Source: http://businesspapers.randwick.nsw.gov.au/Open/2015/08/PL_11082015_AGN_AT.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 10:42:43
Document Index: 415380586

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 3', 'Application No. 1', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 3', 'art 4']

Agenda of Planning Committee Meeting - 11 August 2015
Planning Committee 11 August 2015
Notice is hereby given that a Planning Committee Meeting of the Council of the City of Randwick will be held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, 90 Avoca Street, Randwick on Tuesday, 11 August 2015 at 6:00pm
Committee Members: The Mayor T Seng, Andrews, Belleli, Bowen, D’Souza, Garcia, Matson, Moore (Chairperson), Nash (Deputy Chairperson), Neilson, Roberts, Shurey, Smith, Stavrinos and Stevenson
Planning Committee Meeting - 14 July 2015
D56/15 24-26 McKeon Street, Maroubra (DA/914/1998/B).................. 1
D57/15 5 Inman Street, Maroubra (DA/556/2014/B)........................ 11
D58/15 1179 Anzac Parade, Matraville (DA/994/2011/C).................. 19
D59/15 9 Brodie Avenue, Little Bay (DA/377/2015).......................... 29
D60/15 61 Raglan Street, Malabar (DA/1/2015)............................... 37
D61/15 97 Carrington Road, Coogee (DA/234/2014/A)..................... 53
Development Application Report No. D56/15
Subject: 24-26 McKeon Street, Maroubra (DA/914/1998/B)
Folder No: DA/914/1998/B
Proposal: Section 96 application to extend the hours of operation of the restaurant from 7am to 10pm Monday - Saturday and 7am to 9pm on Sunday and deletion of condition 21 in relation to access and facilities for disabled. Original consent: Change of use from organic food store to a food store/ cafe/restaurant.
Applicant: Ms H More
Owner: Mr S Hatzisarantinos & Mrs A Hatzisarantinos
The application was assessed by an external planning consultant and referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the owner of the subject site is related to a Council employee.
The subject Section 96(2) application seeks approval to modify the approved development consent by:
· Extending the hours of operation of the restaurant from 10:00am – 10:000pm, seven days a week, to 7:00am – 10:00pm Mondays to Saturdays and 7:00am – 9:00pm on Sundays and therefore amending Condition 2.
· Deletion of Condition 21 in relation to accessibility and assoicated facilities. Condition 21 reads as following:
“Access and sanitary facilities for persons with disabilities being provided to the shop in accordance with Parts D3 and F2 of the Building Code of Australia and Council’s code for access for persons with disabilities. Details of compliance is required to be provided in the relevant plans and specifications for the construction certification for the development.”
The proposal will not involve any structural alterations or additions to the existing building.
The existing use of the site is a café/restaurant, known as ‘The North End Café’; which is located on the corner of McKeon Street and Hereward Street. Currently the hours of operation are 10:00am – 10:00pm, seven days a week, as per the original development consent issued on 3 November, 1998 (DA/98/00914/GN).
On 30 October, 2014, a Local Approval Application was determined to allow outdoor dining for a maximum of 12 persons. This was subject to conditions relating solely to the outdoor dining area. Condition 18 states the hours of operation for the footway dining is 7:00am – 10:00pm, Mondays to Saturdays and 7:00am – 9:00pm on Sundays.
On 6 March 2015, a Notice of Intention to Give an Order was given to the owner of ‘The North End Café’ at 24-26 McKeon Street, Maroubra, to comply with conditions 1, 2, 3, 9, 21 and 33 of the Development Consent No. DA/00914/98/GN. On 11 March, 2015, a trustee of the Owner provided a response to Council’s letter and advised of an intention to submit a section 96 application to modify hours of operation, to provide an internal seating plan and to delete condition 21. This application is the foreshadowed section 96 application, submitted on 30 April 2015 for assessment.
1. The Subject Site and Surrounding Area
The subject site, 24-26 McKeon Street, Maroubra, is located on the corner of McKeon Street and Hereward Street, Maroubra. It has a frontage to McKeon Street of 12.5m, a depth of 32.61m along Hereward Street; and an area of approximately 407m². The subject site is located on the northern side of McKeon Street and adjoins commercial properties to the east and residential properties to the north, south and west.
The subject site contains a two storey commercial building with a shop on the ground floor and a dwelling on the first floor. The dwelling above has pedestrian access via a staircase to the rear of the subject site.
2. Notification and Consideration of Submissions:
The owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. As a result of this notification, no submissions were received.
This Section 96(2) application proposes to modify the existing condition of Development Consent No. 2, in relation to the hours of operation, and to delete Condition 21 of the original consent, which relates to access. The submitted plans and associated documentation have been reviewed and the resultant key issues have been discussed in the paragraphs below.
The proposed section 96 application has regard to the existing objectives for the Maroubra Beach Precinct and the current building and outdoor dining objectives. The relevant objectives for the Maroubra Beach Precinct include:
§ To improve the amenity and safety of the public domain.
§ To maintain the existing fine-grain pattern of development.
§ To provide for a range of uses including small retail businesses, a mini-supermarket, commercial activities, home-offices and residential uses in order to create and support a vibrant community.
§ To ensure development is of a high quality contemporary architectural design providing high levels of amenity for residents and visitors and in a manner that enhances the character of the commercial centre.
This section 96 modification satisfies the above objectives because there are no works being carried above on the subject site and therefore maintains the existing fine-grain pattern of development and architectural design. Furthermore, the use of ‘The North End Café’ remains a restaurant/café, and therefore remains an existing use.
It is considered unlikely that the scale and intensity of the modifications will adversely impact the immediate vicinity for reasons discussed below.
No unacceptable acoustic impact is expected given:
§ A Local Approval Application determined in October, 2014, allows outdoor dining to operate between 7:00am – 10:00pm, Mondays to Saturdays and 7:00am – 9:00pm on Sundays for a capacity of 12 external diners. These hours are at odds with the development consent hours, which are 10:00am – 10:00pm, seven days a week. The Section 96 application is requesting the internal hours be adjusted to match the outdoor dining area hours. This will involve a 7:00am start in lieu of 10:00am under the existing consent. The application also proposes to reduce the hours of operation on Sundays, by one (1) hour.
§ The additional noise output of the proposed extended hours will relate to the internal cafe area.
§ The activities during the earliest hour are expected to mainly relate to internal food preparation and set-up activities.
§ The proposed hours match those of existing facilities in the nearby locality, as evidenced by the details provided in Table 1 below.
Accessibility and Associated Facilities
This section 96 application requests deletion of condition 21 of the original consent which states:
Council’s Senior Building Surveyor, has examined provisions Part 4 (3)(i) of the Standard, and the justification provided by the application. The following comments were provided:
· A letter, dated 17 June 2015, was received from Tony Masters Design (architect) in relation to the provision of sanitary facilities to the existing toilet located adjoining the courtyard area.
· The letter advises that, in order to construct sanitary facilities that comply with AS 1428, this would involve making major modifications to the existing building and ,as such, may constitute unjustifiable hardship under the Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010.
· After examining the provisions of Part 4 (3) (i) of the Standard, which advised that “whether the cost of alterations to make a premises accessible is disproportionate to the value of the building, taking into consideration the improved value would result from the alterations”, it was considered that the extent of the works would constitute unjustifiable hardship.
In order to meet the disabled access requirement, there would need to be major modification to the structure of the building. Council’s Senior Building Surveyor has therefore advised that compliance with Condition 21 would constitute unjustifiable hardship to ‘The North End Café’ and that the condition imposed in the original development consent in relation to the provision of accessibility and associated facilities can be deleted.
4. Section 96 Assessment
Under the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (EP&A Act), as amended, Council may only agree to a modification of the existing development consent if the following criterion has been complied with:
(1A) The proposal has been lodged as a S96 (1A) application which allows for the modification of an existing consent if the Consent Authority:
(a) Is satisfied that the proposed modification is of minimal environmental impact.
Prior to assessing the application, in relation to the acceptability of any potential environmental impacts, it must be determined whether the proposed modifications result in a development that has minimal environmental impact as that which was originally approved. The proposed assessment of this report verifies the environmental impacts would be minimal particularly with respect to the acoustic impacts. No physical changes are proposed in this application.
(b) 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).
Prior to assessing the application in relation to the acceptability of any potential environmental impacts, it must be determined whether the proposed modifications result in a development that is "substantially the same" as that which was originally approved.
The development will remain substantially the same as originally approved given:
· The original consent has not been previously modified pursuant to Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended).
· The proposed modification seeks to modify the approved hours of operation and deletion of Condition 21 in regards to accessibility and associated facilities. The proposed development would not change the overall built form.
The proposed modification request has been notified in accordance with Council’s public notification policy.
No submissions were received during the notification period.
Refer to discussion in Section 5 of this assessment report.
5. Section 79C Assessment
The subject site has been inspected and the application has been assessed having regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended.
6. Environmental Planning Instruments
6.1 Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012)
The following clauses of RLEP 2012 are relevant to the proposed development:
Clause 6.7 - Foreshore Scenic Protection Area:
(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.
(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 reserve, open space and public areas.
(b) Contributes to the scenic quality of the coast foreshore.
The subject site is located within a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, in accordance with Clause 6.7 of the RLEP 2012. The consent authority may only grant consent to a building within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area after it has considered the probable aesthetic appearance of the proposed building in relation to the foreshore.
The proposed amendments will not involve or require any physical changes that would be detrimental to the visual qualities and amenity of the foreshore and will not detract from the prevailing height, bulk and scale of the surrounding residences. Therefore, the Proposal will satisfy the above objectives of the Clause and is considered satisfactory in this regard.
7. Randwick Development Control Plan 2013
The subject site is located within the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone. The existing operating hours were approved under DA/914/1998 and were limited to:
· Monday to Sunday – 10:00am to 10:00pm.
The Proposal involves extending the operating hours of the existing restaurant to:
· Monday to Saturday – 7:00am to 10:00pm
· Sunday – 7:00am to 9:00pm
The proposal is requesting the internal hours to match the approved outdoor dining area hours as per the Local Approval consent in 2014 that is, there is currently no development consent to operate in the mornings before 10:00am. The proposal does not seek to extend the operating hours later than the original approved development consent hours.
The earlier start time of 7:00am is considered a reasonable opening time for a restaurant/café, particularly given the hours approved from neighbouring businesses as indicated in Table 1 below.
The following table provides the surrounding businesses and their hours of operation, as per their original development consents:
Table 1: Surrounding tenancies and hours of operation:
23 McKeon Street
25-29 McKeon Street
Molly’s Fresh Food and Stuff
Ezyway Newsagent
Izap Thai Restaurant
32 McKeon Street
Tenancy 1: Coffee Shop
Tenancy 2: Clothing Shop
Yoga Studio and Chiropractic Services
35 McKeon Street
36 McKeon Street – Shop 1
Blue Ocean Beauty and Skincare Clinic
36 McKeon Street, Shop
Maroubra Surf and Skate
37 McKeon Street
Consequently, the likelihood of adverse impacts on the surrounding locality, due to noise emissions, is limited given that the operation will have similar hours as those premises, in the table above. Activities within the extended timeframe will be mostly internal and limited to food preparation and take away of light meals and drinks.
In addition to the hours of operation above, the Applicant has submitted a plan, shown as Figure 1 below, of the “Maroubra Beach Precinct Outdoor Dining Area Map” from the Randwick DCP 2013 and RLEP 2012, which shows the vicinity of the subject site and its surrounds. Any outdoor dining during the extended timeframes is expected to outweigh any impact of the extended hours for the internal areas of the restaurant/café.
Figure 1 | Randwick City Council Outdoor Dining Maroubra Beach Precinct
8.1 Regulatory Building
Randwick Council’s Senior Building Officer has examined the proposal against Part 4 (3)(i) of the Australian Standard 1428, which states that:
“whether the cost of alterations to make a premises accessible is disproportionate to the value of the building, taking into consideration the improved value would result from the alterations”.
Council’s Officer has agreed that the extent of the works would constitute unjustifiable hardship to ‘The North End Café’ and Condition 21 imposed in the original development consent (in relation to the provision of accessibility and associated facilities) be deleted.
Council’s Senior Building Surveyor has also recommended that A1 and A2 of the General Advisory Notes be amended to specify the following:
A1 The existing conditions the of development consent are required to be complied with (except as amended in this determination).
A2 It is an offence under the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 to carry out any development (including modifications or variations to an approved development) without the prior consent of Council.
Council may issue a notice and order in relation to any unauthorised variations and Council may also issue a Penalty Infringement Notice or commence legal proceedings for the offence. These regulatory matters are determined by Council's Health, Building & Regulatory Services department, separately to the determination of this application.
The proposed modifications to the existing development have been assessed against the requirements of Section 96 (1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, in particular the relevant planning guidelines of the RLEP2012 and Randwick Council’s Development Control Plan, 2013. The proposed modifications will have minimal environmental impacts and maintain substantially the same development as that previously approved. They will not result in any significant adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises, or the character of the locality.
Accordingly, the proposal to modify the approved hours of operation and delete Condition 21 in regards to accessibility and associated facilities is acceptable and the application is recommended for approval.
That Council as the consent authority, grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended to modify Condition 2 of Development Consent No DA/914/1998 for permission to extend the hours of operation of the restaurant to 7:00am – 10:00pm on Mondays to Saturdays and 7:00am – 9:00pm on Sundays and delete Condition No. 21 in the following maner:
1. The development shall be implemented substantially in accordance with the details set out on the plans (numbered 914/98 and dated 9 October 1998), and on the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as amended by the Section 96 ‘B’ plans and documentation listed below, and as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:
Building Consultant Report
· Amend Condition No. 2 to read:
2. Hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00am to 10:00pm, Mondays to Saturdays; and 7:00am to 9:00pm on Sundays.
· Delete Condition No. 21:
Access and sanitary facilities for persons with disabilities being provided to the shop in accordance with Parts D3 and F2 of the Building Code of Australia and Council’s code for access for persons with disabilities. Details of compliance is required to be provided in the relevant plans and specifications for the construction certification for the development.”
· Add to the following advisory notes:
A1 The existing conditions of Development Consent are required to be complied with (except as amended in this determination).
Development Application Report No. D57/15
Subject: 5 Inman Street, Maroubra (DA/556/2014/B)
Folder No: DA/556/2014/B
Proposal: Section 96(2) modification to delete condition 2(b) so as to allow a front terrace over the garage. Original consent: Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including new front and rear terrace.
Applicant: Ms M R Degabriele
Owner: Ms M R Degabriele
The application has been referred to the Planning Committee for consideration as the original was determined by Council at the Ordinary Council meeting on 24 November 2014.
The subject section 96 application seeks consent to delete condition 2b (see below) to allow for the provision of a terrace over garage and a reduction in the width of the planter boxes from 920mm to 900mm.
2b) The proposed terrace to the garage roof does not comply with Section 5.3, Visual Privacy of the Randwick Development Control Plan – Low Density Residential. The terrace is to be deleted from the application.
The site is on the eastern side of Inman Street containing a two storey dual occupancy. The site has a frontage of 11.85m, a depth of 45.14m and area of 537m2. The locality is residential in nature and contains a mixture of dwelling types.
3 Inman Street
See discussion under key issues section below
Visual and acoustic Privacy - Terrace over garage
The key policy guidelines relevant to the proposal to delete condition 2b and reinstate the front terrace over garage include:
· The objective of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP) which seeks to protect the amenity of residents
· The objective of Section 4.4 Roof Design and Features in Part C1 - Low Density Residential of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP), which seeks to ensure trafficable roof space … maintains satisfactory privacy relationship with the neighbouring dwellings
· The objective of Section 5.3 Visual Privacy in Part C1 - Low Density Residential of the DCP which seeks to ensure development minimise overlooking or cross viewing to the neighbouring dwellings to maintain reasonable levels of privacy
The objectives under the abovementioned policy guidelines aim to ensure development minimises overlooking or cross-viewing to neighbouring dwellings to maintain reasonable levels of privacy. It is considered that the concerns raised by Council Officers in the original planning report are still relevant, and have not been adequately addressed. The proposed terrace will afford an unobstructed view into the bedroom of neighbouring property to the north at No.3 Inman Street, it also creates the potential for adverse noise impacts to the adjoining neighbours and the proposed planter boxes remain the only measure proposed to mitigate privacy impacts and which are ineffective in this regard.
The following justifications are provided by the applicant:
The applicant claims that a reasonable level of privacy is being provided to the neighbour’s bedroom are details below followed by an assessment against the abovementioned objectives:
· The proposed terrace will provide a quality POS maximising current and future resident enjoyment of the natural features of the site, particularly its visual connection with the waters of Lurline Bay.
Assessment comment: Noted, however in the majority of instances along Inman Street, private open space is located within the rear yard rather than the front. Further, the development as originally approved includes the expansion and upgrade of a rear terrace for this purpose. In relation to the view of Lurline bay, it is acknowledged that a front terrace will afford this connection, however it is not considered that the size of the terrace and its location relative to the neighbouring properties achieves a good planning outcome for the following reasons:
o The size of the terrace is relatively large and despite it not being connected to a living room it nevertheless allows for unobstructed outlook into the neighbour’s bedroom and has the capacity to be used during hours that may result in sleep disturbance;
o The terrace is in close proximity (being 7m) to the neighbours bedrooms and its unrestricted use places an undue onus on these neighbours to incorporate additional privacy protection measures such as shutting windows and shutters thus reducing their internal amenity;
o Additional privacy measures will not be able to be implemented without substantial impact on the character of the streetscape, which for the most part contains smaller front terraces that have been located and positioned to minimise impacts on privacy. Where there are some elements of privacy intrusions these are largely existing situations where developments have not resulted in greater impacts than those that had previously existed.
· The existing double garage is expansive and highly visible along Inman Street and from the windows and balconies of neighbouring properties to the natural slope of the street. The roof represents an undesirable element that detracts from an otherwise attractive streetscape.
Assessment comment: The fact that the double garage is expansive and highly visible bears a direct relationship with the privacy impact it will have on the neighbouring property to the north. Making the roof of the garage more desirable in relation to the streetscape is not dependant on making this area trafficable.
· Elevated terraces and balconies are characteristic of the area due to the prevalence of attractive water views with numerous examples along Inman Street including No. 1 Inman Street.
Assessment comment: There are several examples of elevated terraces and balconies along Inman Street however the majority of these are sited/configured in ways that limit the visual and acoustic impacts on the neighbouring dwellings. In addition, the areas of these balconies/terraces are substantially smaller than the proposed terrace.
With reference to the patio/terrace at No. 1 Inman Street, It is not considered that this example is a suitable reference or provides sufficient justification for the proposed development. In addition, this patio was approved in 1972 (BA/1169/1972) and well before the current controls. Notwithstanding, the patios/terraces at both No. 1 and No.1A Inman Street exhibit a degree of mutual overlooking into each other’s patio areas that doesn’t currently exist between the subject site and that of No. 3 Inman Street.
The applicant also refers to the similarity in privacy impact from the terrace and that privacy impact from pedestrian or passer-by traffic along Inman Street. This is not considered to be a reasonable argument in so far as the privacy impact from passers-by is different from the privacy impact from those that may use the terrace in the following ways:
· The passer by traffic is set below the elevated nature of the bedroom within 3 Inman Street, have a view that is directed upwards when in front of the affected bedrooms and where passers-by are at a similar floor level to the bedroom level the passer by will be further up the street and a greater distance from the affected property lessening the degree of privacy intrusion; The terraces expansive size and close proximity to openings on the neighbour’s property shows that there is a direct outlook at the similar levels resulting in a negative planning outcome – see photo further below
· View from roof of garage on subject site looking towards the windows of No. 3 Inman Street. Note standing closer to the front of the roof, a direct view will be more pronounced.
· Passer by traffic is transient in nature and distinctly different to the proposed terraces use being ancillary to a habitable room allowing occupation for longer periods.
Photo: Taken from the roof of the proposed terrace showing the ground level bedroom windows and living room windows of the dwelling opposite at No. 3 Inman Street.
· The reinstatement of the proposed terrace will have an acceptable impact on the amenity of residents who will benefit from an enhance streetscape. The proposed terrace is not intended as primary open space or as an entertainment area. The rear area of the house is to be renovated for this purpose. A glass balustrade and low/slow growing vegetation have been selected in order to minimise impact on the views of the adjoining property to the south-west, No. 5 Inman. The visual and acoustic privacy of No. 3 Inman Street will also be adequately protected as detailed in the sections that follow.
It is acknowledged that the proposed works to the roof of the garage are relatively low scale, will beautify it from street level and are likely to retain a reasonable sharing of views from neighbouring properties; However its associated use with two bedrooms, although not as intensive as that associated with entertainment area such as a living room, will still be in close proximity to habitable rooms of neighbouring dwellings and allow for direct views into the neighbours bedrooms. The terrace also remains capable of being used for extended periods of time which will unreasonable compromise the visual and acoustic privacy of the neighbouring dwelling. The fact that it is not connected to living rooms does not lessen the potential for unrestricted view into neighbour’s bedroom.
In addition, the applicant’s reliance on landscaping as an effective privacy measure is not considered to be reliable solution in so far as previous judgments in the Land and Environment Court reason that there is limited control over the lifespan or health of landscaping.
Overall, the proposed terrace will create a situation where the front bedroom within No. 3 Inman Street will suffer from significantly greater visual and acoustic privacy impacts than that which would occur as a result of transient pedestrian traffic along Inman Avenue. Support of the proposed terrace of such a size and in this location would have the effect of a negative planning outcome and propagate an undesirable precedent in relation to the siting and location of terraces/balconies where they are inconsistent with the controls and objectives under the DCP and the RLEP.
The site is constrained by the inability to provide suitable privacy protection measures, due in large part to the potential impacts on views and the streetscape character. The expansive size and location of the terrace in close proximity to neighbouring dwellings habitable room windows and will result in significant privacy impacts. The applicant’s nominated example does not provide reasonable justification in so far as this is a very different scenario to the subject application and the reliance on landscaping is not a robust enough measure to protect the neighbour’s visual and acoustic privacy.
The proposed reinstatement of the terrace over garage will not be able to satisfy the following objectives in Councils policies:
· Objective under the R2 Low Density Residential Zone in the RLEP which seeks to protect the amenity of residents,
· Objective under Section 4.4 Roof Design and Features in the DCP (Part C1- Low Density Residential) which seeks to ensure trafficable roof space …. maintains satisfactory privacy relationship with the neighbouring dwellings and
· Objective under Section 5.3 Visual Privacy in the DCP (Part C1- Low Density Residential) which seeks to ensure development minimise overlooking or cross viewing to the neighbouring dwellings to maintain reasonable levels of privacy.
The applicant’s arguments are not considered to be well founded and the proposed Section 96 application to delete condition 2b to reinstate the terrace over garage will compromise the amenity of surrounding development and adversely impact the environment of the locality and result in a negative planning outcome for the site and the surrounding area.
That Council, as the consent authority, refuse its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended to modify Development Consent No DA/556/2014 by deletion of condition 2b, at No. 5 Inman Street, for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development is not consistent with the objective of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in that the proposal will not protect the amenity of residents.
2. The proposed development does not satisfy the objective under Section 4.4 Roof Design and Features of Part C1 Low Density Residential in the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 in that it does not ensure trafficable roof space maintains satisfactory privacy relationship with the neighbouring dwellings.
3. The proposed development does not satisfy the objective under Section 5.3 Visual Privacy of Part C1 Low Density Residential in the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2012 in that the proposed size and location of the terrace is in close proximity to the neighbours habitable rooms and privacy measures are not able to be implemented without resulting in significant adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties in relation to view sharing and without dominating and potential impact upon the character of the streetscape along Inman Street.
Development Application Report No. D58/15
Subject: 1179 Anzac Parade, Matraville (DA/994/2011/C)
Folder No: DA/994/2011/C
Author: Christopher Gorton, Assessment Officer
Proposal: Section 96 modification of the approved development by increasing the floor level of the entry foyers and side pathways, new rear stairs, increase the size of the ensuites, new rear first floor balconies with privacy screens. Original Proposal: Demolition of existing structures and construction of a part two/part three storey attached dual occupancy with garages.
Applicant: Mr P Flentzeris
Owner: Mr P Flentzeris
This application seeks to modify the original consent determined at the Planning Committee meeting of 10 July 2012.
The subject section 96 (2) application seeks approval to modify the approved development consent by increasing the floor level of the entry foyers and side pathways, new rear stairs, increase the size of the ensuites, new rear first floor balconies with privacy screens.
The proposed to amend the approved plans as follows:
· Revised entry layout, including; new external stairs, new raised entry landing and associated privacy screens on side boundaries
· New rear stairs and associated landings
· Increase the size of the ensuites to the front bedrooms
· New rear located terraces with 1600mm translucent glass privacy screens to northern and southern edges.
The land is zoned R2 Low Density Residential .The site is on the western side of Anzac Parade south of Hillary Parade in Malabar. The site is presently occupied by an existing single storey dwelling and has an approved part two part three storey Dual occupancy (DA/994/2011). The subject site has a regular rectangular shape and slopes moderately on an easterly aspect.
The subject site is rectangular in shape and has the following dimensions and land area:
Eastern, Front Boundary – Anzac Parade
557.90m2
38.705m
39.355m
Western, rear boundary
13.365m
Figure1. Subject Site
Neighbouring the property to the north, south and west are part two and part three storey dwellings and to the rear is a two storey dwelling. The surrounding area is predominantly characterised by low density residential development and consists predominantly of detached single dwellings and attached dual occupancies.
On 10 July 2012, development consent was granted at a Planning Committee Meeting for the demolition of all existing structures on site and construction of a part two/part three storey attached dual occupancy with garages and associated works.
Section 96 ‘A’ application to modify the approved development consent by adding a roof terrace to each dwelling, increasing the size of bedroom 1 to each dwelling, and altering entry stairs was refused at an Ordinary Council Meeting on 26th November 2013.
Section 96 ‘B’ application to modify the approved development consent by increasing the floor levels of entry foyer and side pathways, internal reconfiguration, new rear first floor balconies and roof terrace including associated staircase structure to each dwelling was refused at the Planning Committee Meeting on 12th May 2015.
1177 Anzac Parade, Malabar
· Objection to the height, bulk and proximity of the proposed side entry stairs, as they will adversely affect the objector’s properties privacy.
· Objection to the size of the proposed rear first floor terrace.
· Objection to the overall size and scale of the development.
· Acknowledged. See discussion 5.2, proposed stairs and associated reconfiguration of the entrance is not supported and has been deleted from the application.
· A condition requiring a 1.5m return on the proposed privacy screens has been included in the development consent. It is considered that this will sufficiently screen the majority of the primary private open space of the objector’s property, preventing significant adverse privacy impacts. See discussion 5.2.
· The subject section 96 (2) does not significantly increase the size, scale or bulk of the approved development. The slight increase in F.S.R is wholly located within the existing building envelope and there is no increase in building height. Elements of the section 96 proposal which were non-compliant with the relevant controls in the RDCP 2013 and RLEP 2012 have either been deleted from the application or had appropriate conditions included in the development consent to mitigate the impact. See Discussion 5.1 and 5.2.
S96 Assessment
The proposal will not result in a change to the nature of the original application and the changes will result in a development that is substantially the same as that for which the consent was granted. The scope of modifications includes increasing the floor level of the entry foyers and side pathways, new rear stairs, increasing the size of the ensuites, new rear first floor balconies with privacy screens. The proposed section 96 (2) modification does not involve any substantial changes to the built form and envelope of the approved consent and it will remain consistent with the original consent.
5.1 Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012
§ Clauses 4.4 - Floor Space Ratio
Clause 4.4 of the Randwick LEP 2012 states that the maximum floor space ratio for a building on any land is not to exceed the floor space ratio shown for the land on the Floor Space Ratio Map. The floor space ratio map (FSR_009) indicates a maximum floor space ratio of 0.5:1.
The proposed modification seeks to vary this standard by 6.05m² as a result of the increased ensuite area to each dwelling, as well as reconfiguration of the entrance areas. The original development was assessed and approved under the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) with an F.S.R of 0.535:1 (295.2m²), the subject S96 (2) application has been assessed under the RLEP 2012, where the definition of Gross Floor Area has been amended and as a result the F.S.R for the proposed modified development is 0.51:1 (285m²). Notwithstanding these calculations the increase in size of the ensuites is considered to be minor and will be wholly located within the approved building envelope. It will not result in any external building changes or pose any significant material impact on neighbours or its appearance from the public domain.
The additional level of non-compliance is considered acceptable and will continue to satisfy the following objectives under the RLEP 2012:
(a) that the size and scale of development is compatible with the desired future character of the locality,
(b) that buildings are well articulated and respond to environmental and energy needs,
(c) 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 proposed works will be consistent with the objectives of the RLEP 2012 in that the scale and mass of the modified development will achieve a suitable urban design outcome that will complement the desirable streetscape character of the locality.
5.2 Comprehensive Development Control Plan
In relation to the proposed rear first floor terraces, the sizes of the terraces have been reduced from what was previously proposed as part of DA/994/2011/B. The terraces are considered acceptable in size; they are setback 500mm from the side edges of the ground floor roof, and a minimum of 800mm from the rear edge of the ground floor roof. It is considered that the proposed terraces will still result in some overlooking impacts to the adjoining neighbours rear POS. In order to mitigate the potential for overlooking, a condition requiring a 1.5m return on the proposed privacy screens along the western edge of the terraces has been included in the development consent.
It is considered that the proposed privacy screens as well as the conditioned 1.5m returns will protect a large portion of the useable POS of the adjoining properties from possible overlooking. The conditioned 1.5m returns to the privacy screens will restrict any potential overlooking to oblique views towards the south-western most corner of No. 1177 Anzac Parade and north-western most corner of No. 1181 Anzac Parade.
The proposal also includes two landings at ground floor level off the rear bedrooms of each occupancy which will be utilised as secondary access to the rear POS. It is considered that these landings which are raised 600mm above the existing ground level will result in adverse privacy impacts on the adjoining properties. In order to mitigate the privacy impacts appropriate conditions have been included in the development consent requiring a privacy screen to be installed along the southern edge of the southern landing; and that the northern landing be reconfigured so that the stairs face a westerly direct and a privacy screen is constructed along the northern edge.
The proposal subject to conditions in the development consent is considered acceptable and meets the relevant objectives in the RDCP 2013.
· Reconfiguration of entry
In relation to the reconfiguration of the main side entry to each dwelling, the external relocation of internal portions of the entry stairs will result in a 1.19m increase in the landing level from what was approved in the original consent which is directly opposite the side windows of the adjoining neighbours. The proposed entry configuration is identical to the previous section 96 applications that were refused due to adverse amenity impacts to neighbouring dwellings.
The subject section 96 (2) application includes the provision of 2.6m high privacy screens to the edges of the landings, (resulting in privacy screen structures with an overall height of 3.79m measured from the existing ground level). The main concerns with the proposed changes, relate directly to maintaining privacy to the adjoining properties and the visual bulk created by the privacy screen structures which have a nil side setback. It is considered that the proposal will adversely impact both the adjoining properties at Nos. 1177 and 1181 Anzac Parade and the character of the streetscape.
In relation to the southern elevation, the increased landing level results in significant privacy impacts to the southern neighbours kitchen and dining room windows whereby the landing level will be only 180mm below the neighbours kitchen and dining room window sills and the existing 1.8m fence only achieves an effective height of 360mm above the proposed landing. The proposed privacy screen whilst mitigate the potential for overlooking will result in significant visual bulk being constructed 1500mm from the adjacent living room windows, it is considered that this will adversely affect the visual outlook from the adjoining property and adversely affect the internal amenity for the occupants as well as presenting poorly when viewed within the context of the immediate streetscape.
In relation to the northern elevation, a privacy screen has also been proposed along the northern side landing as this landing sits 1.08m below the window sill level opposite (RL 34.00). The proposed landing and associated privacy screen will result in the same issues discussed above. Refer to figures 2 & 3 below.
Figure 2: Proposed Entrances
Figure 3: Proposed Entrances with associated privacy screens
It is considered that the proposed reconfiguration of the entrances and associated privacy screens will result in significant adverse impacts to both adjoining neighbours and the visual amenity of the streetscape. As such a suitable condition has been included in the development consent deleting this aspect from the proposal and requiring the entrances to revert back to what was original approval under DA/994/2011.
Overall, the essence of the application is not changing and it complies with the majority of the RDCP 2013 controls. Where the proposed modifications are identified as not meeting the relevant numerical controls or objectives of the RDCP 2013 or have the potential to cause adverse impacts on neighbouring properties, suitable conditions have been included to ameliorate these issues. Consequently, the proposed modifications, as conditioned, are suitable for the site, they satisfy the relevant controls and objectives in the RDCP 2013 and will not result in any significant adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.
That Council, as the consent authority, grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended to modify Development Consent No DA/994/2011/C for new rear stairs, increasing the size of the ensuites and new rear first floor balconies with privacy screens at No. 1179 Anzac Parade, Matraville, subject to the following standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:
· Amend Condition No. 1
Teknicon Design
1179 Anzac Parade Matraville
407165M
Except as amended by the Section 96 ‘C’ plans and supporting documentation listed below:
DA01 (issue A)
DA02 (issue A)
DA03 (issue A)
DA04 (issue A)
DA05 (issue A)
407165M_04
· Add Condition No. 2(b) to read:
2(b) The privacy screens to the northern and southern edges of the rear terrace at first floor level are to be provided with a 1.5m return, measured from the north-western and south-western corners of the rear first floor terrace.
· Add Condition No. 2(c) to read:
2(c) The landing and associated stairs to the rear of the northern dwelling at ground floor level shall be reconfigured so that the stairs face west. A privacy screen measuring 1.6m above the landing level is to be provided to the northern edge of the rear landing at ground floor level. The total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceeding 25% of the area of the screen
· Add Condition No. 2(d) to read:
2(d) A privacy screen measuring 1.6m above the landing level shall be provided to the southern edge of the landing to the rear of the southern dwelling at ground floor level. The total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceeding 25% of the area of the screen
· Add Condition 2(e) to read:
2(e) The proposed external landing entry, associated stairs and privacy screen structures to both dwellings are to be deleted from the S96 C plans. The entry design must revert back to the original approval under DA/994/2011.
· Delete Condition No. 3
DA Report - Compliance Report - 1179 Anzac Parade, MATRAVILLE
Development Application Report No. D59/15
Subject: 9 Brodie Avenue, Little Bay (DA/377/2015)
Folder No: DA/377/2015
Proposal: Increase the height of the boundary wall on Florey Crescent boundary (Heritage Conservation Area).
Applicant: Clear Line Design Pty Ltd
Owner: The Owners - Strata Plan No. 86015
The application was assessed by the external consultant and referred to the Planning Committee for determination as a Council employee is a resident in the same strata block.
The proposed development involves alterations to the existing boundary fence to increase its height to a maximum of 2.435m. The existing fence on Florey Crescent encloses the side and front yard of the dwelling at No. 9 Brodie Avenue. The work to increase the height of the fence has already been partially completed as shown in the photos below:
Figure 1: Existing fence on Florey Crescent
Figure 2: View looking to Brodie Street
The figure below is an extract from the plans submitted with the application and shows the proposed height increases:
Figure 3: Proposed plans
The site is known as 9 Brodie Ave, Little Bay and has a legal description of Lot 6 in Strata Plan SP86015. The site is occupied by a two storey townhouse dwelling what forms part of the strata development located on the corner of Brodie Ave and Florey Crescent. The site has an area of 211m2 and falls from the rear to the front.
· 9 Florey Cres, LITTLE BAY
· Managing Agent for the Community Association – Dynamic Property Services
Level 5, 162 Golburn Street, Surry Hills NSW 2010
Ensure the proposal is in accordance with the Prince Henry Master Plan, DCP, Design Guidelines and Design Principles.
The proposal is not in accordance with the DCP and is recommended for refusal for this and other reasons.
Ensure consultation with the Heritage Council.
The Heritage Council confirmed in writing to the applicant that they were exempt from requiring a Section 57 approval as the proposal would have little or no impact on the heritage significance of the Prince Henry site. Notwithstanding, this does not constitute a detailed heritage assessment, which has been undertaken by Council’s Heritage Planner who does not support the proposal.
Visual impact of the proposed increase in height.
The application is recommended for refusal due to the adverse visual impact the fence will have on the street and the undesirable precedent it will have for fence design in the area.
Council’s Heritage Planner has provided the following comments on the proposal:
The subject site is located within the Prince Henry Hospital Conservation Area. The site and a number of buildings on it are listed on the State Heritage Register.
The subject site is within the south western part of the development area, within Precinct P3 as identified in the Prince Henry Site Development Control Plan, and is occupied a two storey townhouse, part of a group comprising nos.3 – 33 Brodie Avenue. The townhouse group is bounded to the north by the Moran aged care facility, to the east by Brodie Avenue, to the south by Harvey Street and to the west by Jarrah House.
Built elements in the vicinity
· Heffron House
· Delaney building
· Flowers Ward 2
Landscape elements in the vicinity
· Eastern suburbs banksia scrub
Aboriginal archaeological zone
Zone 2- High Sensitivity
Aboriginal identified site
Historical archaeological zone
Former Prince Henry Hospital complex
Historical identified site
Sandstone rock cutting and Graffiti
Little Bay Geological site
Remnant native vegetation in the vicinity
DA/571/2008 for 46 two and three storey townhouses, including strata subdivision, was approved in February 2009.
The application proposes changes to the existing fence of the townhouse on the southern corner of Brodie Avenue and Florey Crescent. The townhouse has its primary frontage to Brodie Avenue and a secondary frontage to Florey Crescent. The existing fence to the Florey Crescent boundary is to be increased in height. Work on changes to the fence has already commenced.
The application is accompanied by a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Clearline Design which includes a Heritage section. The SEE notes that the proposed works are outside the historic precinct and that the property is not considered to be of heritage significance.
As the site is listed on the State Heritage Register, the proposal needs to be the subject of an Integrated Development Application. As the NSW Heritage Council is the consent authority for the application, Council cannot issue development approval until the Heritage Council has provided conditions of consent.
An endorsement Exemption Notification Form under S.52 of the NSW Heritage Act was sought and approved by the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage in April 2015. The application can therefore be finalised without further consultation with or consent from the Heritage Office.
The section of Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 which relates to the Prince Henry site, Little Bay, as a number of Objectives and Controls in relation to Fences. The DCP includes a Control that solid front fences facing the street are to be no higher than 1.2m. For residential flat buildings, multi-unit housing and attached dwellings, this may be increased to 1.8m where the fence is at least 50% transparent, provided this does not adversely affect the setting of the heritage buildings and open character of the site.
Consistency of the proposal with LEP, CMP and AMP
The development is divided into three blocks by Florey Crescent. The northern block comprises a single row of townhouses. The central and southern blocks comprises a double row of townhouses facing north and south and a single row facing Brodie Avenue. The townhouse is within the central block of 20 townhouses. Each of the townhouses has a private rear terrace and a small front courtyard separated from the street by metal palisade fencing on a masonry base with higher masonry piers. Corner townhouses have an additional side courtyard space. Higher masonry blades delineate the private entry porches to each of the townhouses.
Along Brodie Avenue the masonry base is faced in rough sandstone. Elsewhere the masonry base, which consists of off-form concrete and concrete blockwork, is rendered and painted. Fencing to the Florey Crescent boundary of the subject site steps down to relate to the footpath levels. The masonry base varies in height from 300mm to 1.1m, while the masonry piers vary in height from 1.4m to 1.7m. The application proposes to increase the height of the two sections of fencing closest to Brodie Avenue by 3 or 4 courses of concrete blocks (600 or 800mm). The highest section of masonry base will have a height of 1.6m while the highest masonry pier will have a height of 2.4m. The new masonry pier will be around 1.6m higher than the adjacent sandstone base and 1m higher than the palisades above.
There are concerns that the proposed increase in height of the fence does not relate to the slope of the site and will create an excessive difference in scale between the Florey Crescent frontage and the low sandstone fencing on the Brodie Avenue frontage. There are concerns that the proposed changes to the existing fencing will set a poor precedent for further incremental increases to fencing height in the townhouse group. The proposed changes will be inconsistent with DCP Controls, and impact on the open character of the site, including settings and views associated with built and landscape elements in the vicinity. It is recommended that the proposed changes to the existing fence be refused.
The development application should be refused on the following grounds:
· The proposed increase in height of the fence does not relate to the slope of the site, and will create an excessive difference in scale between the Florey Crescent frontage and the low sandstone fencing on the Brodie Avenue frontage.
· The proposed changes to the existing fencing will set a poor precedent for further incremental increases to fencing height in the townhouse group, be inconsistent with DCP Controls, and impact on the open character of the site, including settings and views associated with built and landscape elements in the vicinity.
The proposal does not comply with the DCP controls for fences in the Prince Henry Site – Little Bay and is inconsistent with objectives for fence height. There is also an inconsistent relationship of the height of the fence with the slope of the site and it will adversely impact on the open character of the site, including views and settings with respect to built form and landcape elements in the area
The proposed increase in height exceeds the maximum prescribed by the DCP and cannot be supported. It will set an undesirable precedent in the area and have an adverse impact on the streetscape.
A. That Council, as the consent authority, refuses development consent under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No DA/377/2015, for increasing the height of the boundary wall on Florey Crescent boundary (Heritage Conservation Area). at No. 9 Brodie Avenue, Little Bay for the following reasons:
1. The increase in height to the existing fence exceeds the maximum heights contained in Section E 4.16 – Fences of RDCP 2013 and will have an adverse visual impact on the street and will set an undesirable precedent in the area.
2. The proposed increase in height of the fence does not relate to the slope of the site, and will create an excessive difference in scale between the Florey Crescent frontage and the low sandstone fencing on the Brodie Avenue frontage.
3. The proposed changes to the existing fencing will set a poor precedent for further incremental increases to fencing height in the townhouse group, be inconsistent with DCP Controls, and impact on the open character of the site, including settings and views associated with built and landscape elements in the vicinity.
B. That the matter of unauthorised building works be referred to Council’s compliance division for further action.
DA Compliance Report - 9 Brodie Avenue, LITTLE BAY
Development Application Report No. D60/15
Subject: 61 Raglan Street, Malabar (DA/1/2015)
Folder No: DA/1/2015
Proposal: Construction of a new 3 storey dwelling house including a semi-basement garage, attic storage area and boundary fence
Applicant: Mr J Spiteri
Owner: Mr P S Truskett and Ms J M Truskett
The application is referred to the Planning Committee at the request of Councillors Andrews, D’Souza and Nash.
Construct a new dwelling house including a semi-basement garage, attic storage area and boundary fence.
The subject site is located on the south eastern corner of Raglan Street and Victoria Street (bounded by green in the aerial photo on page 1 of this report). The site is rectangular in shape with a frontage width of 9.215m facing Ragaln Street, and a frontage width of m facing Victoria Street. The site has an overall site area of 389.3m². The site sits below both street levels and slopes from north to south and west to east with the lowest level being at the south eastern corner adjacent to the rear of 55A Victoria Street. Neighbouring the property to the east is a two storey dwelling at No. 63 Raglan Street and to the south is a two storey dwelling at No. 65A Victoria Street. The surrounding area is residential in nature with some commercial premises located further east towards the corner of Raglan Street and Bay Parade - opposite Long Bay in the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.
The surrounding area consists predominantly of residential dwellings varying in scales between single and three storeys in the immediate locality which is within the Foreshore Scenic Protection area. An aerial view of the subject site and surrounding area is provided on the page 1 of this report.
Photo of subject site at 61 Raglan Street Malabar. Adjoining dwelling to the east (left) is identified as No. 63 Raglan Street. Dwelling at the rear of subject site is located at No. 65A Victoria Street
DA/832/2009: Approved alterations and additions to the first floor level of the existing dwelling including a new sunroom and deck on the south-western elevation facing Victoria Street.
The pre-existing dwelling on the site was destroyed by a fire. The photo below shows the scale and size of the pre-existing dwelling on site relative to the neighbouring dwelling to the east (at left at No. 63 Raglan Street).
Photo of subject site containing two storey dwelling prior to fire.
The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. As a result of this notification, the following submissions were received:
40 Raglan Street, Malabar
Inability to view plans from Councils website
The plans were made available to the neighbour and they raised no objections to the proposed development.
58 Victoria Street, Malabar
See view loss assessment under Key issues section below
44-46 Raglan Street: No submission was received from the owners of 44-46 Raglan Street. However, there was a concern that the proposed development could potentially have an adverse impact on views from this three storey dwelling. A discussion with the owner of No. 44 – 46 Raglan Street, concluded that should the development comply with Council overall height standard they would not have any objection to the proposed development. Although the development complies with the overall height standard, it is considered that in terms of view loss and retention there will be some loss of views of the water however the more high quality views of interfacing land and water and expansive distant ocean will be retained from the front middle level balcony and the upper level balconies from this dwelling.
View from balcony at No. 44-46 Raglan Street Malabar: View lost is bounded blue and retained view of rock shore interface and distant ocean further right.
The proposed upper floor level is setback 1200mm from the north eastern side boundary encroaching onto the 1800mm minimum side setback control under the DCP. An assessment is carried out against the following setback objectives:
· To maintain or establish a consistent rhythm of street setbacks and front gardens that contributes to the character of the neighbourhood.
· To ensure the form and massing of development complement and enhance the streetscape character.
The proposed north eastern side setback satisfies the abovementioned objectives for the following reasons:
· Requiring a setback in compliance with the controls would present poorly along the street disrupting the consistent rhythm of side setbacks within the street.
· The form and massing of the proposed building complements and enhances the existing character of the streetscape
· The proposal is setback further from the side boundary than that of the dwelling on the property opposite at No. 63 Raglan Street ensuring a fair and adequate separation between the two dwellings. It is further noted that there will be a total distance of 2.2m between the proposed dwelling and the dwelling opposite ensuring adequate space for the purposes of ventilation and natural light.
· The proposed development provides a substantial area of private open space in the rear yard
Overall, the proposed north eastern side setback opposite No. 63 Raglan Street will comply with the setback objectives under the DCP. The proposed has an appropriate scale and bulk that will not result in any significant or unreasonable adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties, and it will achieve a better planning outcome in relation to the streetscape character than if the development were made to comply with the minimum side setback control under the DCP.
The proposal includes a very steep roof over the dining room which also acts as a privacy screening measure restricting overlooking across to the rear yard of the neighbouring property at No. 65A Victoria Street. This roof element is not considered to satisfy the DCP control which requires that roofs are sympathetic to design of dwelling. In other words, this rear roof element over the dining room and kitchen presents an awkward design element which is considered neither sympathetic to the design of the dwelling or the streetscape character. In order to ensure a more sympathetic design element a condition is included requiring it to be amended accordingly.
Dormers are also located at the north western and south eastern elevations of the roof plane. These dormers are of a subtle scale and form that will not dominate the main roof form. As indicated in the RLEP section of this report the floor area within the roof (which amounts to approximately 11sqm where there is a 1.4m floor to ceiling height) will result in an FSR of 0.735:1 thus complying with the 0.75:1 maximum under the RLEP.
Given that the steep roof element is not supported it is considered that additional privacy measures are required to be included as amendments to the development. Further still, it is considered that size of the balcony is excessive in so far as it is located in close proximity to neighbouring properties and, it is connected to a secondary living area.
In order to both reduce the potential intensity of its use and acoustic amenity, a condition is included requiring a reduction in the size of the balcony and the following privacy protection measures to be included in amended plans to be submitted to Council for approval as follows:
· The rear upper level balcony adjacent to the Victoria Street frontage shall be reduced in size so that it has maximum dimensions of 4m in length measured equidistant across the rumpus room doorway and a maximum depth of 2m from the south eastern elevation of the rumpus room. A 1.6m high privacy screen shall be installed along the south eastern side of the balcony in order to restrict sightlines into the rear yard of the neighbouring property at No. 65 Victoria Street.
The first floor level rear balcony at the north eastern corner of the upper floor level will afford a direct view into the rear of neighbouring properties and therefore conditioned to be deleted. The doorway which is not shown on the south east elevation plan is also required to be deleted as part of this condition.
The proposed development results in the loss of views from the kitchen and balcony off a living room at No. 58 Victoria Street, Malabar who have made a submission to Council. An assessment of view sharing (and loss) is considered against Council DCP provision and the applicable 4 step process provided by the Land and Environment Court Planning Principle established in the matter of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah (2004) NSWLEC 140:
1. Quality of Views: The first step is the assessment of views to be affected (quality of views). 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.
A site visit conducted to the site at No 58 Victoria Street shown in photo 1 below from the following affected areas –
a. Kitchen and dining room windows: Malabar headland view interfacing with ocean wash over subject site and dwelling at No. 63 Raglan Street – see photos 2, 3, 4 & 7
b. Middle balcony area in front of kitchen window: Headland view interfacing with ocean wash over subject site and dwelling at No. 63 Raglan Street – see photo 5 & 8
c. Balcony area off living room: view of ocean and partial headland mostly over neighbouring property at No. 63 Raglan Street – see photos 6
The aerial photo further below shows the generally diagonal line of sight over the subject site and adjoining site at No. 63 Raglan Street toward Malabar Headland and its interface with the ocean.
Photo 1: 58 Victoria Street, Malabar. Affected property showing kitchen window, balcony and living room doorway.
Aerial photo view of the affected site and line of sight: Subject site is 61 Raglan Street bounded in green. The affected site is 58 Victoria Street – at left of the subject site and a red hatched line identifies the line of sight of Malabar Head land (shown at bottom right of image).
a. Kitchen and dining room windows
Photo 2: Close up view from kitchen window taking in Malabar Headland interfacing with the ocean wash. It is noted that the view from the kitchen also takes in the Rock shore interface shown in middle balcony photo further below. Note: Reference is made to an incorrectly installed height pole on the subject site. This height pole rises to two storeys however the proposed development is only single storey at this location as will be shown in the part 3 extent of impact in the assessment.
Photo 3: Expanded view from kitchen window taking in the rock shore interface (circled blue) in addition to the close up view shown in photo 2. The proposed development does not impact on this view (circled blue).
Photo 4: South facing dining room view of rock shore interface (behind kitchen). The proposed development will not impact on this view.
Quality assessment of view: The kitchen view is considered to be of relatively moderate to high value. The quality of the view is somewhat lessened in that it is over a dwelling east of the subject site at No. 63 Raglan Street and it is partially obstructed by existing vegetation such as the street tree located on the Victoria Street footpath (at right) and the palm tree located in the rear yard of No. 53 Bay Parade. In addition, the narrowness of this view also lesser the quality of the view and its impact is moderate.
b. Middle balcony
Photo 5: View from the middle of the balcony takes in more of the interacting ocean with Malabar Headland. A water view is also obtained across the top of properties and dwellings located at No. 65 Raglan Street and the roof of a dwelling located at No. 53 Bay Parade.
Quality assessment of view: This view is more expansive and takes in a greater proportion of the interfacing water and Malabar Headland than that from the kitchen. There are also additional views (at left) of the rock shore interface. These headland view remains obstructed by the vegetation and existing buildings, however given it is more expansive it is therefore considered to be a more a higher quality view than that obtained from the kitchen.
c. Balcony closer to living room doorway
Photo 6: view from balcony area in front of living room takes in a more expansive view of the water interface with a small portion of Malabar Headland.
Quality assessment of view: The views of Malabar Headland at left and the ocean at right view continue to be obstructed by vegetation on either side lessening slightly the quality of the view. Notwithstanding, when compared with the preceding views this view is considered to be of a higher quality due to it being more expansive than the preceding views. Overall, despite the obstructions the quality of this view remains relatively high due to its relative expansiveness.
2. Reasonable Expectation of View Retention: 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.
The views contain standing views from a kitchen (living area of the dwelling) and a sitting and standing view from the balcony which are areas considered worthy of retention. However, the following elements affect the degree of reasonableness of retaining the whole of these views:
· The narrowness of the view corridor
· The partial obstruction by vegetation on both sides,
· The view is in a somewhat diagonal direction across multiple properties occupied by single storey dwellings and a small scale two storey dwelling east of the site at No. 63 Raglan Street
· The natural topography of land shows that the natural rise of levels from west to east which suggests that development of the subject site in accordance with the current DCP provisions would likely result in greater impacts on views
As will be indicated later under the extent of impact and reasonableness of the development, the proposal has been designed with a one and a half storey scale at the front facing Raglan Street which increases the views of Malabar Headland and interfacing ocean wash that will be retained as opposed to if a two storey scale was proposed at the front.
3. Extent of 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.
a. Kitchen window:
The applicant submitted a view analysis showing the approximate location of the proposed development viewed from the Kitchen window - shown in the photo below. The outline of the development is consistent with the anticipated location of the proposed development within the subject site. As noted earlier, the views of the Rock shore interface from the kitchen and the dining room window will be retained as shown earlier in photo’s 3 and 4.
Photo 7: Extent of impact from kitchen window
Views lost from kitchen window: The standing views from the kitchen window to the right of the headland are being lost. However this view is of only moderate value in so far as the view is narrow and it is already obstructed by the electricity poles, the street tree and is a view over the small scaled developments at No. 63 Raglan Street. It is also noted that the proposed development is not dissimilar to the scale of the previous development that existed on site prior to it being lost due to fire (see plan excerpt below) and it is of a smaller scale than the more recent three storey development at No. 67 Victoria Street Malabar two doors down (photo below).
Plan excerpt of previous dwelling: The 8.3m height shown at left is similar to the proposed dwelling which has an equivalent of height of 8.325m at this point.
Dwelling at 67 Victoria Street, Malabar
Views retained from kitchen window: The views retained from the kitchen window are of the main portion of Malabar headland and the interfacing water wash– area circled blue in photo 7 above. This view is retained as a result of the development being designed with a one and a half storey component at the front of the development where if it were designed with a two storey component as is generally the case with the majority of developments in the locality, it would result in a greater loss of views of the headland and interfacing water.
Other views retained from the kitchen and dining room windows include the rock shore interface shown circled blue in photos 3 and 4 above. However, it is important to note that a sizable portion of this view of the rock shore interface will likely be lost as it is a diagonal view over single storey scaled developments at No. 65 Raglan Street and 53 Bay Parade.
b. Middle balcony extent of view impact:
The applicant also submitted a view analysis showing the approximate location of the proposed development as viewed from the middle balcony - shown in photo 8 overleaf. This photo shows less views being lost and a greater proportion of the headland and interfacing wash being retained from the middle balcony which is a higher quality aspect of the views being retained.
Photo 8: Extent of impact from middle balcony
c. Balcony closer to living room doors
The views retained from this part of the balcony are the most expansive and will be least affected by the proposed development allowing for a greater level of view of the interface between the ocean and Malabar Headland. There is also a view of the rock shore interface being retained through the first floor balcony at No. 52 Raglan Street (shown circled blue at left).
Photo 9: Extent of impact from balcony closer to living room doors
Based on the above analysis, the extent of the impact on views is moderate having particular regard to the retention of the higher value of the views taking in the interface between Malabar Headland and the ocean (and in some instances ocean wash) from the balcony connected to the living room. The extent of impact from the kitchen is greater however this view is considered to be a lesser quality view in so far as it is a through a narrow corridor obstructed by vegetation as well as being a more sideways view across the site. Overall, the proposed development will result in additional view loss and therefore an assessment is carried out against the final assessment parameter regarding the reasonableness of the proposed development.
d. Reasonableness of Proposed Development:
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 skillful 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.
Assessment: The development fails to comply with the side setback control from the north eastern side boundary; this does not affect the extent of view loss from the affected property at No. 58 Victoria Street. The most salient aspect of the proposed development affecting views is the overall height which is in compliance with the overall height limit under the RLEP. The proposed development is well designed in this respect in so far as this larger element is located further to the rear of the subject site where its impact would much greater if it were located closer to the front along Raglan Street. Instead the proposal has been designed with a smaller scale at the front equivalent to a one and a half storey element ensuring a greater proportion of views of Malabar headland are retained. The photo below shows that if the development were two storeys high at the front it would result in greater loss of views overall than that which is occurring as a result of the actual development.
Photo 10: An alternate design incorporating a two storey element at front with a hipped roof and skillion roof will likely result in more view loss than that which is occurring as a result of the proposed development
It is also noted, as indicated earlier, the proposed development has a bulk and scale that is relatively similar to the bulk and scale of the building which existed on the site prior to fire that destroyed the previous building on site and more recent developments in the locality as shown earlier in the excerpts provided in this assessment.
Overall, it is considered that whilst there will be a loss of some views it is considered that these views lost are of a lesser value than those that are retained and that on balance it the development is a well-considered design in terms of minimising impact on views as well as allowing for a development which is generally consistent with the built form that existed prior and that envisaged by the RLEP and DCP controls.
That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 1/2015 for construction of a new 3 storey dwelling house including a semi-basement garage, attic storage area and boundary fence at No. 61 Raglan Street, Malabar, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:
a. The south east facing first floor balcony (and doorway) shall be deleted from the development as the balcony will afford a direct view into the rear yards of neighbouring properties. Details showing compliance with this condition shall be included in the Construction Certificate plans.
b. The steep roof form over the dining room returning to the rear upper level balcony shall be amended into either a flat roof or alternatively a less pronounced hipped roof returning to the rear elevation of the balcony so that at its peak it has a height no higher than RL20.63. The adjacent rear upper level balcony shall also be reduced in size so that it has maximum dimensions of 4m in length measured equidistant across the rumpus room doorway and a maximum depth of 2m from the south eastern elevation of the rumpus room. A 1.6m high privacy screen shall be installed along the south eastern side of the balcony in order to restrict sightlines into the rear yard of the neighbouring property at No. 58A Victoria Street. Details showing compliance with this condition shall be submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessment for approval prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development
c. The air conditioning equipment must be located at ground level and away from the neighbouring properties habitable room windows, and comply with the operational conditions of this consent.
d. The finished ground levels external to the building are to be consistent with the development consent and are not to be raised (other than for the provision of paving or the like on the ground) without the written consent of Council.
e. The rainwater tank must be located away from habitable room windows of the neighbouring properties, any pump or associated equipment must be located within a sound absorbing enclosure and comply with the operational conditions of this consent.
f. No consent is granted for fencing to the side or rear boundaries. Any new fencing shall be subject to a separate development application unless the side and rear boundary fence design meets the exempt and complying development criteria specified under the SEPP Exempt and Complying Codes 2008.
g. The fence on the street alignments is to be a maximum height of 1.8m (150mm allowance for drop downs) and be designed so that the upper two thirds of the fence (excluding any piers or posts) is at least 30% open, to maintain reasonable levels of amenity to the adjoining residential development and the streetscape. The driveway gate shall also be designed to be at least 30% open. Any gate openings shall be constructed so that the gates, when hung, will be fitted in such a manner that they will not open over the footway or public place.
DA Compliance Report - 61 Raglan Street, Malabar
Development Application Report No. D61/15
Subject: 97 Carrington Road, Coogee (DA/234/2014/A)
Folder No: DA/234/2014/A
Proposal: Section 96 modification of the approved development by increasing the building height by up to 700mm, new roof top terrace to unit 2.01 with associated staircase, internal modifications, new car lift over run, changes to external finishes and relocation of OSD tanks. Original consent: Demolition of the existing structures and construction of a part 3/part 4 residential flat building containing 11 units with 2 levels of basement car parking for 18 vehicles, landscaping and associated works at the above site
Applicant: Micaul Holdings Pty Ltd
Owner: Micaul Holdings Pty Ltd
This matter is referred to the Planning Committee as the original application was determined by Council.
The proposal involves Section 96 modification of the approved development by increasing the building height by up to 700mm, provision of a new roof top terrace to unit 2.01 with associated staircase, internal modifications, a new car lift over run, changes to external finishes and relocation of OSD tanks. Original consent: Demolition of the existing structures and construction of a part 3/part 4 residential flat building containing 11 units with 2 levels of basement car parking for 18 vehicles, landscaping and associated works at the above site.
The following extract from the Statement of Environmental Effects details the full extent of the proposed modifications:
The site is located on the eastern side of Carrington Road, Coogee approximately 50m south of its intersection with Marcel Avenue.
The site is irregular in shape with a 12.495m frontage to Carrington Road, an irregular rear boundary of approximately 37m, northern and southern side boundary depths of 54m and 60.55m respectively and a total site area of 1240m².
The land slopes steeply downward from the street some 10m over the entire length of the site in addition to a similar cross fall from northwest to southeast.
Existing on the land is a single dwelling house and swimming pool. The site also contains a series of steps, retaining walls, rock outcrops; planter boxes and a tank at the rear of the site. Substantial vegetation including a number of existing Gum trees also exist at the rear of the site.
To the north and south the site is adjoined by existing residential flat buildings and to the east by a substantial dwelling house at No. 10 Richard Avenue.
The locality is occupied predominantly by residential flat developments of older tenure in addition to dwelling houses.
Figure 1. The existing building
Figure 2. Adjoining flat building to south
Figure 3. Flat building to the north
Figure 4. Rear yard of subject site
· Unit 2, 101 Carrington Road, Coogee (on behalf of the Strata Executive)
· Unit 3, 95 Carrington Road, Coogee
· Unit 2, 103 Carrington Road, Coogee
· Unit 6, 103 Carrington Road, Coogee
Increase in intensity of the approved development.
The approved development as proposed to be modified will remain substantially the same as that for which consent was granted and will not significantly increase the intensity of the approved development.
The new roof top terrace will overlook some balconies and windows at No. 103 Carrington Road creating an unacceptable privacy and noise impacts.
See Visual and Key Issues section of this report.
Increased blocking of sun beyond the approved development is unacceptable.
See Key Issues section of this report.
The extra level will be incompatible with surrounding development and impact ocean views from the adjoining development at No. 103 Carrington Road,
Development will cause unreasonable traffic and parking impacts.
The proposed modifications will not alter the traffic and parking impacts from that originally approved.
The proposed additional roof terrace does not consider the additional shadows cast by landscaped planting that would occur in conjunction therewith.
The proposed increase in height to 12.5m will result in non-compliance with the maximum allowable height limit of 12m under the RLEP.
The increase in height over the maximum height limit can be considered as part of the Section 96. See Key Issues section of this report.
The proposal will exacerbate the non-compliance with the external wall height maximum of 10.5m.
The proposed modifications will add to the apparent bulk of the approved development.
The additional bulk associated with the proposed modifications will not significantly increase the size as scale of the development to which consent was originally granted.
The proposed modifications will adversely impact the aesthetic of surrounding buildings and increase dampness to these buildings due to additional over shadowing.
Enclosure of the fire stair would be contrary to changes recommended and endorsed by the DRP in relation to the original application and endorsed in the terms of the consent as granted.
See Floor Space Ratio in Key Issues section of this report.
Whilst the amendments are numerous, the proposed modifications collectively do not alter the nature or essence of the approved building and will result in a development substantially the same as that to which consent was granted.
Furthermore, whilst the proposal involves a departure from the maximum building height of 12m under the RLEP, consistent with L & E Court decisions in this regard, the application for modification may be determined without the need for a clause 4.6 objection to the standard.
As such, it is appropriate that the application be dealt with under Section 96 (2) of the E P & A Act, 1979.
Notification and Consideration of Submissions:
The notification of the proposal was carried out in accordance with Council’s DCP and a consideration of submissions is addressed in this report.
Section 79C Assessment:
The proposal is consistent with the general aims of the RLEP 2012 and the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.
The following clauses of LEP 2012 are relevant to the proposed development:
4.3 Maximum Building Height
The maximum building height under the RLEP is 12m and the approved development complied with this limit.
For the residential floor plates, the proposed modifications seek to raise the height of the approved development by 300mm at the south eastern most point and 600mm at the north eastern most point. The modifications have resulted from a requirement for additional floor to floor height to support the structural integrity of the building and cater for hydraulic loads associated with the proposed landscaped terrace areas at levels 1 and 2.
Additional to the above increases, a landscaped terrace area is proposed to the uppermost level 2 in association with unit 2, which will add an additional height of approximately 1m comprising a balustrade wall to a perimeter planter box area with railing above.
Finally the proposed lift overrun, mechanical riser and (proposed to be enclosed) fire stairs will have an associated increase in height of 1.375m above the approved RL of 69.020.
The amendments will result in an exceeding of the height limit to varying degrees including a maximum height of 16.55m above natural ground level.
Having regard to the minor additional impact on overshadowing (addressed under Solar Access and Overshadowing of this section), no objection is raised to the increase in height for the lift overrun and mechanical riser. However, as the land falls steeply away to the east, the enclosure of the fire stairs (distinct from the open and screened nature as approved) will increase substantially the apparent bulk and height of this section of the building as it extends east ward. For these reasons the proposed enclosure of the fire stairs is not supported and is conditioned to be deleted in the recommendation. This rationale is further explained in the following section.
Similarly, the balustrading to planter box areas of the proposed roof top terrace to unit 2 will further add to the apparent height of the building. For this reason and the associated visual and acoustic privacy impacts addressed below in this section, this aspect of the proposed amendments is not supported and is conditioned to be deleted in the recommendation.
Whilst the proposed modifications do not strictly add floor area to the approved development, the enclosure of the fire stairs will constitute a concrete façade of approximately 110m2 with no relief where the building reaches its highest point above ground level. The contrast between the approved development and that associated with the proposed modifications is detailed in the following images.
Figure 5: Southern elevation of approved development
Figure 6: Southern elevation with proposed modifications
The open fire stairs and screening as indicated in Figure 5 above received specific attention on a number of occasions by the Design Review Panel and the approved design was specifically intended to provide visual relief to this section façade. The increased height and horizontal expansion of this area creates and excessive section of bulk and height of this section of the building which is not supported.
As mentioned in the previous section, for these reasons the proposed enclosure of the fire stairs is not supported and is conditioned to be deleted in the recommendation.
The maximum external wall height equates to the maximum building height on this occasion. The non-compliance associated with the proposed modifications is considered justified as demonstrated by the arguments presented in the previous sections.
The proposed modifications are accompanied by shadow diagrams at hourly intervals during the winter solstice which indicate that the increase in overshadowing associated with the proposed modifications is minor and insignificant compared to that associated with the original consent.
The proposed modifications are acceptable in this regard.
Notwithstanding, for visual and acoustic privacy reasons addressed in the following section of this report, the proposed roof top terrace is not supported and is conditioned to be deleted in the recommendation.
The objectives of the DCP in this regard are:
The proposed rooftop terrace will add a large outdoor area for the occupants of unit 2 in addition to an already generous provision immediately adjacent to living areas included as part of the original consent. The potential for visual and acoustic privacy impact caused by the roof top terrace is exacerbated by the inclusion of the proposed roof top terrace and given its close proximity to a number of windows to the adjoining residential flat building it is recommended that this component be deleted from any approved modifications.
The suitability of the site for the proposed development was adequately addressed in the original application. The proposed modifications do not alter the suitability in this regard.
With the exception of the proposed rooftop terrace and enclosure of the fire stairs, the proposed modifications are of a minor index and are supported.
That Council as the consent authority grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended to modify Development Consent No DA/234/2014/A by increasing the building height by up to 700mm, internal modifications, new car lift over run, changes to external finishes and relocation of OSD tanks at 97 Carrington Road, Coogee. Original consent: Demolition of the existing structures and construction of a part 3/part 4 residential flat building containing 11 units with 2 levels of basement car parking for 18 vehicles, landscaping and associated works at 97 Carrington Road, Coogee in the following manner:
1. The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans:
A 2001 Roof
Alex Phegan Pty Ltd
A 2002 Level 02
A 2003 Level 01
A 2004 Ground
A 2005 Ground 01
A 2006 Ground 02
A 2007 Ground 03
A 3001 Elevation West + East
A 3003 Elevation North + South
A 3101 Section 01
A 3102 Section 02
A 3103 Section 03
A 3104 Section 04
the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red by the following:
· Amend Condition No. 2 to include:
2(e) The proposed rooftop terrace to unit 2 must be deleted from the plans and is not approved
2(f) The proposed enclosure of the fire stairs must be deleted from the plans and is not approved.