

Lot 132 does not comply – refer to clause 4.6 assessment below.

The area of each resulting lot must be at least 240 square metres.

Lot 131 = 219m²

Lot 132 = 189m²

Does not comply – refer to clause 4.6 assessment below.

The subdivision must not contravene any condition of any complying development certificate applying to the development.

No CDC applies to the site.

N/A

 

6.       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 4.1D:

Lot Size and lot width (min)

240m2

6m at the building line

Lot 131 = 219m²

Lot 132 = 189m² lot size, and 4.6m lot width.

21m2

 

51m2 lot size, and 1.4m lot width.

8.75%

 

21.25% lot size, and 23.33% lot width.

 

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. However, the Applicant seeks to demonstrate that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary based upon the second method, being that the underlining objective or purpose of the standard is not relevant to the development and therefore compliance is unnecessary.

 

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. 

 

6.1.    Exception to the subdivision of dual occupancies (attached) in Zone R2 development standard (Cl 4.1D)

 

The Applicant’s written justification for the departure from the subdivision of attached dual occupancies development 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 subdivision of attached dual occupancies development standard by demonstrating that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case because the underlining objective or purpose of the standard is not relevant to the development and therefore compliance is unnecessary.

 

The Applicant argues that the standard relating to minimum lot size and lot width is not relevant given the application of the Subdivision Code, which states:

 

 

Clause A (1) of the subdivision Code states:

 

 

Given the Subdivision Code applies to the dual occupancy that was approved prior to 1995, the minimum allotment size and width is not applicable as part of the subject proposal and therefore compliance with the subdivision of attached dual occupancies 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 subdivision of attached dual occupancies development standard on the basis that the site is capable of containing the proposed subdivision without any environmental impacts.

 

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 minimum subdivision lot size standard and R2 Low Density Residential zone is provided below:

 

Assessment against objectives of the minimum subdivision lot size standard

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The subdivision will not result in any likely adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties. Any future development of the lots will be subject to a separate assessment.

 

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The subdivision relates to an existing dual occupancy and no new works are proposed. Any future development of the lots will be subject to a separate  assessment.

 

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The subdivision relates to an existing dual occupancy and no new works are proposed. The lots are suitably sized to accommodate the existing development. Any future development of the lots will be subject to a separate assessment.

 

The development is consistent with the objectives of the minimum subdivision lot size standard.

 

Assessment against objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone

The objectives of R2 Low Density Residential zone are:

 

·       To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low 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 proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed subdivision will provide for the housing needs of the community, contribute to the desired future character of the area (in that it is in accordance with the Subdivision Code), and will encourage housing affordability.

 

The development is consistent with the objectives of the minimum subdivision lot size standard and the R2 Low 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?

 

Variation of the minimum subdivision lot size standard will allow for the orderly use of the site and there is a no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance.

 


 

Conclusion

 

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

 

7.       Development control plans and policies

 

7.1.    Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013

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

 

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

 

8.       Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

Section 4.15 ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

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

See discussion in sections 6 & 7 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 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

 

No submissions were received.

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

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

 

9.       Conclusion

 

That the application for Torrens title subdivision of an existing dual occupancy 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 Low Density Residential zone in that the proposed subdivision will provide for the housing needs of the community, contribute to the desired future character of the area (in that it is in accordance with the Subdivision Code), and will encourage housing affordability.

 


 

Appendix 1: Referrals

 

1.    Internal referral comments:

 

1.1.    Development Engineer

 

An application has been received for the Torrens title subdivision of the existing dual occupancy development at the above site into 2 lots.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Draft Subdivision Plans by Graham Kenneth Wilson;

·      SEE

 

General Comments

The above site was subject to a Dual Occupancy - DA//246/1990 & LA/200/2003.

 

No on-site detention was required for the subject site as it was not a requirement in 1990 plus it was also located outside future on-site detention catchments.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The Development Engineer’s recommended conditions have been included.


 

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

 

 

 


 

Appendix 3: DCP Compliance Table

 

3.1     Section 2.1: Minimum Lot Size and Frontage

 

DCP Clause

Control

Proposal

Compliance

2.1

 

 

 

 

i) The minimum frontage width for allotments resulting from the subdivision of land within Zone R2 (Low Density Residential) for the purposes of dwelling houses and semi-detached dwellings is 12m.

The proposed Torrens title subdivision will result in the dual occupancy becoming x 2 semi-detached dwellings with frontages of 8.97m (Lot 131) and 4.44m (Lot 132).

 

A variation to the RDCP is supported given the  variation relates to an existing dual occupancy approved prior to 8 May 1995, and as such consent may be granted without regard to minimum allotment sizes pursuant to the Subdivision Code (refer  to Section 6 – Clause 4.6 exception to a development standard).

Variation is supported.

 

ii) The minimum frontage width for allotments resulting from the subdivision of land within Zone R3 (Medium Density Residential) for the purposes of dwelling houses is 9m.

The site is zone R2.

N/A

 

iii) Any subdivision of land within Zones R2 (Low Density Residential) and R3 (Medium Density Residential) must not create battle-axe or hatchet shaped allotments for the purposes of dwelling houses, semi-detached dwellings or dual occupancies (attached and detached).

Battle-axe shaped allotments are not proposed.

Complies

 

iv) The minimum frontage width for the development of a dual occupancy (attached) within Zone R2 (Low Density Residential) is 15m.

A dual occupancy is not proposed.

N/A

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

RLPP conditions - DA/788/2018 - 1B Yarra Road, PHILLIP BAY

 

 

 

 


RLPP conditions - DA/788/2018 - 1B Yarra Road, PHILLIP BAY

Attachment 1

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 

         


Randwick Local Planning Panel            11 July 2019

 

 

Development Application Report No. D33/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      25 Wansey Road Randwick (DA/108/2019)

 

Folder No:                      DA/108/2019

Author:                          Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

 

 

Proposal:                       Alterations and additions to the dwelling including internal                                       reconfiguration  and enlargement of existing garage

Ward:                             West Ward

Applicant:                      Roth Architecture Workshop

Owner:                           H & K Gaynor

Cost of works:                $387 214

Reason for referral:        Floor space ratio exceeds the LEP control

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

B.      That the RLPP grant consent under Sections 4.16 and 4.17 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 108/2019 for alterations and additions to the dwelling at No. 25 Wansey Road Randwick 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 contravenes the development standard for floor space ratio by more than 10%

 

The proposal seeks development consent for alterations and additions to the exsiting dwelling.

 

The key issues associated with the proposal relate to the provision of additional floor area to the existing dwelling house which resulted in the non-compliance with the floor space ratio standard.

 

The proposal is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.       Site Description and Locality

 

The subject site is known as 25 Wansey Road Randwick and is legally described as Lot A in DP 313599. The site is 327m2, is rectangular in shape and has a 12.19m frontage to Wansey Road. The site contains a two storey dwelling with garages beneath.

 

The site slopes approximately from rear to front with a difference in levels of up to 2.75m.

 

 

3.       Relevant history

 

There are no other relevant matters relating to this property.

 

4.       Proposal

 

The proposal seeks development consent for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house, including internal floor plan changes at ground floor level with a new pantry and laundry, demolition of internal walls to provide for an open plan living area and installation of new windows to sides of the building, new bi-fold doors to the rear of the dwelling and new doors to the balcony at the front of the dwelling. Within the upper floor level, a new kitchenette is proposed. A new covered entry is proposed to the northern side of the dwelling and the southern side of the garage is to be enlarged to increase the internal depth of that side of the garage.

 

5.       Notification

 

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

 

5.1.    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 continue to meet the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment, will recognize the desirable elements of the existing streetscape which contribute to the desired future character of the area.

 

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

 

Clause

Development Standard

Proposal

Compliance

(Yes/No)

Cl 4.4: Floor space ratio (max)

0.75:1

Existing 0.84:1

Proposed 0.85:1

No

Cl 4.3: Building height (max)

9.5m

Same as existing (ie;11.8m)

No change to existing building height

 

5.1.1.      Clause 4.6 - Exceptions to development standards

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

 

6.       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 (max)

0.75:1

0.85:1.

NB: The existing building is at 0.84:1

 

3.3m2 additional floor area to the building

13.5%

 

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. 

 

6.1.    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 size and scale of the development remains largely unchanged and the realignment of the existing front wall will improve the appearance of the building in the streetscape which benefits the desired future character of the area.

 

(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 alterations to the dwelling will improve access to natural light and ventilation through the proposed works to the rear of the dwelling.

 

The BASIX certificate (submitted by the applicant) shows that the development meets the relevant water and energy saving targets.

 

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

 

The development is not within a conservation area 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 due to the changes being predominantly internal the development does not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The applicant notes that the existing building already exceeds the maximum FSR being at 0.84:1 and strict compliance with the FSR control would require extensive renovation and demolition in order to remove the already non complying floor area.

 

It is noted that the existing character of the locality includes buildings of similar bulk and scale and an argument cannot be made that the small amount of additional floor area provided to the building would detract from the development standard by not being compatible with the established character of the locality.

 

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

 

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 R2 zone is provided below:

 

Assessment against objectives of floor space ratio standard

For the reasons outlined in the applicant’s written request, the development is consistent with the objectives of the FSR 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 desired future character of the locality is established in the LEP controls in relation to building height and floor space ratio controls.

 

The size and scale of the proposed development is compatible with the ‘desired future character of the locality’ as it will remain consistent with the existing built form to the surrounding lots and most importantly the actual additional floor area to the building is less than 4m² so any comparison with the existing building is almost negligible.

 

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: There are no major changes to the existing building envelope. The only external changes to the building are additional windows to the southern and northern side boundaries, new bi fold doors to the rear and sliding doors to the façade providing access to the new balcony above the garage. The apparent articulation of the building remains unaltered by this proposal.

 

The BASIX certificate (submitted by the applicant) shows that the development meets the relevant water and energy saving targets.

 

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The development is not within a conservation area or near a heritage item so the objective detailed in Clause 3(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 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 visual presentation of the development remains as a two storey building with garages beneath.

 

·      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 there are no significant additional overshadowing to the adjoining properties.

 

·      Views: There are no affected views.

 

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.

 

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

 

Assessment against objectives of the R2 zone

 

The objectives of R2 zone are:

 

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

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

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

·      To protect the amenity of residents,

·      To encourage housing affordability, and

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposed development will satisfy the relevant objectives of the R2 zone as the building will continue to maintain housing within a low density residential environment, will not detract from the existing streetscape and will protect the amenity of residents.

 

The development is consistent with the objectives of the floor space ratio standard and the R2 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?

 

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 in this instance.

 


 

Conclusion

 

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

 

7.       Development control plans and policies

 

7.1.    Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013

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

 

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

 

8.       Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

Section 4.15 ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

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

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

 

No submissions have been received.

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

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

 

8.1.    Discussion of key issues

 

The key issue in relation to this application is the additional floor area which increases the existing non complying floor space ratio. See discussion of the Clause 4.6 Objection in section 6 above.

 

The application includes a separate external door to the stairwell and kitchenette to the upper floor. These will easily allow for the physical separation and separate use of the two levels of the building. A condition of consent is included to require the removal of the eternal door to the stairwell and kitchenette from the application.

 

9.       Conclusion

 

That the application to carryout alterations and additions to the building 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 the building will continue to provide for housing and will not result in any adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining 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

 

Internal referral comments:

 

Development Engineer

 

Permission is granted for the removal of the pencil Pine Tree located in the front yard at the southern side of the site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 = R2

 

2

Site planning

 

 

2.3

Site coverage

 

301 to 450 sqm = 55%

 

No change to existing site coverage

 

2.4

Landscaping and permeable surfaces

 

i)      301 to 450 sqm = 25%

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.

The existing area of landscaping is less than 2% of the site area, this is increased to 8% by way of perimeter planting

No, however a significant improvement from the existing situation

2.5

Private open space (POS)

 

Dwelling & Semi-Detached POS

 

 

 

301 to 450 sqm = 6m x 6m

No change to existing POS

 

3

Building envelope

3.1

Floor space ratio LEP 2012 = 0.75:1

Site area = 327m².

Proposed FSR = 0.85:1

No, see Key Issues

3.2

Building height

 

 

 

Maximum overall height LEP 2012  = 9.5m

Existing = 11.8m

No change to existing

 

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

ii)    Sloping sites = 8m

iii)   Merit assessment if exceeded

Existing = 7.7m

No change to existing

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 existing front setback

 

3.3.2

Side setbacks:

Dwellings:

·      Frontage less than 9m = 900mm

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

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

 

Refer to 6.3 and 7.4 for parking facilities and outbuildings

Existing = 800mm to southern and 1600mm to northern boundaries.

The new covered portico to the northern side of the building is sited up to the side boundary.

No change to existing building other than the portico.

There are no objections to the setback of the portico as there will not be any adverse amenity impacts to the adjoining building in relation to solar access or visual amenity.

 

3.3.3

Rear setbacks

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

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

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

-     protect the privacy and solar access

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

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

-     Compatibility

-     POS dimensions comply

-     minimise solar access, privacy and view sharing impacts

 

Refer to 6.3  and 7.4 for parking facilities and  outbuildings

Existing = 5.3m

No change to existing

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 existing building design is generally unaltered

 

4.5

Colours, Materials and Finishes

 

i)     Schedule of materials and finishes

ii)    Finishing is durable and non-reflective.

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

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

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

vi)   recycle and re-use sandstone

(See also section 8.3 foreshore area.)

The nominated colours and materials are satisfactory

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.

The extent of earthworks is minimal and does not exceed the DCP controls

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.

The existing solar access to the north facing windows and POS is not impacted by the proposed development

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 existing solar access to the north facing living room windows and POS is not impacted by the proposed development

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

The alterations and additions to the dwelling will improve light and ventilation throughout the building

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 additional privacy impacts to the adjoining properties as the only new window to the northern side elevation is a high light window and to the southern side elevation a mid level kitchen splash back window

Yes

6

Car Parking and Access

6.1

Location of Parking Facilities:

 

 

 

i)     Maximum 1 vehicular access

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

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

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

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

Double width if:

-     Frontage >12m,

-     Consistent with pattern in the street;

-     Landscaping provided in the front yard.

v)    Minimise excavation for basement garages

vi)   Avoid long driveways (impermeable surfaces)

The existing vehicle access is maintained

Yes

6.3

Setbacks of Parking Facilities

 

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

ii)    1m rear lane setback

iii)   Nil side setback where:

-     nil side setback on adjoining property;

-     streetscape compatibility;

-     safe for drivers and pedestrians; and

-     Amalgamated driveway crossing

The existing garage setbacks are maintained

As existing

6.4

Driveway Configuration

 

Maximum driveway width:

-     Single driveway – 3m

-     Double driveway – 5m

Must taper driveway width at street boundary and at property boundary

The existing driveways are maintained

As existing

6.5

Garage Configuration

 

i)     recessed behind front of dwelling

ii)    The maximum garage width (door and piers or columns):

-     Single garage – 3m

-     Double garage – 6m

iii)   5.4m minimum length of a garage

iv)   2.6m max wall height of detached garages

v)    recess garage door 200mm to 300mm behind walls (articulation)

vi)   600mm max. parapet wall or bulkhead

vii)  minimum clearance 2.2m AS2890.1

The southern side of the garage is to be enlarged to match the front setback of the other side of the garage and to increase the usable depth of the garage.

The internal depth of the southern side of the garage is now to be 5.6m which complies with the DCP controls

Yes

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Development Consent Conditions - 25 Wansey Road, Randwick

 

 

 

 


Development Consent Conditions - 25 Wansey 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


Randwick Local Planning Panel            11 July 2019

 

 

Development Application Report No. D34/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      7 Seaside Parade, South Coogee (DA/279/2019)

 

Folder No:                      DA/279/2019

Author:                          William Jones, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

 

Proposal:                       Installation of balustrading to the east-facing awnings at the entry level and first floor, installation of privacy screening at the entry level awning, enlargement of the first floor awning, and use of the awnings as balconies.

Ward:                             East Ward

Applicant:                      Santos Architecture

Owner:                           Ms M Eleftheriades

Cost of works:                $19,800

Reason for referral:        10 or more unique submissions by way of objection were received and a variation to Clause 4.3 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 maximum permitted building height development standard in Clause 4.3 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The concurrence of the Director of the Department of Planning & Environment may be assumed.

 

B.   That the RLPP grant consent under Sections 4.16 and 4.17 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 279/2019 for installation of balustrading to the east facing awnings at the entry level and first floor, installation of privacy screening at the entry level awning, enlargement of the first floor awning, and use of the awnings as balconies at No. 7 Seaside Parade, South Coogee, subject to the development consent conditions attached to this report.

 

 


 

 

 

 

NOTE: submissions were also received from:

 

·      250 Storey Street, Maroubra

·      21 Torrington Road, Maroubra

·      25 Amour Avenue, Maroubra

·      704/97 Boyce Road, Maroubra

 

 

 

 

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 and a variation to Clause 4.3 of RLEP 2012 exceeds 10% in relation to building height.

 

The proposal seeks development consent for installation of balustrading to the east facing awnings at the entry level and first floor, installation of privacy screening at the entry level awning, enlargement of the first floor awning, and use of the awnings as balconies.

 

Two S4.55(2) modification applications related to the subject awnings at the Entry Level and First Floor were refused by the RLPP on 9 May 2019. In addition to works, the modifications sought approval for the use of the approved awnings as balconies. The modifications were refused on the basis that the development could not be considered substantially the same as development for which consent was originally granted given the proposed use of the awnings as balconies. Subsequently, the Applicant has lodged this DA seeking consent for the use of the awnings as balconies and a new S4.55(2) modification application (DA/502/2018/B) seeking retrospective approval for works that have already been carried out to the Entry Level awning only, with no proposed change of use. Council has received legal advice in relation to the modification application advising that the modifications will result in a development that is substantially the same as development for which consent was originally granted. This DA for use of both awnings as balconies and future works is reliant upon approval of the modification application, which is also subject to determination by the RLPP.

 

The key issues associated with the proposed development relate to the non-compliant building height associated with the First Floor balcony including the balustrading and support column, impacts upon the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, and visual privacy, acoustic and view loss impacts upon neighbouring properties.

 

With regards to building height, the proposed height is 10.9m (measured to the top of the glass balustrading) and the maximum permitted building height is 9.5m. The non-compliance is due to the measurement to existing ground level, which is taken to be beneath the slab of the Lower Ground Floor that has been excavated beneath original ground level. If measured to original ground level, the balcony would have a maximum height at approximately 6.2m. The Applicant’s written request to vary the development standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the RLEP has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and the proposal will be in the public interest in accordance with subclause (4).

 

With regards to impacts upon the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, the proposal will result in a more regular shaped balcony at the First Floor compared to the approved triangular awning that will be more harmonious with the foreshore area and that is in-line with the approved balconies and awnings of the southern neighbouring property. The proposed clear glass balustrading, and 100mm x 150mm support column that is integrated with the 1.6m high privacy screening at the Entry Level balcony will not result in adverse bulk and scale.

 

With regards to visual privacy and acoustic impacts, the proposed balconies are not excessively sized and are proportionate to the size of the dwelling and the rooms they serve. The balconies are not the principal private open space for the dwelling, which is located at the lower levels. The Entry Level balcony that serves a living room is provided with privacy screening, and the First Floor balcony serves a bedroom, which is not a high-use room. With regards to view loss impacts, the proposal will reasonably maintain key views of the land and water interface from neighbouring properties.

 

The proposal is recommended for approval subject to non-standard conditions that require:

 

·      the existing approved east-facing balconies located at the Entry Level and First Floor shall not be enclosed and shall form part of the new balcony areas.

·      the area of the awning to the east of the First Floor balcony shall be non-trafficable.

·      the clear glass balustrading shall not be highly reflective.

 

2.       Site Description and Locality

 

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

 

The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of low density residential development comprising three to five storey dwelling houses on the eastern side of Seaside Parade and two and three storey dwelling houses on the western side of Seaside Parade as part of the R2 Low Density Residential zone pursuant to the RLEP 2012. To the south of the site at 9 Seaside Parade is a part 2 and part four storey dwelling house that is currently being constructed. To the north of the site at 5 Seaside Parade is a part 2 and part 3 storey dwelling house.

 

3.       Relevant History

 

Refused Modification Applications

The following S4.55(2) modification applications were refused by the RLPP on 9 May 2019:

 

·      DA/502/2018/A - Modification of approved development by enlargement of the rear awning at the entry level and making the awning trafficable with balustrading and provision of a support column.

 

·      DA/655/2018/A - Modification of approved development by enlargement of the rear awning at the first floor level and making the awning trafficable with balustrading and provision of a structural column.

 

The modification applications were both refused for the following reason:

 

The Panel is not satisfied that the proposed modification is substantially the same as the  development for which consent was originally granted, as required by Section 4.55 (2) (a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, noting that the proposed modification would change the function/use of the structure as well as its shape and size.

 

With regards to DA/655/2018/A, the RLPP also noted in the minutes of the meeting that:

 

In addition, the Panel notes that if it could lawfully consider the proposal, the application for modification has not adequately adressed the matters referred to in Section 4.15 (1) of the  Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as are of relevance to the development subject of the application including impacts on views, and visual and aural privacy.

 

A separate S4.55(2) modification application has been lodged (DA/502/2018/B) that is also subject to determination by the RLPP and that seeks retrospective approval for works already carried out to the Entry Level awning only with no change of use proposed. The subject DA seeks consent for future works to the awnings that have not yet been carried out at both the Entry Level and First Floor (refer to section 4, Proposal description), and for the use of both awnings as balconies. In response to the RLPP’s additional concerns, matters relating to view sharing and visual / acoustic privacy have been addressed in this report (refer to section 9.1, discussion of key issues). The proposal will not result in adverse amenity impacts upon neighbouring properties or the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, subject to conditions.

 

It is noted that the physical differences between the refused modification applications and proposed works is a reduced trafficable area of the proposed First Floor balcony, and the addition of 1.6m high privacy screening to the northern and southern sides of the proposed Entry Level balcony.

 

It is also noted that both of the refused modification applications are subject to a Class 1 Appeal at the Land and Environment Court.

 

Other Relevant Applications

Other than the refused modification applications, the existing dwelling that is currently undergoing construction is subject to a number of DAs and modification applications as follows (from most recent):

 

·      DA/502/2018 – Construction of a new awning above the rear outdoor terrace area located at the ground floor level. The awning was approved as a cantilevered structure without a support column and was not approved with balustrading and was non-trafficable from the entry level. Approved under delegated authority on 12 September 2018.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

4.       Proposal

 

Entry Level

·      Make the awning trafficable so as to be used as a balcony.

·      Installation of frameless clear glass balustrading.

·      Installation of 1.6m high privacy screening to the northern and southern sides of the balcony.

 

The proposed works at the Entry Level will result in the awning becoming a balcony that serves the “games room”. A small balcony was approved off the “games room” via DA/822/2013 with access via a swinging single door, which is still depicted on the proposed Entry Level floor plan. According to the Applicant, a new access to the proposed balcony is not proposed, therefore access to the balcony will be via the approved access to the original balcony. It is unclear whether glazing is proposed to the eastern side of the original balcony as part of this DA. So that additional GFA is not approved via the potential for enclosure of the original balcony, a condition is recommended so that the existing approved east-facing balconies located at the Entry Level and First Floor are not enclosed and shall form part of the new balcony areas.

 

Figure 1 – Proposed Entry Level balcony area and privacy screening (blue), and approved awning outline (dotted).

 

 

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

 

First Floor Level

·      Enlarge the area of the awning.

·      Make a portion of the awning trafficable so as to be used as a balcony.

·      Installation of frameless clear glass balustrading.

·      Note: no changes proposed to roof above the proposed First Floor balcony.

 

The proposed works at the First Floor level will result in the awning becoming a balcony that serves “Bed 2”. A small balcony was approved off the bedroom via DA/822/2013 with a sliding access door approved via DA/851/2015. According to the Applicant, the sliding access door will provide access to the proposed balcony. As stated above, so that additional GFA is not approved via the potential for enclosure of the original balcony, a condition is recommended so that the existing approved east-facing balconies located at the Entry Level and First Floor are not enclosed and shall form part of the new balcony areas.

 

The approved area of the awning was 15.6m2 and the proposed new area of the awning / balcony is 19.9m2. A portion of the awning is proposed to be trafficable. The depth of the approved awning is proposed to be reduced from the easternmost triangular point (refer to dotted outline of original approved awning in figure 4 below). To support the balcony / awning, a structural column is proposed under the southern side (can be viewed as the proposed “150x100 steel post in lieu of beam” shown in Figure 1 above).

 

According to the Applicant, the original size and shape of the awning as approved could not be constructed. Structural Certificates were submitted stating that the extension of the awning is necessary to permit the cantilevered section to the north and that the column is necessary to support the southern section. Formwork for the awning as proposed has been errected, however the slab has not yet been poured and therefore the proposed works have not yet been carried out (a stop-work order has been issued).

 

Figure 4 – Proposed First Floor extension of awning (blue) and trafficable area (lined), and approved awning outline (dotted).

 

 

Figures 5 & 6  - View south to living room balcony below (Level 4) and bedroom balcony / awning above (Level 5) of 9 Seaside Parade (left photo), and view north-east to POS of 5 Seaside Parade (right photo).

 

5.       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:

 

·      4 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

·      5 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

·      6 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

·      8 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

·      9 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

·      10 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

·      15 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

·      12 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

·      21 Torrington Road, Maroubra

·      28 Edgecliffe Avenue, South Coogee

·      25 Amour Avenue, Maroubra

·      47 Cuzco Street, South Coogee

·      250 Storey Street, Maroubra

·      704/97 Boyce Road, Maroubra

 

Issue

Comment

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

The proposal will result in a more regular shaped balcony at the First Floor compared to the approved triangular awning that will be more harmonious with the foreshore area, and that is in-line with the approved balconies of the southern neighbouring property. The proposed clear glass balustrading and 100mm x 150mm support column that is integrated with the 1.6m high privacy screening at the Entry Level balcony will not result in adverse bulk and scale. The works are isolated to the rear of the existing building and will not disrupt view corridors from public places to the coast (refer to section 9.1, discussion of key issues).

The proposed development has already been refused and should not be approved. Request for the DA to be assessed by a different planning officer other than William Jones, who recommended approval for the related S4.55 modification applications that were refused by the RLPP.

The subject DA is a separate application that is considered on its own merit. The proposed works differ to the modifications proposed as part of the S4.55 modification applications that were refused by the RLPP, and the reason for refusal has been addressed in Section 3, relevant history.

There is an excessive number of applications applicable to the property, which should be reduced.

Previous applications that have already been determined cannot be withdrawn.

Development should not be approved beyond the Foreshore Building Line.

The proposed works are located behind the Foreshore Building Line pursuant to clause 6.6 of the RLEP 2012 (refer to section 9.1, discussion of key issues).

The support columns should not be provided beyond the rear building line as no other properties are provided with this.

The support column is integrated with the proposed privacy screening and is 100mm x 150mm, which will not result in adverse amenity impacts.

No trafficable awnings should be provided on the street side and no further works to the street elevation.

No street-facing balconies or works to the front elevation are proposed.

View loss from adjoining properties, particularly should privacy screens be required for the trafficable balcony. 5 Seaside Parade contains south-facing windows contrary to the submitted SEE.

The proposal will not result in adverse view loss from neighboring properties (refer to section 9.1, discussion of key issues).

Approval will set an undesirable precedent.

Future applications will be assessed on merit.

The originally approved smaller balconies will be filled in as additional GFA. The approval of awnings as balconies may result in further exceedance of the FSR control.

A condition is recommended to ensure the original balconies are absorbed / included as part of the proposed balcony areas, which are not counted towards gross floor area as defined in the RLEP.

Visual privacy impacts to adjoining properties. In particular, the First Floor balcony will have a view into 9 Seaside Parade’s bedroom window. Any measures to mitigate privacy will result in view loss.

Adverse visual privacy impacts will not occur considering the balcony serves a bedroom that is not a frequented room and is not excessively sized. Some overlooking between properties is also a characteristic of the area (refer to section 9.1, discussion of key issues).

Noise impacts due to the excessive size of the balconies.

The balconies are not considered to be excessively sized and are proportionate to the size of the dwelling and the rooms that they serve. The balconies are not the principal private open space for the dwelling and therefore adverse noise impacts are not expected to occur.

The proposal is not in the public interest given retrospective approval of unauthorised works would undermine the faith of the community in the planning system. Council is reluctant to order demolition and the fines issued for unauthorised works are not a sufficient deterrent.

Retrospective approval is not sought under this DA, only works that have not yet been carried out. The S4.55(2) modification application (DA/502/2018/B) seeks retrospective approval for unauthorised works to the Entry Level awning, and is also subject to determination by the RLPP.

Parts of the awning that is not proposed to be trafficable will be used as part of the balcony.

A condition is recommended to enforce the non-trafficable area of the awning adjacent to the proposed balcony at the First Floor.

An additional structure has been built on the roof in addition to the increased height of the lift overrun that has also been retrospectively approved.

This issue has been raised with Council’s Compliance team who is investigating the matter.

The proposed privacy screen will impact solar access to 9 Seaside Parade.

The main living areas / glazing and POS of 9 Seaside Parade is orientated to the east, which based upon the shadow diagrams submitted for the dwelling being constructed at 9 Seaside Parade (DA/303/2013), will receive >3 hours solar access.

The proposed support column is not in-line with the already constructed column below. Concerns whether the column can support the first floor balcony.

A standard condition is provide (condition 10) requiring the submission of a Certificate of Adequacy by an engineer certifying the structural adequacy of the existing structure to support the additional balcony / awning area as part of the First Floor as part of the Construction Certificate documentation.

The first floor balcony will impact views from the north-facing bedroom window of 9 Seaside Parade.

The proposal will not adversely impact water views from the balcony at Level 5 (RL 28.6 – eye-level at RL 30.2) of 9 Seaside Parade given views will be maintained over the top of the proposed balcony and awning at the First Floor (RL 27.2) and clear glass balustrading is proposed.

 

6.       Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

6.1.    SEPP (Coastal Management) 2018

 

The subject site is mapped as part of the coastal environment area, and the coastal use area pursuant to Clause 6 of the SEPP.

 

The aims of the Costal Management SEPP are:

 

“(a)   managing development in the coastal zone and protecting the environmental assets of the coast, and

(b)   establishing a framework for land use planning to guide decision-making in the coastal zone, and

(c)   mapping the 4 coastal management areas that comprise the NSW coastal zone for the purpose of the definitions in the Coastal Management Act 2016.”

 

Assessing officer’s comment: In response to Clause 13 of Division 3 – Coastal environment area, the proposal will not impede public access to the foreshore or use of the surf zone, or impact ecological or coastal environmental values.

 

In response to Clause 14 of Division 4 – Coastal use area, the proposal will not impede access to the foreshore or impact views from public places to the foreshore, or the scenic qualities of the coast (refer to discussion regarding the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area is Section 9.1 of this report).

 

In response to Division 5 – General, the proposal will not increase coastal hazards.

 

6.2.    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, contribute to the desired future character of the area, and will protect the amenity of residents subject to conditions.

 

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

 

Clause

Development Standard

Proposal

Compliance

Cl 4.3: Building height (max)

9.5m

10.9m measured from the top of the proposed balustrading, 9.8m from the FL of the proposed balcony, and 9.6m from the top of the support column at the First Floor to existing ground level (taken to be beneath the slab of the existing Lower Ground Floor).

 

The proposed Entry Level balcony, privacy screening is <9.5m.

The First Floor balcony, balustrading and top of the column does not comply.

Cl 4.4: Floor space ratio (max)

0.6:1

No change to the existing FSR subject to conditions so that the existing approved balconies are not enclosed and remain part of the proposed balcony areas.

N/A

 

6.2.1.      Clause 4.6 - Exceptions to development standards

The non-compliance with the height of buildings development standard is discussed in Section 7 below.

 

 

6.2.2.      Clause 6.7 Foreshore scenic protection area

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

 

6.7   Foreshore scenic protection area

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposal is not directly visible from Seaside Parade or surrounding streets, and therefore will not impact views to the coast from these public areas. The proposal is not perceivable when viewed from public areas along the coast further to the south-east (along Marine Parade). Therefore the key consideration is views to site from the water.

 

The proposed additional balcony and awning area on the First Floor is in-line with the approved balconies and awnings of 9 Seaside Parade (and lower than the uppermost balcony), with the structure reducing in size toward the northern side. The proposed additional balcony and awning area will result in a more regular shaped structure that is in keeping with the shape of the awning at the Entry Level below proposed via DA/502/2018/B, and existing balconies along the coast that will be less visually jarring compared to the approved triangular awning. The proposed balustrading is frameless and comprises glass, and the proposed privacy screening to the Entry Level balcony is 1.6m high that will not significantly contribute to bulk and scale. The proposal will therefore contribute to the scenic quality of the coastal foreshore.

 

Figure 7 – Overlay of Council’s Foreshore Building Line Map / Foreshore Scenic Protection Area Map Sheet CL1_008 with measurements to the foreshore Building Line (shaded pink) and proposed roof plan.

 

Figure 8 – Approved triangular awnings (red arrow).

 

Figure 9 – Proposed balconies (red arrow).

 

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

Existing

Proposal

 

Proposed variation

 

Proposed variation

(%)

Cl 4.3:

Building height (max)

9.5m

17m measured from the top of the lift overrun to beneath the slab of the Lower Ground Floor.

10.9m measured from the top of the balustrading, 9.8m from the FL of the balcony, and 9.6m from the top of the column at the First Floor.

1.4m (balustrading), 0.3m (balcony), and 0.1m (top of column).

14.7% (balustrading), 3.1% (balcony), and 1% (top of column).

 

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

 

3.   Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

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

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

 

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

(a)  the consent authority is satisfied that:

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Chief Justice Preston at [24] notes that there are two aspects 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 Building Height development standard (Clause 4.3)

The applicant’s written justification for the departure from the Building Height standard is contained in Appendix 1.

 

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

 

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

 

The applicant’s written justification demonstrates that this objective is satisfied by noting that the proposed balcony and balustrading is of a similar height of the balconies of 9 Seaside Parade, and the clear glass balustrading will not be highly visible.

 

(b)  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(b) is not relevant to this development.

 

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

 

The applicant’s written justification demonstrates that this objective is satisfied by noting that the proposed balcony is lower than the approved balcony on Level 5 of 9 Seaside Parade, and overlooking of the Level 4 balcony (containing POS accessed from a living area) will not occur given privacy screening is approved along the northern side of the Level 4 balcony. The balcony and clear balustrading will not result in adverse visual amenity impacts and will not impact views. Adverse overlooking will also not occur.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: In conclusion, the applicant’s written request has adequately demonstrated that compliance with the building height 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 on the basis that there will be no amenity impacts and that the First Floor level to which the balcony serves complies with the building height standard.

 

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

 

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 Height of Buildings development standard and the R2 Low Density Residential zone is provided below:

 

Assessment against objectives of the height of buildings development 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 given the section of the building subject to the non-compliance is at a lesser height than the dwelling, and is isolated to the rear of the site and will not be perceived from the street. The balcony and awning is in-line with and at a lesser height than the uppermost balcony of 9 Seaside Parade. The balustrading comprises clear glass and the proposed support column measures 150mm x 100mm and is integrated behind the proposed privacy screening to the balcony off the Entry Level that will not result in adverse bulk and scale when viewed from the water or neighbouring properties. Therefore, the proposal is compatible with the desired future character of the locality.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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 proposed balcony including the clear balustrading and support column, will not result in adverse visual bulk noting that it is in-line with the approved balconies of 9 Seaside Parade, and reduces in depth towards the north.

 

·      Loss of privacy: A detailed assessment of privacy impacts is provided in Section 9.1, discussion of key issues. The proposal will not result in any unreasonable adverse privacy impacts.

 

·      Overshadowing: Neighbouring dwellings are orientated to the east and will continue to receive more than 3 hours solar access to living room windows and private open space between 9:00am and 4:00pm on 21 June.

 

·      Views: A view loss assessment is provided in Section 9.1, discussion of key issues. Existing view corridors will be reasonably maintained as a result of the proposed development.

 

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.

 

The development is consistent with the objectives of the building height standard.

 

 

 

Assessment against objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone

The objectives of R2 Low Density Residential zone are:

 

·      To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low 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 improving upon the design of the existing dwelling house. The proposed development will contribute to the desired future character of the area by providing a balcony that is in-line with and lower than the approved uppermost balcony of 9 Seaside Parade, with the balcony provided at the rear of the site reducing bulk and scale. The proposed development will protect the amenity of residents that will occupy the building through improvements to the building design, and will not adversely impact the amenity of residents that will occupy neighbouring buildings.

 

The development is consistent with the objectives of the height of buildings standard and the R2 Low 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?

 

Variation of the height of buildings standard will allow for the orderly use of the site and there is a no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance.

 

Conclusion

 

On the basis of the above assessment, it is considered that the requirements of Clause 4.6(4) have been satisfied and that development consent may be granted for development that contravenes the height of buildings 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 2.


 

 

9.       Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

Section 4.15 ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

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

See discussion in sections 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.

 

9.1.    Discussion of key issues

 

9.1.1  Visual Privacy

 

Clause 5.3 of Part C1 of the RDCP 2013 requires upper floor balconies to be focused to the street or rear yard to minimise privacy impacts on adjoining properties. Privacy screening can be considered, and for sloping sites expansive areas of elevated outdoor recreation spaces shall be avoided. Both of the proposed balconies are orientated to the rear of the site and are not considered to be expansive recreation spaces and are proportionate to the size of the dwelling and the rooms that they are proposed to serve.

The neighbouring building to the south at 9 Seaside Parade is currently under construction and will contain a part 2 and part 4 storey dwelling house approved via DA/303/2013. The neighbouring building to the north at 5 Seaside Parade is a part 2 and part 3 storey dwelling house.

 

The objective of Clause 5.3 is as follows:

 

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

 

Entry Level Balcony

 

The proposed Entry Level balcony serves the games room and although it is not the principal private open space of the dwelling, it is expected to be regularly used. The balcony is at RL 24.5 and will be located adjacent to the approved balcony of 9 Seaside Parade, which is at RL 25.3 and serves the principal living and dining area located at Level 4. The northern side of the approved balcony for 9 Seaside Parade is provided with fixed full height privacy screening approved via DA/303/2013/C. A north-facing living room window comprising clear glazing was approved via DA/303/2013/B.

 

The proposed privacy screening to the northern and southern sides of the Entry Level balcony will mitigate overlooking of habitable room windows and will reduce adverse overlooking to lower POS of both neighbouring properties. Although some angled, indirect overlooking of lower POS may occur, it is noted that the proposed balcony will not be the principal private open space, and some overlooking from upper level balconies is a characteristic of the area.

 

First Floor Balcony

 

The proposed First Floor balcony serves a bedroom and occupies a portion of the porposed extended balcony / awning area. Privacy screening is not proposed to the northern or southern sides of this balcony, which will overlook neighbouring properties. The proposed balcony is at RL 27.22 (eye level will be at RL 28.72) and will be located in between the approved balconies of 9 Seaside Parade at Level 5 (RL 28.6 – eye level at RL 30.1, serving a bedroom) and Level 4 (RL 25.3 serving the principal living and dining area).

 

The northern side of the approved balcony of 9 Seaside Parade at Level 5 (serving a bedroom) is not provided with privacy screening, and the northern side of the approved balcony at Level 4 (serving principal living and dining area) is provided with privacy screening. Therefore the proposed balcony will not overlook the lower Level 4 balcony, but will overlook and be overlooked by the Level 5 balcony (considerde to be a low use balcony as it sereves a bedroom). The northern side of the proposed balcony will in-turn overlook the lower POS of the neighbouring property to the north at 5 Seaside Parade.

 

Considering the restricted size of the balcony and that the balcony will serve a bedroom, which is not a high use room, and considering the increased side boundary setback to the northern neighbouring property, adverse privacy impacts are not expected to occur noting that some overlooking from upper level balconies is a characteristic of the area. Privacy screening to the sides of the balcony is not desirable, which due to its elevated nature will contribute to unnecessary bulk and scale within the foreshore Scenic Protection Area. A condition is recommended to enforce the non-trafficable section of the awning.

 

9.1.2  View Sharing

 

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

 

5 Seaside Parade

The proposal will not impact water views from the northern neighbouring property at 5 Seaside Parade given the building is set back behind the rear section of the approved building and living areas are predominantly orientated to the east and north-east. As per the resident’s submission however, it is noted that there is a south-facing living room window that can also be seen in the aerial image below.

 

Figure 10 – Aerial image of northern neighbouring property’s south-facing living room window.

 

The proposed balconies and privacy screening will not impact views noting the line-of-sight from the northern property’s south-facing window is obstructed by the approved full-height privacy screen adjacent to the northern side boundary (refer to Figure 11 below).

 

Figure 11 – Overlay of survey (green) with proposed roof plan (red) showing line-of-sight from northern neighbouring property’s south-facing window.

 

9 Seaside Parade

The proposal will not impact water views from the living room balcony at Level 4 of 9 Seaside Parade given privacy screening is approved to the northern side of the balcony. The proposal will not adversely impact water views from the balcony at Level 5 (RL 28.6 – eye-level at RL 30.2) of 9 Seaside Parade given views will be maintained over the top of the proposed balcony at the First Floor (RL 27.2) and clear glass balustrading is proposed.

 

The north facing living room window at Level 4 of 9 Seaside Parade will lose views to Wedding Cake Island to the north-east as a result of the proposed privacy screening to the balcony at the Entry Level. Although the top of the privacy screening is at RL 26.1 and eye level from the north-facing window of 9 Seaside Parade will be at RL 26.9, the angle of view downward to Wedding Cake Island will be obstructed as a result of the privacy screening, which is necessary to prevent direct overlooking.

 

To assess the reasonableness of the view loss from the north-facing living room window of 9 Seaside Parade, an assessment against the four-stage method established by the planning principal in the matter of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah (2004) NSWLEC 140 is carried out below.

 

1.    Quality of Views:

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The affected view will be from the north-facing living room window at Level 4 of 9 Seaside Parade. The view is an unobstructed land and water interface view of Wedding Cake Island located to the north-east.

 

 

Figures 12 and 13 – View to Wedding Cake Island from 9 Seaside Parade (left) and overlay of aerial image (blue) and approved Level 4 floor plan showing existing view from north-facing living room window.

 

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

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: Views are obtained across the side boundary from both a standing and a seated position.

 

3.    An assessment of the extent of the impact.

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The view loss is assessed as moderate noting that the affected view is from a living room window.

 

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

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The non-compliant building height relates to the proposed balcony at the First Floor, which does not result in adverse view loss. The proposed Entry Level balcony and privacy screening complies with the building height standard and other relevant planning controls. Therefore the assessment of the reasonableness of the proposal is based upon whether a more skillful design could be provided to provide the Applicant with the same amenity and to reduce impact on views.

 

In this case a more skillful design cannot be provided given the proposed privacy screening is necessary to mitigate direct overlooking of 9 Seaside Parade. The use of the awning as a balcony is reasonable as it will serve a living area that is not excessively sized and is in-line with the balconies at 9 Seaside Parade. In order to improve views either the privacy screening would need to be deleted, which is not supported, or the balcony would need to be significantly reduced, which would make it unusable. This is unreasonable considering it will serve a living area and is consistent with the balconies provided at 9 Seaside Parade.

 

Further, it is noted that it was Council’s intention to require privacy treatment to the north-facing window at Level 4 of 9 Seaside Parade in accordance with the annotation provided on the approved northern elevation drawing (see Figure 14 below). However, the corresponding condition (DA/303/2013/C) incorrectly referenced the wrong level for the living area and therefore full height glazing was installed for this window.

 

Considering 9 Seaside Parade will maintain unobstructed land and water views to the east and partially to the north-east and south-east (which is the main orientation of dwellings in the area), the view loss is assessed as reasonable.

 

Figure 14 – Approved northern elevation of 9 Seaside Parade and annotation requiring privacy treatment, which conditions did not correctly reflect (red arrow identifies subject window).

 

 

 

10.     Conclusion

 

That the application for installation of balustrading to the east-facing awnings at the entry level and first floor, installation of privacy screening at the entry level awning, enlargement of the first floor awning, and use of the awnings as balconies 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 Low Density Residential zone in that the proposed activity and built form will provide for the housing needs of the community, contribute to the desired future character of the area, 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.

 

·      The development enhances the scenic qualities of the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and will not adversely impact upon views to and from the coast.

 


 

Appendix 1: Applicant’s written request seeking to justify the contravention of the development standard

 

 


 

Appendix 2: DCP Compliance Table

 

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

 

The relevant provisions of the DCP are addressed below.

(Note: a number of control provisions that are not related to the proposal have been deliberately omitted)

 

Section C1: Low Density Residential

 

DCP Clause

Controls

Proposal

Compliance

3.3

Setbacks

3.3.2

Side Setbacks

 

1.2m Ground storey and First storey, 1.8m second storey and above.

1.8m to both balconies to southern side boundary, and 4.7m to northern side boundary.

Complies

3.3.3

Rear Setbacks

 

25% of allotment depth or 8m, whichever is the lesser. 

8m min required and 24m proposed.

 

5

Amenity

5.1

Solar Access and Overshadowing

 

Solar access to neighbouring development:

iii) A portion of the north-facing living area windows of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. 

 

iv) The private open space of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. The area covered by sunlight must be capable of supporting passive recreation activities.

The north-facing living room window of 9 Seaside Parade will be additionally overshadowed by the proposed works. However, the main living areas / glazing and POS is orientated to the east, which based upon the shadow diagrams submitted for the dwelling being constructed at 9 Seaside Parade (DA/303/2013), will receive >3 hours solar access.

Minor non-compliance is supported.

5.3

Visual Privacy

 

iii) Focus upper floor balconies to the street or rear yard of the site. Any elevated balconies or balcony returns on the side facade must have a narrow width to minimise privacy impacts on the adjoining properties.

 

iv) Where a balcony, deck or terrace is likely to overlook the private open space or windows of the adjacent dwellings, privacy screens must be installed in positions suitable to mitigate the loss of privacy. 

 

Privacy screens must be permanently fixed and have a minimum height of not less than 1600mm as measured from the finished floor level. Privacy screens must achieve a minimum of 70% opaqueness and may be constructed with:

 

- Translucent or obscured glazing

- Fixed timber or metal slats mounted horizontally or vertically

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

 

v) Screen planting and planter boxes may be used as a supplementary device for reinforcing privacy protection. However, they must not be used as the sole privacy protection measure.  

 

vi) For sloping sites, any ground floor decks or terraces must step down in accordance with the landform, and avoid expansive areas of elevated outdoor recreation space. 

The proposed rear-facing balconies will not result in adverse visual privacy impacts.

Refer to Section 9.1, discussion of key issues.

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 rear-facing balconies will reasonably maintain views to neighbouring properties.

Refer to Section 9.1, discussion of key issues.

 

Section B10:  Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

 

DCP Clause

Controls

Proposal

Compliance

 

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.

The proposed balconies are in-line with the rear balconies of the southern adjoining property.

 

The clear balustrading, 150mm x 100mm column, and privacy screening will not result in adverse additional bulk and scale and demonstrates appropriate design that integrates well with the dwelling and coastal environment.

 

A condition is recommended to ensure that the clear glass balustrading is not highly reflective.

Complies

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

RLPP Conditions - DA/279/2019 - 7 Seaside Parade, SOUTH COOGEE

 

 

 

 


RLPP Conditions - DA/279/2019 - 7 Seaside Parade, SOUTH COOGEE

Attachment 1

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Randwick Local Planning Panel            11 July 2019

 

 

Development Application Report No. D35/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

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

 

Folder No:                      DA/502/2018/B

Author:                          William Jones, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

 

Proposal:                       Modification of approved development by re-shaping awning footprint at the Entry Level and provision of a support column below on the southern side of the awning.

Ward:                             East Ward

Applicant:                      Santos Architecture

Owner:                           Ms M Eleftheriades

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

Reason for referral:        The application is made under Section 4.55(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (1979) and 10 or more unique submissions by way of objection were received.

Recommendation

That the RLPP, as the consent authority, approve the application made under Section 4.55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Application No. 502/2018 for modification of approved development by re-shaping awning footprint at the Entry Level and provision of a support column below on the southern side of the awning at 7 Seaside Parade, South Coogee, in the following manner:    

·            Amend Condition 1 to read: 

 

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

1000 ‘A’

Santos Architecture

26/06/2018

1002 ‘A’

Santos Architecture

26/06/2018

1003 ‘A’

Santos Architecture

26/06/2018

2001 ‘A’

Santos Architecture

26/06/2018

2002 ‘A’

Santos Architecture

26/06/2018

 

EXCEPT where amended by:

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

·      Other conditions of this consent; and/or

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

1002 ‘A’

Santos Architecture

24/05/2019

2001 ‘A’

Santos Architecture

24/05/2019

2002 ‘A’

Santos Architecture

24/05/2019

 

 


 

 

 

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

 

·      25 Amour Avenue, Maroubra

·      250 Storey Street, Maroubra

·      704/97 Boyce Road, Maroubra

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

1.      Reason for referral

 

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

 

It is noted that DA/279/2019 is also subject to determination by the RLPP and relates to the same site for installation of balustrading to the east-facing awnings at the Entry Level and First Floor, installation of privacy screening to the sides of the Entry Level awning, enlargement of the First Floor awning, and use of the awnings as balconies.

 

2.      Site Description and Locality

 

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

 

The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of low density residential development comprising three to five storey dwelling houses on the eastern side of Seaside Parade and two and three storey dwelling houses on the western side of Seaside Parade as part of the R2 Low Density Residential zone pursuant to the RLEP 2012. To the south of the site at 9 Seaside Parade is a part 2 and part four storey dwelling house that is currently being constructed. To the north of the site at 5 Seaside Parade is a part 2 and part 3 storey dwelling house.

 


 

3.      Details of Current Approval

 

The original development application DA/502/2018 was approved by Randwick City Council under delegated authority on 12 September 2018 for a new awning at the Entry Level above the rear outdoor terrace area. The awning was approved as a cantilevered structure without a support column and was not approved with balustrading and was non-trafficable.

 

4.      Relevant History

 

Refused Modification Applications

The following S4.55(2) modification applications were refused by the RLPP on 9 May 2019:

 

·      DA/502/2018/A - Modification of approved development by enlargement of the rear awning at the entry level and making the awning trafficable with balustrading and provision of a support column.

 

·      DA/655/2018/A - Modification of approved development by enlargement of the rear awning at the first floor level and making the awning trafficable with balustrading and provision of a structural column.

 

The modification applications were both refused for the following reason:

 

The Panel is not satisfied that the proposed modification is substantially the same as the  development for which consent was originally granted, as required by Section 4.55 (2) (a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, noting that the proposed modification would change the function/use of the structure as well as its shape and size.

 

DA/502/2018/B seeks retrospective approval for works already carried out to the Entry Level awning with no change of use to a balcony proposed. Council has received legal advice in relation to the subject modification application advising that the modifications will result in a development that is substantially the same as development for which consent was originally granted.

 

It is noted that both of the refused modification applications are subject to a Class 1 Appeal at the Land and Environment Court.

 

Other Relevant Applications

Other than the refused modification applications, the existing dwelling that is currently undergoing construction is subject to a number of DAs and modification applications as follows (from most recent):

 

·      DA/502/2018 – Construction of a new awning above the rear outdoor terrace area located at the ground floor level. The awning was approved as a cantilevered structure without a support column and was not approved with balustrading and was non-trafficable from the entry level. Approved under delegated authority on 12 September 2018.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

5.      Proposal

 

Modification of approved development by re-shaping the awning footprint at the Entry Level and provision of a support column below on the southern side of the awning.

 

The approved area of the awning was 12.5m2 and the proposed new area of the awning is 17m2. The awning is not proposed to be trafficable as part of this modification application. Compared to the original approved awning, the depth is proposed to be reduced from the easternmost triangular point. To support the awning, a structural column is proposed from the ground floor level on the southern side. A Structural Certificates was submitted stating that the extension of the awning is necessary to permit the cantilevered section to the north and that the column is necessary to support the southern section.

 

The proposed modifications have already been carried out and therefore retrospective approval is sought to legitimise the use of the additional works as an awning.

Figure 1 – Proposed awning (blue) at the Entry Level.

 

 

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

 

6.      Section 4.55 Assessment

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

An assessment against the above criteria is provided below:

 


 

1.   Substantially the Same Development

 

The proposed modifications are not considered to result in a development that will fundamentally alter the originally approved development noting that the approved use of the awning is not proposed to change, and the support column is ancillary to the approved use. Council has received legal advice in relation to the subject modification application advising that the modifications will result in a development that is substantially the same as development for which consent was originally granted.

 

2.   Consultation with Other Approval Bodies or Public Authorities:

 

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

 

3.   Notification and Consideration of Submissions:

 

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

 

·      5 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

·      6 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

·      8 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

·      9 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

·      12 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

·      15 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

·      47Cuzco Street, South Coogee

·      28 Edgecliffe Avenue, South Coogee

·      21 Torrington Road, Maroubra

·      25 Amour Avenue, Maroubra

·      250 Storey Street, Maroubra

·      704/97 Boyce Road, Maroubra

 

Issue

Comment

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

The proposal will result in a more regular shaped awning compared to the approved triangular awning that will be more harmonious with the foreshore area, and that is in-line with the approved balconies of the southern neighbouring property. The works are isolated to the rear of the existing building and will not disrupt view corridors from public places to the coast (refer to section 7, discussion of key issues).

The proposed awning now requires a support column, which means that it is much larger than approved and not substantially the same.

The proposed awning is 4.5m2 larger than the approved awning, which is not considered to be a significant increase, and proposes a reduced overall depth (i.e. increased eastern boundary setback). The column is ancillary to the awning and a Structural Certificate was submitted stating that the extended awning was necessary to permit the cantilevered section to the north.

The proposed development has already been refused and should not be approved. Request for the application to be assessed by a different planning officer other than William Jones, who recommended approval for the related S4.55 modification applications that were refused by the RLPP.

The subject S4.55(2) modification application is a separate application that is considered on its own merit. The proposed modification application differs to the refused modifications in that use of the awning as a balcony is not proposed. The proposed use of the awnings as balconies is now considered under a separate DA for use (DA/279/2019), which is also being determined by the RLPP.

There is an excessive number of applications applicable to the property, which should be reduced.

Previous applications that have already been determined cannot be withdrawn.

Development should not be approved beyond the Foreshore Building Line.

The proposed works are located behind the Foreshore Building Line pursuant to clause 6.6 of the RLEP 2012 (refer to section 7, discussion of key issues).

The support columns should not be provided beyond the rear building line as no other properties are provided with this. The support column will permit extension of the balcony beyond the Foreshore Building Line.

The support column is necessary to support the proposed awning. It is located on the southern side of the awning and is not excessively sized and will not result in adverse amenity impacts. Any future development will be assessed on merit.

The proposed support column has already been constructed.

Noted. Retrospective approval for the column and awning that has also been constructed is sought as part of this S4.55(2) modification application.

View loss from adjoining properties, particularly should privacy screens be required for the trafficable balcony. 5 Seaside Parade contains south-facing windows contrary to the submitted SEE.

The proposal will not result in adverse view loss from neighboring properties (refer to section 7, discussion of key issues).

Approval will set an undesirable precedent.

Future applications will be assessed on merit.

The originally approved smaller balconies will be filled in as additional GFA. The approval of awnings as balconies may result in further exceedance of the FSR control.

Balconies are not proposed as part of this S4.55(2) modification application.

Noise and privacy impacts due to the excessive size of the balconies.

Balconies are not proposed as part of this S4.55(2) modification application.

The proposal is not in the public interest given retrospective approval of unauthorised works would undermine the faith of the community in the planning system. Council is reluctant to order demolition and the fines issued for unauthorised works are not a sufficient deterrent.

This S4.55(2) modification application seeks to legitimise the unauthorised works to the Entry Level awning.

Concerns that the construction has further breached existing approvals.

Any concerns related to unauthorised works can be forwarded to Council’s Compliance department for investigation.

The proposed additional awning area and support column will impact solar access to 9 Seaside Parade.

The main living areas / glazing and POS of 9 Seaside Parade is orientated to the east, which based upon the shadow diagrams submitted for the dwelling being constructed at 9 Seaside Parade (DA/303/2013), will receive >3 hours solar access.

The proposed support column will impact views from the north-facing living room window of 9 Seaside Parade.

The living room window in question is provided at Level 4 of 9 Seaside Parade (RL 24). The top of the support column is located below the FL of Level 4 at RL 24.5. Therefore the column will not obstruct views from the living room of 9 Seaside Parade.

 

7.      Key Issues

 

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

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

 

6.7   Foreshore scenic protection area

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposal is not directly visible from Seaside Parade or surrounding streets, and therefore will not impact views to the coast from these public areas. The proposal is not perceivable when viewed from public areas along the coast further to the south-east (along Marine Parade). Therefore the key consideration is views to site from the water.

 

The proposed additional awning area at the Entry Level is in-line with the approved balconies and awnings of 9 Seaside Parade, with the structure reducing in size toward the northern side. The proposed additional awning area will result in a more regular shaped structure that is in keeping with the shape of balconies along the coast and will be less visually jarring compared to the approved triangular awning. The proposal will therefore contribute to the scenic quality of the coastal foreshore.

 

Figure 4 – Overlay of Council’s Foreshore Building Line Map / Foreshore Scenic Protection Area Map Sheet CL1_008 with measurements to the foreshore Building Line (shaded pink) and proposed roof plan.

 

Figure 5 – Approved triangular awnings (red arrow).

 

Figure 6 – Proposed awning (red arrow).

 

View Sharing

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

 

5 Seaside Parade

The proposal will not impact water views from the northern neighbouring property at 5 Seaside Parade given the building is set back behind the rear section of the approved building and living areas are predominantly orientated to the east and north-east. As per the resident’s submission however, it is noted that there is a south-facing living room window that can also be seen in the aerial image below.

 

Figure 7 – Aerial image of northern neighbouring property’s south-facing living room window.

 

The proposed awning will not impact views noting the line-of-sight from the northern property’s south-facing window is obstructed by the approved full-height privacy screen adjacent to the northern side boundary (refer to Figure 8 below).

 

Figure 8 – Overlay of survey (green) with proposed roof plan (red) showing line-of-sight from northern neighbouring property’s south-facing window.

 

9 Seaside Parade

The proposal will not impact water views from the living room balcony at Level 4 of 9 Seaside Parade given privacy screening is approved to the northern side of the balcony. The north facing living room window at Level 4 of 9 Seaside Parade will not lose views to Wedding Cake Island to the north-east given the additional awning area is isolated to the northern and southern sides of the approved awning and no other works are proposed to the awning that might obstruct views.

 

It is noted that it was Council’s intention to require privacy treatment to the north-facing window at Level 4 of 9 Seaside Parade in accordance with the annotation provided on the approved northern elevation drawing (see Figure 9 below). However, the corresponding condition (DA/303/2013/C) incorrectly referenced the wrong level for the living area and therefore full height glazing was installed for this window.

 

Figure 9 – Approved northern elevation of 9 Seaside Parade and annotation requiring privacy treatment, which conditions did not correctly reflect (red arrow identifies subject window).

 

8.      Section 4.15 Assessment

 

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

 

Section 4.15 ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

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

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

 

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

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

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

 

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

Nil.

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

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

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Therefore the site remains suitable for the modified development.

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

 

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

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

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

 

9.      Conclusion

 

The application is recommended for approval for the following reasons:

 

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

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

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Randwick Local Planning Panel            11 July 2019

 

 

Development Application Report No. D36/19

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject:                      200 Oberon Street, Coogee (DA/407/2018)

 

Folder No:                      DA/407/2018

Author:                          Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

 

Proposal:                       Demolition of existing structures and construction of a 3 storey residential flat building comprising of 5 residential units above a basement level containing a total of 7 car parking spaces.

Ward:                             East Ward

Applicant:                      Gelder Architects

Owner:                           Mr B Inglesias & Mrs C Inglesias

Cost of works:                $2,360,924

Reason for referral:        The proposal is subject to SEPP 65

Recommendation

A.      That the RLPP is satisfied that the matters detailed in Clause 4.6(4) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 have been adequately addressed and that consent may be granted to the development application, which contravenes the Floor Space Ratio development standard in Clause 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The concurrence of the Director of the Department of Planning & Environment may be assumed.

B.      That the RLPP grant consent under Sections 4.16 and 4.17 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 4074/2018 for Demolition of existing structures and construction of a 3 storey residential flat building comprising of 5 residential units above a basement level containing a total of 7 car parking spaces at No. 200 Oberon 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 it is for a residential flat building subject to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 - Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65).

 

The proposal as amended seeks development consent for demolition of existing structures and the construction of a 3 storey residential flat building comprising 5 residential units above a basement level accommodating a total of 7 car parking spaces.

 

The original scheme was not supported as a result of issues with the following aspects of the devlepoment:

 

·      Lack of articulation at the top level;

·      Significant exceedance of the 0.9:1 maximum floor space ratio (FSR) standard in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP) and requirement to include the horizontal lobby spaces (not including required landings or void spaces at top level);

·      Exceedance of the external wall height conrol in the Randwick Comprehensive Develpoment Control Plan 2012 (RDCP)

·      Non-compliance with the rear setback control in the RDCP;

·      Poor amenity of the undercroft communal open space area at the rear;

·      Provision of stacker car parking spaces which uneccessarily raises the height of the development and

·      Raised carpark structure and wall along the western side boundary resulting adverse visual impact on the neighbouring property at No. 198 Oberon Street.

 

The applicant amended the application by removing the car stackers which allowed for a reduction in the size and scale of the devleopment resulting in only a minor variation to the maximum 10.5m external wall height control at the rear; increased rear setback to 6m which is greater than the 5.66m required under the RDCP; introduced a mix of materials and stepped in elements across the top level improving articulation; and relocated the undercroft communal open space area to the rear.

 

The key issue associated with the amended proposal relates to non-compliance with the maximum floor space ratio standard applying to the site (0.9:1 or 381.69sqm). The proposal seeks 392.58sqm of gross floor area which represents an FSR of 0.916:1 equivalent to 10.69sqm over or 2.85% above the maximum FSR standard. An assessment of the applicants Clause 4.6 application seeking to demonstrate environmental planning grounds for the variation is considered to satisfy the objectives of both the FSR standard and the R3 medium density residential zone.

 

The proposal also has a maximum 10.8m external wall height at the middle rear elevation exceeding the 10.5m maximum control for medium density development in the RDCP. Despite the exceedance, the proposal represents an appropriate response to the sloping topography of the site, whereby the exceedances are limited to the lowest parts of the site. The majority of the development complies with the maximum external wall height control and the front of the building is well below 10.5m being between 8.64m and 9.71m.

 

The proposal is recommended for approval subject to non-standard conditions that require privacy planting to the rear yard, and design requirements for balcony privacy screens.

 

2.       Site Description and Locality

 

The subject site is known as 200 Oberon Street and is legally described as Lot A in DP 340998. The site is 424.1m2, is generally rectangular in shape except for a skewed longer front boundary than rear boundary that is endemic to the surrounding area. The site has an 11.595m frontage to Oberon Street to the north and a rear boundary width of 11.2m. The site contains a dual occupancy.

 

The site slopes approximately 2.2m from front to rear and a slope of around 1.8m from the eastern side (adjoining No. 202 Oberon Street to the east) down to the western side boundary alongside No. 196 Oberon Street.

 

Figure 1: Aerial view of subject site (green outline) and surrounding area. Blue outlined propreties contain strata titled properties.

 

3.       Relevant history

 

No relevant history

 

 

4.       Proposal

 

The proposal seeks development consent for:

 

Demolition of the existing dual occupancy on site and construction of a three storey residnetial flat building detailed as follows:

 

Basement:.

 

·      7 car spaces

·      Storage spaces

·      Waste room

·      Lift

·      Front and rear stair access

·      Communal open space at rear

 

Ground level:

 

·      1 x 1 bedroom dwelling (50.61sqm)

·      1 x 2 bedroom dwelling (75.65sqm)

 

First floor level:

 

·      1 x 1 bedroom dwelling (50.61sqm)

·      1 x 2 bedroom dwelling (76sqm)

 

Second floor level:

 

·      1 x 3 bedroom dwelling (124.75sqm)

Figure 2: proposed development at the front as amended showing a reduced size and scale compared with the dashed outline of the original proposal. At left is a more recent development at No. 202 Oberon Street and at right is the walk up flat building at No. 198 Oberon Street.

Figure 3: Photomontage of proposed development showing at left more recently built part three part four storey development at No. 200 Oberon Street and at right existing four storey walk up flat building built circa 1965.

 

Note: The basement level projects above existing ground level along a portion of the western side and southern rear parts of the site in response to the slope of the land and the need to accommodate car parking.

 

Amended plans received by Council on 14 December 2018 include the following amendments:

 

·      Introduce stepped in elements along the side of the second floor level improving articulation;

·      Reduction of floor area at the rear and second floor level;

·      Reduction of the external wall height and overall height by deleting car stackers

·      Increasing the rear setback;

·      Relocating the communal open space to the rear

·      Reducing the height of the carpark wall along the western side boundary.

 

Note: The amended plans substantially address the issues raised however the application continues to seek a variation to the FSR standard under Clause 4.6 of the RLEP. The variation sought is reduced from 8.7% (0.979:1) down to 2.85% (0.916:1). The applicant also provided a shadow analysis showing the difference between the impacts from a compliant scheme compared to the proposed scheme.

 

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 amended proposal was not required to be re-notified given it was considered to result in a reduction in potential adverse impacts. The following submissions were received as a result of the notification process:

 

·      17/174-178 Brook Street

·      2/200 Oberon Street (Resident)


 

 

Issue

Comment

Impact from demolition and rebuild including loss of light

Conditions are included to minimise impacts during demolition and construction of the development. Shadow diagrams showing the difference between the proposed development as amended and a compliant wall height at the rear show the rear neighbours property will still retain sufficient levels of solar access during the winter solstice.

The proposal will affect traffic safety due to vehicles waiting on the street

Traffic movements associated with a small number of apartments is unlikely to result in any significant wait times on the street.

How are garbage bins brought out for weekly pick up

Bins will be moved through the driveway or lift via the eastern side of the building.

Lack of open space

The proposal provides sufficient areas of open space across the site.

The proposed development will result in adverse impacts associated with the following:

 

·      Greater light pollution;

·      Increase in negative carbon impacts;

·      Pressure on local sewage system and other utilities;

·      Additional pressure on local school population;

·      On street parking demand due to no visitor parking spaces;

 

The adverse impacts associated with this development are not considered of significance such that it would preclude the economic and orderly development of land. The shortfall in visitor parking is not a significant impact in that the surrounding area contains availability of parking and given the site constraints it is considered more appropriate to provide additional parking for the residents of the site.

Lack of communal open space and not demonstrating that it achieves sufficient solar access or demonstrated equitable access which would be reduced if a disabled access ramp is proposed.

 

An alternative basement design or reduced yield ought to be pursued to facilitate sufficient usable communal open space.

Under the ADG whether or not communal open space is provided to a development is subject to design guidance assessment whereby the necessity for communal open space is lessened where the proposal contains a low number of units and the site is located in close proximity to neighbouring open space usable for passive and active recreation. The subject site meets both guidance principles and is therefore not reliant on the need to provide communal open space. Notwithstanding, the communal open space contains sufficient dimensions for the low number of units. Solar access is limited and a consequence of the sites orientation rather than any inappropriate site coverage or built form. A chair lift system at the rear can also be installed from basement level to the communal open space.

Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate compliance with the privacy requirements in the ADG

The side facing windows are highlight windows (1.6m above internal floor level) which are considered sufficient to not warrant additional treatment or offsetting from windows on the neighbouring properties.

 

6.       Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

 

6.1.       State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65)

 

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

 

6.2.    SEPP (Vegetation in Non-rural Areas) 2017

 

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

 

The aims of the Vegetation SEPP are:

 

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

 

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

 

Clause 7(1) requires a permit to be granted by the Council for the clearing of vegetation in non-rural areas (such as City of Randwick). No significant vegetation exists on site however a street tree is located at the front which is the subject of assessment by Councils Landscape Officer

 

Council’s Landscape Officer has assessed the street tree and the Landscape plan submitted with the application raising no objections to the proposed landscaping which will significantly increase the amount of vegetation on site and will afford a high level of residential amenity.

 

6.3.    State Environmental Planning Policy (BASIX) 2004

 

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

 

6.4.    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

 

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

 

The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will sit comfortably within the site contributing to the streetscape character and will not result in any significant adverse impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

 

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

 

Clause

Development Standard

Proposal

Compliance

(Yes/No)

Cl 4.4: Floor space ratio (max)

0.9:1

0.916:1

No – see Section 6.5.1 and 7 below.

Cl 4.3: Building height (max)

12m

11.42m

Yes

 

6.4.1.      Clause 4.6 - Exceptions to development standards

The non-compliance with the FSR development standard is discussed in section 7 below. Note: the Clause 4.6 submitted is seeking a 15.75sqm variation however 4.86sqm of that space is stair landing and is excluded from the GFA resulting in an exceedance of 10.89sqm.

 

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 (max)

0.9:1

0.916:1

10.89 m2

2.85%

 

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 which read as follows:

 

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

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

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

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

 

The applicant has addressed the objectives as follows:

 

·       The proposed variation is minor in nature, noting that revision to the massing of the building within the second floor has been undertaken to follow all articulation, recesses and redesigned to be consistent with the storey below combined with the balconies scaled back will have a positive impact on reducing the bulk and scale of the proposal three storey residential flat building, noting compliance with building height and front and rear setback. As such the proposed revision of the design scheme, even if it slightly increases the overall FSR actually results in a suitable density, bulk and scale relative to the existing three storey built form along the southern side of Oberon Street.

·       The proposed departure of the floor space ratio control has no additional adverse impact on nearby heritage items and conservation areas when considering the proposal complies with the height and front and rear setback controls that applies to the development.

·       The proposed development will permit the site to develop to its full zoning potential whilst complementing the existing three storey built form character along the southern side of Oberon Street. Furthermore, the development provides an attractive 3 storey built form that is to address tis frontage and comply with the majority of the key planning controls applying to the development.

·       The exceedance of 15.75m2 will be undiscernible when viewed from Oberon Street and adjoining properties, and result in no material impact when viewing the site and development from the public domain.

·       The proposal has been designed to ensure that privacy impacts are mitigated and that the proposal will not obstruct existing view corridors with the development providing a built form that comply with the prescribed height controls under the LEP.

·       Detailed shadow analysis demonstrates that neighbouring properties bounding the subject site achieves adequate solar access to open space and living areas during midwinter despite the non-compliance.

·       The proposal is not located within a low-density area and the proposal represents an appropriate built form on the site.

 

As outlined above the proposal remains consistent with the underlying objectives of the control and as such compliance is considered unnecessary or unreasonable in the circumstances. The above discussion demonstrates that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the departure from the control.

 

The objectives of the FSR standard are set out in Clause 4.4 (1) of RLEP 2012 which read as follows:

 

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

 

 

 

 The following assessment comments are also noted:

 

·      In regards to objective (a)

·      In regards to objective (b) The BASIX certificate (submitted by the applicant) shows that the development meets the relevant water and energy saving targets.

·      In regards to objective (c) the development is not within a Heritage Conservation Area or near a Heritage Item so the objective is not relevant to this development.

·      In regards to objective (d) with regards to overshadowing, it is considered that the amended scheme with a reduced wall height, and a greater than minimum rear setback inclusive of a shadow impact analysis of neighbouring properties demonstrates no appreciable difference in overshadowing of neighbouring properties comparing overshadowing caused by the proposed scheme and a compliant wall height and rear setback. It is noted that the majority of the scheme particularly towards the front is wholly below the maximum 10.5m maximum wall height control in the RDCP.

·      In relation to objective (d) in relation to amenity, the proposed development displays appropriate setbacks and the reduced footprint proposed to the southern and side neighbours comparing a compliant wall height with that of the amended wall height demonstrating compliant solar access to the rear neighbours balconies are amendments fundamental to satisfying this clause as it relates to overshadowing of neighbouring properties and ensuring no adverse visual amenity impacts;

 

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 by demonstrating that the proposed development will have a size and scale that is consistent with the bulk and scale of the developments within Oberon Street and that envisaged by the standards for the medium density residential zone, that there are no additional adverse impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring properties having regard to overshadowing, that appropriate setbacks are provided from the front, sides and rear to ensure that the visual amenity of neighbouring properties and from the public domain will be suitably, that views are not impacted given the fully compliant height and side setbacks and that neighbour’s privacy is also well protected.

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The environmental planning grounds focus on satisfying objectives (a), (b) and (d) by stating that the proposed development as amended will contribute to the existing and desired streetscape character, has suitable articulation and minimises additional adverse impacts on neighbours beyond those anticipated by the standard and applicable Council controls.

 

The applicant’s Clause 4.6 is considered to provide sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. Specific to the site and surrounding area is the natural topography of the site which falls down to the south-western corner of the site where the proposals bulk and scale is most pronounced hence non-compliance with the maximum wall height control in the RDCP. Despite this, the proposal as amended by significantly reducing wall and overall heights across the development also provides increased rear setbacks and side setbacks required for longer and wider sites in the LGA. The applicant also suitably demonstrates that the proposed development will not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy (as conditioned), overshadowing and views as assessed below.

 

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 FSR standard and the R3 medium density residential 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 will present as a three storey development by virtue of the amendments reducing the size and scale, increasing front and rear setbacks which fundamental to satisfying this objective.

 

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposed development is well articulated on all facades with stepped in elements and mix of materials a matter raised by the Design Excellence Panel (DEP).

 

The BASIX certificate (submitted by the applicant) shows that the development meets the relevant water and energy saving targets.

 

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: There are no heritage items nearby or Heritage Conservation areas therefore this objective is not applicable.

 

(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 presents a scale that is generally consistent with the scale of adjoining buildings. The proposal also provides suitable setbacks from the site boundaries ensuring suitably visual amenity.

 

·      Loss of privacy: Subject to compliance with recommended part condition 2 requiring design criteria for the privacy louvres to the sides of balconies, the proposed development will not result in any unreasonable adverse privacy impacts.

 

·      Overshadowing: The proposed development is sited at least 6m from the rear boundary which is more than that required under the RDCP. Appropriate side setbacks are provided which are equal to the deeper side setbacks required for a wider site under the RDCP. Moreover, the development readily complies with the maximum height of buildings standard and only marginally exceeds the maximum external wall height control along the low parts of the site. Further still, the applicant submitted a shadow analysis demonstrating that the difference in shadows between that caused by the proposal as amended and a compliant wall and setback scheme would result in negligible difference in impacts. It is also noted that the orientation of the site on a north-south axis with the southern neighbour set further below the subject site means that the southern neighbour’s property is particularly vulnerable to overshadowing.

 

·      Views: This assessment shows that the overall bulk and scale of the proposed development having regard to massing, and separation from rear and side boundaries complies with the relevant RDCP controls and will not result in any significant adverse impacts on high quality views in a forward direction from neighbouring properties.

 

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.

 

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

 

Assessment against objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone

 

The objectives of R3 zone are:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

·      To protect the amenity of residents.

 

As indicated in the assessment carried out in this report the proposed development will suitably protect the amenity of the residents.

 

·      To encourage housing affordability.

 

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment: 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?

 

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 in this instance.

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

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 desired and future 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

 

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

 

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

 

·      3F-1 Visual Privacy

 

The ADG requires for the purposes of visual privacy of neighbouring properties that habitable areas including attached balconies be separated by a minimum of 6m from boundaries and 12m combined separation from habitable areas (including balconies) on neighbouring properties as shown in figure 4 below.

 

Figure 4. ADG diagram figure 3F-3 showing the application of the visual privacy controls.

 

The proposal’s side setbacks do not comply with the 6m minimum separation control in the ADG, however it is noted that the proposal has 2m side setbacks which are compliant with the side setbacks under the RDCP. The ADG acknowledges existing patterns of development may not allow for the 6m control to be complied with, emphasising that new development within an established area is designed so that occupants and neighbour’s enjoy reasonable visual and acoustic privacy relationship, which may be addressed through physical measures.

 

The proposal seeks to mitigate privacy impacts on neighbouring properties by providing highlight windows along the side elevations to 1.6m above the internal floor level ensuring no significant visual impact on the neighbouring properties openings opposite. The proposal also included louvres to balconies however they appear too far spaced apart to restrict view lines across to the neighbouring properties. Therefore, a condition is included requiring physical screens to be designed to ensure no direct view into the neighbouring properties.

 

Randwick Development Control Plan 2013

 

•        External wall height

 

The RDCP states that where a development is subject to a 12m maximum height of buildings standard, a 10.5m maximum external wall height control applies.

 

The proposed external wall heights vary across the site ranging from 10.6m midway along the western side elevation and between 10.39m and 10.75m along the rear elevation.

 

The RDCP requires an assessment against the following objectives:

 

Objectives:

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

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

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

 

The proposed external wall heights satisfy the above objectives for the following reasons:

 

·      The gradually increasing wall heights over sloping lower land levels is characteristic of development in the area and will be compatible with other existing flat buildings as well as other development along Oberon Street notably developments at No. 202 Oberon Street and No. 198 Oberon Street. The proposal as amended also incorporates additonal stepped in building elements and mix of materials contributing to the articulation and visual interest of the scheme.

·      If the development were required to comply, the upper level would have substandard floor to ceiling heights well below the 2.7m minimum control in the ADG. The application has also been amended to reduce the floor to ceiling height at second floor level across the majority of secondary rooms such as bedrooms and service areas. A protion of the living room is acknoweldged as having a lower than minimum floor to ceiling height however this occurs over a limited area of an otherwise large living space that contains very high amenity due to multiple aspects and north facing windows that let in plenty of light and ventilation.

·      The impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties such as overshadowing, visual bulk, privacy and views are considered to have been minimised as far as practical having regard to the provisions in the ADG and RDCP with particular regard to the proposals side and rear setbacks. In regards ot overshadowing the submitted shadow analysis demonstrates no appreicable difference in shadowing to the neighbouring properties to No. 198 and 202 Oberon Street and No’s. 174-178 Brook Street at the rear than that caused by a compliant scheme.

 

Overall, the amended design scheme contains appropriate setbacks, articulation along all elevations avoiding extensive sheer walls which help to counteract unreasonable overshadowing and adverse visual amenity impacts on neighbouring properties. Despite the variance to the external wall height control, the RDCP objectives for the height control will be satisfied and the proposed development will be compatible with the streetscape, provide for appropriate amenity for future occupants and is therefore considered acceptable.

 

10.     Conclusion

 

That the application to demolish existing structures and construction of a 3 storey residential flat building comprising of 5 residential units above a basement level containing a total of 7 car parking spaces 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 Medium Density Residential zone in that the proposed development will provide medium density development that will cater for the housing needs of the community.

 

·      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

 

·      The proposed development will make a positive contribution to the surrounding area.

 

 

Appendix 1: Referrals

 

1.    Internal referral comments:

 

1.1.    Development Engineer and Landscape Officer

 

An amended application has been received for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a 3 storey residential flat building comprising of 5 residential units above a basement level containing a total of 8 car parking spaces at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Amended Architectural Plans by Gelder Architects stamped by Council 14th December 2018;

·      Statement of Environmental Effects by Think Planners dated 6th July 2018;

·      Detail & Level Survey by Hill & Blume surveyors dated 24/10/2017;

·      Geotechnical Report by White Geotechnical group dated 26th March 2018;

·      Paul Scrivener Landscape Architecture, ref 18/1987, sheet 1 of 1, issue C, dated 06/07/18.

 

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 Oberon Street ; or

 

i.      To Council’s street drainage system in Brook Street via a private drainage easement through adjoining land/premises; or

 

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

 

Parking Comments

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

·      1 space per 1 bedroom unit

·      1.2 spaces per 2 bedroom unit

·      1.5 spaces per 3 bedroom unit

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

 

A total of 5 residential units are proposed comprising of 2 x 1 bedroom units, 2 x 2 bedroom units and 1 x 3 bedroom unit.

 

Parking required under DCP              = (1 x 1.5) + (2 X 1.2) + (2 X 1) + 1(visitor)

                                                         = 1.5 + 2.4 + 2.0 + 1

                                                         = 7.15  

                                                         = say 7 spaces (rounded to nearest whole number)

 

Parking proposed                             = 7 spaces (complies) but no visitor parking 

 

The parking provision complies however 4 of the spaces have been provided in tandem arrangements (2 x 2 tandem) so must be allocated to a single unit each, leaving the 3 remaining spaces to be dedicated to the remaining 3 units. This leaves no spaces available for visitor parking.

 

The non-provision of visitor parking is generally not supported by Development Engineering however as 2 of the units will have an excess of parking as required by the DCP and in consideration of the street frontage, no objections are raised in this instance.

 

Planning comment: Various drives through the area reveal several parking space available for visitor parking. Further it is considered more appropriate to provide additional parking for the dwellings.

 

Motorbike Parking

No motorbike parking is required as the DCP requirement is less than 0.5 spaces

 

Bicycle Parking

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

 

Bicycle Parking Required           = 5/2 + 5/10

                                                = 2.5 + 0.5

                                                = 3 spaces

 

No bicycle racks are indicated on the submitted plans although it is noted there are storage spaces that should be able to accommodate bicycle storage. This has also been conditioned to ensure compliance. 

 

Access Ramp

There is a non-compliance with the length of the 1:20 graded section of access ramp near the front property boundary. Whereas AS 2890.1 requires a 6m section at 1:20 only about 3.2m has been provided. In previous corres9ondence t was previously required hat a 4m section at 1 in 20 would be acceptable. 

 

Parking Layout Comments

 

Carpark Layout

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

 

Service Authority Comments

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.

 

 

Waste Management Comments

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

 

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

 

Comments on the number of Waste Bins

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

 

i.e. Garbage/recycling Bins Required = 5/2 = 2.5 = say 3 bins (rounded up to nearest whole number))

 

There are no specific requirements for green waste in Part B6 of the DCP  however as some landscape areas are proposed it is recommended that a minimum of  2 x 240L bins also be provided for green waste.

 

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

                                                         = 8 x 240L BINS

                            

The amended plans comply with the above requirements.

 

Tree Management & Landscape Comments

The only vegetation that requires comment for this application is the juvenile, 6m tall Harpephyllum caffrum (Kaffir Plum) on the Oberon Street verge, to the east of the existing vehicle access, towards the eastern site boundary, of good health and condition, which is also covered by the DCP.

 

The plans show that while the new crossing will remain along the western site boundary, it will be widened substantially to the east, which would still maintain a generous setback from the tree.

 

However, it is regarded as an undesirable, exotic species, that was likely planted by a resident rather than Council, as their large size at maturity, as well as their invasive and aggressive root system, make them completely unsuitable in a confined growing environment such as this narrow verge, as it is contained by the kerb and roadway to its north, the public footpath to its south, as well as the overhead wires directly above. 

 

For these reasons, this tree is no longer planted in the public domain or even private landscape projects, with Council actively seeking their removal wherever possible so as to avoid future costly maintenance issues, which in this case would involve regular topping away from the wires, clearance pruning, as well as damage to both public and private infrastructure.

 

On this basis, conditions actually require its removal, with replacement native coastal trees selected from our Masterplan to provide a more meaningful benefit to native fauna and the local environment, whilst also improving the appearance of the streetscape, and in recognition of this, the standard loss of amenity fee that is normally applied to the removal of street trees for development works will not be charged in this instance.

 


 

1.2.    Design Excellence Panel (DEP)

 

Introduction

 

Attached is a copy of the minutes relating to this SEPP 65 meeting.

The Panel’s comments are intended to assist Council in their design consideration of an application against the SEPP 65 principles. The absence of a comment under a head of consideration does not imply that particular matter to be satisfactorily addressed, more likely the changes are suggested elsewhere to generate a desirable change.

Your attention is drawn to the following;

 

-       SEPP 65, including the 9 Design Quality Principles and the requirements for a Qualified Designer (a Registered Architect) to provided Design Verification Statements throughout the design, documentation and construction phases of the project.

-      The Apartment Design Guide, as published by Planning NSW (July 2015), which provides guidance on all the issues addressed below.

 

Both documents are available from the NSW Department of Planning.

 

Note: The Design Review Panel is appointed by the NSW Minister for Planning, on the recommendation of Council.  The Panel’s written and verbal comments are their professional opinions and constitute expert design quality advice to Randwick Council, the architect and the applicant.

 

1.        To address the Panel's comments, the applicant may need to submit amended plans.  Prior to preparing any amended plans or attending additional Panel presentations, the applicant MUST discuss the Panel's comments and any other matter that may require amendment with Council’s assessing Planning Officer.

 

2.        When addressing the Panel's comments by way of amendments, if the applicant does not propose to address all or the bulk of the Panel's comments, and wishes to make minor amendments only, then it should be taken that the Panel considers the proposal does not meet the SEPP 65 requirements.  In these instances it is unlikely the scheme will be referred back to the Panel for further review.

 

Panel Comments

This is a Development Application to demolish the existing building on the site, and construct a 3 storey residential flat building.

 

The proposal is for a residential flat building with 5 dwellings, and basement car parking for 8 (reduced down to 7) vehicles. 

 

Principle 1: Context and Neighbourhood Context

The site has a total area of 424 square metres and is located at 200 Oberon Street, Coogee. The land is a narrow rectangular mid-block parcel bounded by 3 storey residential flat buildings along its northern, eastern and western boundaries. It has frontage only to Oberon Street.

 

The site is located about 320 metres south of a Neighbourhood Centre around Arden Street. Coogee Beach Shopping Centre along Coogee Bay Road is located 670m north of the site. The site has excellent access to open spaces and playground. To the west, Bangor Park is 480m away from the site, and Baker Park is 550m west of the site. To the east, Blenheim Park sits 260m away from the site. Randwick Environment Park, Trenerry Reserve, Grant Reserve and Coogee Beach all located within 800m walking catchment.

 

The site sits close to local public transport. A number of bus stops are provided at Oberon Street, Arden Street and Havelock Avenue.

 

Principle 2: Scale and Built Form

The proposal is generally within the 12m height plane with some minor exceptions along the western elevation. However, it is noted that the lift overrun has not been included in all the sections and elevations. The proponent should identify the proposed lift overrun in all the drawings.

 

Planning comment: The amended plans reduce the overall height of the development to less than 12m inclusive of the lift overrun.

 

Due to the lot configuration, the proposed built form has relatively small footprint with approximately 8m width facing Oberon Street and a length of 30 metres. The proposed building has some articulation on its eastern façade, whereas the western façade is less articulated. The overhanging upper level appears heavy and works against the articulation on this side. Refined built form articulation to the western façade is needed to mitigate the proposal’s bulk and scale viewed from west.

 

Planning comment: The second floor level has incorporated stepped in building elements along the side elevations consistent with the levels below improving articulation alongside elevations. The proposal has also been amended to include a mix of materials providing further articulation.

 

There is no predominant street setback along Oberon Street (the section between Mount Street and Brook Street); however, the adjacent building to the west of the site and the recent development at No. 202 Oberon Street set the precedent, which suggests approximately a 3m street setback. In this regard, and considering the RDCP 2013 controls, the proposed 3m setback to Oberon Street is acceptable. However, the proposed balconies encroach into the 3m street setback which is inconsistent with the adjacent buildings. The proponent should consider incorporating the balconies into the overall building envelope.

 

Planning comment: The proposal has been amended to ensure the balconies do not encroach over the 3m setback line.

 

Two-meter side setback is provided along both western and eastern boundaries. Considering the narrow width of the subject site (about 12m), it is hard to achieve the setback distances recommended in the ADG. Therefore, the proponent should provide information for a merit assessment that clearly illustrates the extent of overlooking and privacy issues that are to be expected with the proposal.

 

Planning comment: The side setbacks are considered acceptable having regard to visual and acoustic privacy.

 

The proposal provides 5.5m rear setback with some encroachments by the proposed balconies. The 5.5m rear setback is insufficient. The proposed Units 1, 3 and 5 have habitable rooms with balconies facing the strata titled building at Nos. 174-178 Brook Street, Coogee which also has balconies facing the subject site. According to the ADG 2F, a 6m rear setback should be provided to achieve 12m separation between habitable windows and balconies for the building up to 4 storeys. In this regard, the built form is not appropriate. The impact on the amenity will be discussed in Principle 6.

 

Planning comment: The proposed rear setback has been increased to 6m which is greater than that required under th