Source: http://businesspapers.randwick.nsw.gov.au/Open/2008/06/PL_10062008_AGN_AT.HTM
Timestamp: 2018-10-20 22:09:36
Document Index: 23732212

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 9', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4']

Agenda of Planning Committee Meeting - 10 June 2008
Notice is hereby given that a Planning Committee Meeting of the Council of the City of Randwick will be held in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, 90 Avoca Street, Randwick, on Tuesday, 10 June 2008 at 6:30pm.
Committee Members: The Mayor, B Notley-Smith, Andrews, Bastic, Belleli, Daley, Hughes, Kenny, Matson (Deputy Chairperson), Nash (Chairperson), Procopiadis, Seng, Sullivan, Tracey, White, Woodsmith.
Planning Committee Meeting - 13 May 2008
D27/08 91 Paine Street, Maroubra (Deferred)
D28/08 8A Kitchener Street, Maroubra
D29/08 21 Seaside Parade, South Coogee
D30/08 52 Marine Parade, Maroubra
D31/08 248 Carrington Road Randwick
D32/08 2 - 40 Gumara Street, Randwick - DA 71/2008
D33/08 2 - 40 Gumara Street, Randwick - DA 73/2008
Development Application Report No. D27/08
Subject: 91 Paine Street, Maroubra (Deferred)
Folder No: DA/1/2008
Author: Roger Quinton, Coordinator Development Assessment
Proposal: Conversion of existing dwelling house into childcare centre for 36 children with associated building works
Applicant: Victor Berk of Design 23 P/L
Owner: Paul Baker
The application has been referred to the Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Andrews, Bastic and Seng.
The development proposes the conversion of the existing dwelling house on the site into a childcare centre catering for 36 children with associated building works. There would be four full-time staff at the centre with a cook present on site for approximately two hours in the middle of each day. Two on-site car parking spaces are to be provided.
A number of issues have been raised by neighbouring residents, particularly in regard to traffic and parking impacts. Council’s Manager Integrated Transport is of the view that any shortfall in on-site parking provision can be adequately accommodated on the public road.
The proposal generally meets the requirements of Council’s Child Care Centres Policy and potential impacts are considered to be minor or able to be mitigated by way of proposed conditions of consent.
The application involves the conversion of the existing dwelling into a childcare centre catering for 36 children between the ages of 2 to 5 years (20 x 2-3 year olds and 16 x 3-5 year olds). The proposed hours of operation of the centre are 8.30 am to 5 pm weekdays. The centre is to be closed at weekends, public holidays and also for a 4 week period at Christmas. There are to be 4 fulltime staff members with a cook present for approximately two hours in the middle of each day.
Proposed work to the building involves the following:
· Conversion of the living and bedroom accommodation into two playroom areas, an office and staff room with a toilet facility;
· Rooms on the eastern side of the building are to be converted to accommodate two separate bathrooms and a kitchen and laundry;
· The existing sun room at the front of the dwelling facing Paine Street is to be demolished and a new play room constructed;
· A timber deck with a pergola over is to be constructed on the western side of the building;
· The existing garage to the rear of the dwelling is to be removed, as is concrete paving to the rear of the dwelling.
Two hardstand car park spaces for staff car parking are to be constructed to the front of the dwelling with access from Paine Street.
A 2.2m high acoustic fence is to be constructed on the boundary with No. 89 Paine Street.
Outdoor activities are to be restricted to a maximum of 22 children at one time for a period of 1 hour 30 minutes per day per group. The “active” play area is to be located to the rear of the building, with a “passive” area to be located on the western side of the building for story telling.
The subject site is located on the south-western corner of Walsh Avenue and Paine Street in Maroubra. The site has an area of 537.9m2 and is generally rectangular in shape with the Paine Street frontage being 14.325m, the rear boundary being 15.95m and side boundaries of 37.14m and 37.010m.
The property abuts Nagle Park to the rear and a stormwater canal is located between the site and Walsh Avenue.
South Sydney Boys High School is located opposite the site on Walsh Avenue. The surrounding area is otherwise residential in character and consists predominantly of single and two storey dwellings.
Figure 1 is an aerial view of the subject site and surrounding area.
Figure1: The subject site and surrounding area
There is no history relevant to the application.
The proposal was initially notified and advertised in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification for a two week period until 6 February 2008. An additional parking and traffic study was notified by way of letter for a two week period until 26 March 2008.
18 submissions and five petitions objecting to the proposal were received by Council.
Issues raised in the objections are summarised below:
Increase in traffic and consequent hazards
No objection has been raised by Council’s Manager Integrated Transport in respect of the increase in vehicle movements generated by the proposal. It is considered that the increase in traffic generated can be accommodated by the road system and will not adversely impact on the environmental traffic capacity of the locality.
Inadequate parking and the impact of this on the surrounding area
The RTA guideline recommends 8 spaces for a facility of this size. The Manager Integrated Transport has no objection to the accommodation of this shortfall upon the public roads in this location, as detailed in section 6.1 of this report.
It will be too late to mitigate impacts on traffic/parking once development approved
Traffic generated by the facility will be required to comply with the applicable road rules.
Number of proposed employees not adequate to meet DOCS requirements. A cook and supervisor are required.
The proposal details 4 staff for 36 children, which given the ages of the children gives a requirement for 4.1 staff. This is adequate to meet DOCS requirements. A cook would be present on site for approximately 2 hours per day in the middle of the day.
No notification notice placed on the site; some neighbours not notified.
A sign was placed on the site for the initial notification. It is not a requirement that the sign stays in place until the application is determined. Council’s records indicate that neighbours were notified by letter in accordance with the requirements of the DCP – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. The additional parking study was also made available for public viewing by way of letter to surrounding neighbours.
Safety concerns regarding proximity of stormwater drain.
The site is to be adequately fenced to stop children straying – as is required of all such facilities. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in this regard.
On-site parking spaces cover too much of the width of the site.
The DCP – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies limits driveways and car parking spaces to a maximum of 35% of the width of the site. This DCP applies to residential development only and is not applicable to this proposal. The development is however, considered to be acceptable in this regard as detailed in section 9 of this report.
Noise impacts will be unacceptable
The proposal includes a 2.2m high acoustic rated fence on the common boundary with No. 89 Paine Street. Potential noise impacts have been assessed by Council’s Environmental Health officer and are considered to be satisfactory, as detailed in Section 6 of this report. In addition, appropriate conditions have been detailed in the recommendation to regulate noise emissions.
Does not comply with Council’s Child Care Centres Policy (particularly noise/orientation)
The proposal has been assessed against the policy in section 8 of this report and is considered to be satisfactory.
Conflict of use with football training in Nagle Park
The proposed hours of operation of the centre and the use of the park for training purposes are such that there should be little conflict between the activities. In any case, the Manager Integrated Transport is of the view that there is adequate on-street parking available in this location.
The application has been referred to the relevant technical officers, including where necessary external bodies and the following comments have been provided:
6.1 Manager Integrated Transport
Traffic Generation – Traffic Volume Changes
It is noted that, according to RTA Guidelines, the traffic generated by this development would be in the order of 29 trips in the AM peak period and 26 trips in the PM peak period. It is likely that this increase in traffic volume will not be noticeable to most observers. It is considered that the road system can accommodate such an increase in traffic volume.
Council’s Development Control Plan (DCP) requires parking at a rate of “1 space per 2 staff members in attendance, plus adequate space for drop off/pick up of children”. As it is proposed to have 4 staff members at this centre the provision of 2 off-street parking spaces is required. This requirement has been met.
The RTA recommends a rate of “1 space for every 4 children in attendance. As it is proposed to have 36 children at the centre, the RTA suggests that 9 off-street parking spaces should be provided. The subject proposal provides 2 car parking spaces – a shortfall, from the RTA requirement, of 7 spaces.
It is noted that the RTA’s guidelines state:
“Consideration could be given to reducing the parking required if convenient and safe on-street parking is available (e.g. indented parking bays), provided that the use of such parking does not adversely affect the amenity of the adjacent area.”
Numerous site visits have been undertaken since receipt of the application. The comments by the applicant’s Traffic Consultant, regarding the availability of parking in the area, has been confirmed from these site visits. It is considered that the shortfall of parking on-site can be accommodated upon the public road at this location. This is particularly so due to the long frontage of the site to Walsh Avenue.
It is suggested that any signage required at the intersection to instil parking discipline amongst parents and carers, and to maintain sightlines should be funded by the applicant. The decision on any such signage would be a matter for consideration by Randwick Traffic Committee.
Servicing of Site
It is noted that all servicing of the site is proposed to be undertaken from the street. Given the size of the proposed Childcare Centre, and the relatively minor delivery task, there are no objections to this arrangement.
1. The traffic likely to be generated by this development can be accommodated by the road system
2. The on-site parking meets Council’s requirements under the relevant Development Control Plan.
3. The ‘shortfall’ of parking, according to the relevant RTA Guidelines, can be accommodated by vehicles parking upon the public road.
4. Any signage required at the intersection to instil parking discipline amongst parents and carers and to maintain sightlines should be funded by the applicant. The decision on any such signage would be a matter for consideration by Randwick Traffic Committee.
5. Servicing of the site from the public road is acceptable given the size of this application.
Food safety requirement
The applicant has nominated to prepare food for the children on site, as a result the layout and construction of the proposed kitchen is to be in compliance with the Food Act 2003, Food Regulation 2004, Australia & New Zealand Food Standards Code and Australian Standard AS 4674-2004, Design, construction and fit-out of food premises.
All relevant conditions have been recommended below.
An acoustic report has been submitted with the development application titled Proposed Childcare Centre, 91 Paine Street, Maroubra – Noise Impact Assessment by Renzo Tonin & Associates reference: TD859-01F03(REV 1) NSE REP dated 8 January 2008.
The consultant has advised that noise treatments are required to reduce the noise levels from the children playing outdoors at the childcare centre to residences east of the site. The recommended noise mitigation methods form part of this development consent. Furthermore a combined validation report and acoustic report shall be submitted one month after issuing of occupation certificate. Any recommendations made on this future report are too approved by Council via appropriate approval prior to incorporation.
Proposed conditions of approval have been provided and are included in the draft recommendation.
6.3 Development Engineers
While there is no significant vegetation within the front yard, the plans indicate that new landscape treatment will be provided in order to improve the visual amenity of the site and proposal, and as such, conditions specifying the level of detail required to deliver on this initiative have been included.
In the rear yard, about halfway across the rear (western) edge of the existing dwelling, there is one tree which has been so heavily pruned in the past that is almost unrecognisable due to the resulting sucker growth and poor form/habit.
As it would not be physically possible to retain this tree and proceed with construction of the rear addition as proposed, removal is supported, and is provided on the basis that appropriately selected and located replacement trees to assist in the provision of shade to this area of outdoor space will be provided in its place.
Towards the southeast corner of the site, along the southern boundary, there is one small Mangifera indica (Mango Tree) of about 3 metres in height which is insignificant, and too small to be covered by the provision of Council’s Tree Preservation Order (TPO).
This tree could be removed by the applicant at any time, without the need to obtain formal consent from Council, irrespective of this application, with conditions relating to it therefore not required.
There is one 8 metre tall Eucalyptus mannifera (Brittle Gum) of approximately 8 metres in height beyond the southwest corner of the site, within the rear yard of the adjoining property to the north, 89 Paine Street, close to the common boundary, which despite its southern aspect overhanging into the subject site, should remain unaffected by this application given a complete absence of any major works in this area of the subject site, combined with the height of its canopy above ground level.
Therefore, conditions relating to its preservation are not required, with the same situation applying to the variety of Gum Trees located beyond the rear (western) boundary, within Council’s Nagle Park reserve.
Not relevant to this application.
- Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended
- Development Control Plan – Parking
- Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans
- Randwick City section 94A Development Contributions Plan
- Randwick City Council Child Care Centres Policy
The site is zoned Residential 2(a) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal:-
31 –Landscaped area
32- Floor space ratios
33 – Building heights
9.5m maximum building height
a. Development Control Plan - Parking
The DCP – Parking has the following requirements for the site:
1 space for every 2 staff members in attendance plus adequate space for drop off/pick up of children
2 on-site parking spaces plus adequate and safe pick-up & drop-off space.
2 on-site parking spaces. See paragraph 9.2 below
a. Randwick Council Child Care Centres Policy
The Child Care Centres policy aims at providing guidance for applicants and residents in respect to the location, siting and general planning considerations that are taken into account when assessing an application for the establishment of a child care centre within the City of Randwick.
· To guide the location and design of child care centres in order to minimise environmental and social impacts;
· To encourage centres with high levels of safety, security, environmental health and amenity and ,
· To provide a clear and concise document to guide applicants and the community on childcare provision.
The table below outlines the requirements of the policy and provides comment on the proposed centre.
A signed statement or checklist to Council verifying compliance with DOCS’ requirements.
The proposal was accompanied by a statement of compliance. Complies.
Proposals for child care centres must comply with the Building Code of Australia requirements for Class 9b buildings.
Full details of compliance with BCA and fire safety provisions are not included in the DA documentation and therefore further detailed information would need to be incorporated in the documentation for a construction certificate. A suitable condition of consent would be included in any consent. Complies.
The following documents must accompany a DA; A statement of environmental effects, Statement of compliance with DOCS requirements Traffic and parking study Acoustic report and Child care centre plan of management.
The proposal was accompanied by the necessary documentation. The specialist’s reports for noise and traffic were reviewed by Council’s Technical Officers. Complies.
Co-located with schools, churches and other community facilities;
The subject site is located diagonally opposite South Sydney Boys High School. Complies.
Within or close to commercial / town centres / major employers, for example, hospitals;
The site is close proximity to the Maroubra Junction shopping centre. Complies.
Purpose-built buildings;
The child care-centre involves conversion of a dwelling. The nature of the proposed work is such that the building will be suitable for the proposed use. Complies.
Large corner sites;
The site is a corner site of 537.9 sqm. Complies.
Near public transport;
The site is within of Maroubra Road and Anzac Parade which are well serviced by bus routes.Complies
In/adjacent to open space where parking facilities already provided;
The site is adjacent to Nagle Park, although parking is not provided on the park. Does not comply.
Within detached buildings on large, accessible sites, rather than semidetached dwellings, dual occupancies or residential flat buildings.
The proposal is for development of a detached building. Complies
Undesirable locations
On narrow or one way roads or cul de sacs;
Neither Paine Street or Walsh Avenue are one way, cul de sac or overly narrow. Complies.
Near electromagnetic radiation (for example, mobile phone towers);
There are no EMR transmitters in the vicinity. Complies.
Near LPG tanks;
There are no LPG tanks in the vicinity. Complies.
Where there are unsatisfactory on-street parking/traffic conditions or restrictions (for example, on bus stops, no standing areas, unsafe traffic volumes or with poor sight distances);
The proposal is considered satisfactory in this regard. Complies.
Steep sites due to access and safety issues.
The site is not steep and does not have access and safety issues. Complies.
Space requirement s
Indoor space 0-6 years old 3.25m2 per licensed child space of unencumbered space
3.44m2 per child provided. Complies.
Outdoor space 0-6 years old 7m2 per licensed child space of useable outdoor space
7.25m2 per child provided. Complies.
Requirements for reduced on-site parking
In proximity to public transport;
The site is within walking distance of Maroubra Road and Anzac Parade which are well serviced by bus routes. Complies
In proximity to or, co-located with other trip generators, for example, shops, neighbourhood centres, schools, car parks or, other places likely to otherwise generate extra trips.
The site is diagonally opposite the South Sydney Boys High School and in close proximity to the Maroubra Junction shopping centre. Complies.
Where there is adequate on-street parking.
As detailed in this report, it is considered that there is adequate on-street car parking. Complies.
Preferred parking arrangements
Stack parking will be considered for a maximum of two spaces;
Stacked parking is not proposed. Complies.
If inadequate on-street parking, adequate on-site space for set down and pick up of children;
The on-site parking provided generally meets DCP requirements.
If on-site set down provided, entry and exit to be separated and safe pedestrian access;
Vehicles to be driven in forward direction onto and off the site;
Vehicles will have to reverse manoeuvre off the site, although this is considered acceptable as detailed in this report. Does not comply.
Street immediately in front of child care centre may be used for up to 10minute parking for 2 hours during a.m. and p.m. weekday peaks;
It is not proposed to limit parking in front of the dwelling in this regard.
Minimum 1 metre landscaped strip on front boundary if on-site parking/drive-through
It is not possible to landscape the area in front of the on-site car park spaces given their location adjacent to the front boundary of the site. Does not comply.
Driveway minimum 1 metre setback from side boundaries;
The vehicle access is not located 1m from the side boundary, however given the location of the site on a corner and adjacent to a grassed area the application is considered to be acceptable in this regard. Complies.
On-site parking/drive-through not to detract from the streetscape or
footpath/pedestrian safety;
As above, given the location of the site and the location of the spaces within the site, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of impact upon the streetscape. Council’s Manager of Integrated Transport has assessed the proposal as being adequate in terms of vehicular and pedestrian safety. Complies.
Adequate sight distances and traffic calming measures to ensure pedestrian safety.
As above, the application has been assessed as being acceptable in this regard, see details within this report. Complies.
Driveway footpath crossing maximum 9m from intersection (for corner sites).
The proposed access is approximately 8.5m from the intersection, however Council’s Manager Integrated Transport has assessed the application as being acceptable. Does not comply.
Built Form and Scale
Integrate with the character of the existing streetscape and built form, for example, the design of proposals located in residential areas should be consistent with the prevailing streetscape and built form.
The proposal involves conversion of an existing dwelling in to a childcare facility. The bulk and scale of the development will integrate with the area and the proposed works to the front of the dwelling respect the front setback of adjacent development . Complies.
Generally be ground floor accommodation only, especially for 0-2 year olds.
Not applicable as there will be no children in this age group.
Amenity and Privacy
Orientation of the building should preserve the visual and acoustic amenity and privacy of adjacent properties;
Visual and Acoustic privacy are addressed under Section 9.1 of this report and found to be satisfactory. Complies.
The location of open spaces, playground areas and balconies / terraces accessible by children should be designed to minimise direct views to, or from adjacent properties;
The out-door play areas are entirely at ground level, the location of the site on a corner and the provision of fencing ensure that there are no adverse impacts in this regard. Complies.
Locate, where practicable, to the north or north eastern side of the building;
The outdoor play areas are located to the north-west of the building. Complies.
Locate away from the main entrance, car parking area or vehicle circulation areas;
The outdoor play areas are physically separated from both the entrance and the car park area. Complies.
Provide adequate separation from the living/bedroom windows of surrounding dwellings in residential locations;
Separation from outdoor play areas is provided by acoustic fencing. Complies.
Design and layout should maximise clear sight lines to the main indoor play areas of the child care centre;
There are clear sight lines from indoor spaces to outdoor spaces. Complies
Easily accessible from main indoor spaces;
Outdoor spaces are directly connected to indoor spaces. Complies
At least one half to be unencumbered and available for vigorous play; and include a variety of surfaces, for example, grass, sand, hard paving and mounding; and
The active outdoor play area is of adequate size and is to be covered with turf and “softfall”. Complies.
Adequate storage area for garbage and recycling bins.
A dedicated bin storage area is provided. Complies.
Provide adequate shading and landscaping in a combination of artificial and natural forms, for example, shade sails and native vegetation.
A “shade net” is to be provided over the active outdoor play area. Complies.
Recommended north-north east aspect;
The indoor spaces will enjoy good solar access. Complies
Provide play areas adjacent to outdoor play areas to facilitate easy supervision;
Toilets should be easily accessible from play rooms and adjacent to outdoor play areas; and
Toilets are accessible directly from play rooms, and outdoor play areas. Complies.
Indoor spaces provide good natural cross ventilation. Complies
The non-compliances with the policy are relatively minor. The site is considered to be a “preferred location” in terms of the locational criteria specified in the policy and any impacts are either minor or can be mitigated by way of proposed condition of consent.
8.3.2 Rainwater Tank Policy
A rainwater tank of adequate size has been provided and the application is satisfactory in this respect.
8.3.3 Asbestos Policy
Appropriate conditions would be included in any consent to ensure compliance with Council’s asbestos policy during construction work.
9.1 Visual and Acoustic Privacy
The proposed development involves the conversion of the existing single storey dwelling into a childcare centre and consequently will result in increased noise generation and impacts on the privacy of adjoining properties. An acoustic report was submitted with the application and detailed noise mitigation measures to be undertaken, in particular the construction of an acoustically treated fence on the common boundary with No. 89 Paine Street.
Council’s Environmental Health officer has assessed the proposal as being acceptable in this regard and has provided conditions that will limit the maximum noise able to be generated by the use of the site. These include the requirement for the submission of a validation report and a further acoustic report one month after the issue of the occupation certificate with any recommendations made on this future report to be approved by Council officers prior to incorporation. Other proposed conditions set maximum noise level, limit hours of operation and detail required acoustic treatment of the boundary fence with No. 89 Paine Street, acoustic treatment of exterior surfaces on the development site and the construction of gates at the front of the property.
The location of the subject property on a corner ensures that visual impacts are limited, with No. 89 Paine Street being the only potentially property being impacted in this regard. Proposed fencing between the properties will ameliorate any of these potential impacts.
9.2 Traffic and Parking
Council’s DCP - Parking requires the provision of two (2) on site car park spaces plus adequate room for pick-up and drop-off. The proposal will have four (4) full-time staff. The proposed 2 on-site spaces therefore meets this requirement. The application was amended following submission of the DA to allow for food preparation on site. A cook will be present at the centre for approximately two hours in the middle of the day; any parking generation potential from this is considered minor.
RTA Guidelines require one space per every four children in attendance. Nine (9) spaces would therefore be required under the guidelines. The guidelines also state “consideration could be given to reducing the parking required if convenient and safe on street parking is available, provided that the use of such parking does not adversely affect the amenity of the area”.
As previously detailed, Council’s Manager Integrated Transport has stated that the shortfall can be accommodated on the public road system at this location, particularly because of the long frontage of the site to Walsh Avenue.
If, following commencement of the facility, it is necessary to control parking of parents and carers to maintain sightlines, it may be necessary to install signage to control parking in the vicinity. This would require approval from the Randwick Traffic Committee.
9.3 Bulk, Scale and Streetscape
The proposal involves ground level alterations and additions to the front and the rear of the existing dwelling, in addition to the provision of two hard stand car park spaces to the front of the building and the construction of an entry portico and fencing.
The scale, design and setbacks of the works at the front and rear of the building are acceptable. The alterations to the front of the building maintain the front alignment of the adjacent dwelling and are of a design which is not incompatible with the existing streetscape. The rear and side additions also maintain adequate setbacks from boundaries with the building being 0.9m from the side boundary.
The provision of two hardstand car park spaces to the front of the building is acceptable in this location given the proximity to a grassed area at the corner of Walsh Avenue and Paine Street, the substantial separation from No. 89 Paine Street and the positive effect of proposed landscaping, re-instatement of fencing on the front boundary and the construction of the entry portico.
9.4 Operation and Management
The proposed childcare centre will operate 8.30 am to 5.00 pm Monday to Friday and will be shut for four weeks over the Christmas period and on public holidays. These hours are considered to be acceptable in a residential area provided other impacts of the use such as noise and traffic/parking generation are also acceptable. As detailed above, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable, subject to proposed conditions consent.
The proposal successfully integrates proposed building works into the existing streetscape.
The proposal, subject to conditions, will not adversely impact on the environmental amenity of the neighbourhood.
Direction 4a & associated key action: Improved design and sustainability across all development.
The proposal will not adversely impact on the sustainability of adjoining properties.
The proposal is considered to be acceptable, in particular the potential traffic and parking impacts of the proposal, given the scale of the facility and the location of the subject property. Acoustic fencing and proposed conditions of consent will ensure any noise impacts are acceptable. In addition, the design and scale of proposed building works is compatible with existing development in the neighbourhood. Consequently, the proposal is recommended for approval.
That Council, as the consent authority, grant development consent under section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. DA/1/2008 for permission to covert the existing dwelling house into a childcare centre for 36 children, including associated building works at 91 Paine Street, Maroubra subject to the following conditions.
1. The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 1-2 dated 31/12/07 and 3-4 dated 29/12/07 and received by Council on 3 January 2008, 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 on the attached :
3. There must be no encroachment of the structures onto any adjoining premises or onto Council’s road reserve, footway or public place, unless permission has been obtained from the owner/s of the adjoining land accordingly.
5. The proposed use of the premises and the operation of all plant and equipment shall not give rise to an ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.
6. The use of the premises and the operation of plant and equipment shall not give rise to the transmission of a vibration nuisance or damage to other premises.
7. The hours of the operation of the business are restricted to:
8. A report, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, shall be submitted to the Council within one month of the issue of an occupation certificate for the development, which validates the previous report titled Proposed Childcare Centre, 91 Paine Street, Maroubra – Noise Impact Assessment by Renzo Tonin & Associates reference: TD859-01F03(REV 1) NSE REP dated 8 January 2008 and which demonstrates and certifies that the cumulative noise and vibration emissions from the development comply with the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW Environmental Protection Authority Noise Control Manual & Industrial Noise Policy and conditions of Council’s approval, to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager Environmental Health & Building Services.
Any noise mitigation recommendations made in this report are to be implemented after appropriate approval by Council.
9. The acoustic report submitted in support of this application, prepared by Renzo Tonin & Associates titled Proposed Childcare Centre, 91 Paine Street, Maroubra – Noise Impact Assessment reference: TD859-01F03(REV 1) NSE REP dated 8 January 2008 and the noise mitigation methods stated in this report form part of this development consent. The following noise mitigation methods apply:
· The common boundary fence between 89 and 91 Paine Street, Maroubra shall be of a minimum height of 2.2m above the ground level. The fence should run 0.9m from the exterior wall of playroom 1 to the north west boundary, the run 26.4m along the common (north west) boundary between 89 and 91 Paine Street, Maroubra.
The fence shall be constructed of any durable material such as masonry, steel, aluminium, fibrous-cement, timber, ).polycarbonate, with sufficient mass (min. 112kg/m
This fence must not have any clearance gap underneath them.
· The exterior wall of the building adjacent to the outdoor courtyard area shall be acoustically lined with materials such as Tontine AcoustiSorb2 or TBL 32/50, hydrophobic mineral wood and faced with a thin gauge perforated metal of at least 25% open area.
The acoustic lining shall be installed at a height of 1.5m above ground level and continue to the top of the wall/s.
· All hard paved areas and pathways within the children’s play area shall be covered with a rubberised backed material.
· All external pedestrian gates shall be fitted with appropriate door closers to prevent the generation of impact sound.
Hollow steel posts to gate fitting should be filled with sand to reduce noise impact when gate in closed.
10. Signs shall be erected at appropriate, prominent location to advise the following:
· staff and parent converse at a very low volume,
· parents not to call out to their children when delivering or collecting their children and
· gates are not slammed
11. Music shall not be played outdoors.
12. The maximum number of children in the outdoor play area at any one time shall be limited to 22.
13. A plan of management shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning prior to issue of occupation certificate, which details the measures to be implemented to:
· effectively manage and respond to resident complaints.
14. The use and operation of the premises shall not give rise to an environmental health nuisance to the adjoining/nearby premises or environment.
15. There are to be no emissions or discharges from the premises, which will give rise to a public nuisance or result in an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.
16. The applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to repair/replace any damaged sections of Council's footpath, kerb & gutter, nature strip etc which are due to building works being carried out at the above site. This includes the removal of cement slurry from Council's footpath and roadway.
The following conditions are applied to provide adequate consideration for or service authority assets:
17. A public utility impact assessment must be carried out on all public utility services on the site, roadway, nature strip, footpath, public reserve or any public areas associated with and/or adjacent to the development/building works and include relevant information from public utility authorities and exploratory trenching or pot-holing, if necessary, to determine the position and level of service.
18. The applicant must meet the full cost for telecommunication companies, gas providers, Energy Australia and Sydney Water to adjust/repair/relocate their services as required. The applicant must make the necessary arrangements with the service authority.
19. Detailed drainage plans shall be submitted to and approved by the certifying authority prior to the issue of a construction certificate. The drainage plans shall demonstrate compliance with the conditions of this development approval.
20. Stormwater runoff from the site shall be discharged either:
a. To the kerb and gutter along the site frontages by gravity (without the use of a charged system); OR
b. Through a private drainage easement(s) to Council’s kerb and gutter (or underground drainage system); OR
c. To a suitably sized infiltration area. As a guide the infiltration area shall be sized based on a minimum requirement of 1 m2 of infiltration area (together with 1 m3 of storage volume) for every 20 m2 of roof/impervious area on the site.
Prior to the use of infiltration in rear draining lots (where there is no formal overland escape route to Council’s kerb and gutter/street drainage system), a geotechnical investigation will be required to determine whether the ground is suitable for infiltration. Should rock and/or a water table be encountered within two metres of the proposed base of the infiltration pit, or the ground conditions comprise low permeability soils such as clay, infiltration may not be appropriate.
NOTE: Should the applicant be unable to obtain a private drainage easement over properties to the rear of the development site (to facilitate stormwater discharge in accordance with option b)); and ground conditions preclude the use of infiltration (Option c), consideration may be given to the use of a charged system or a pump out system to drain that portion of the site that cannot be drained by gravity to the kerb and gutter at the front of the property.
21. Should a charged system be required to drain any portion of the site, the charged system must be designed with suitable clear-outs/inspection points at pipe bends and junctions.
22. Should a pump system be required to drain any portion of the site the system must be designed with a minimum of two pumps being installed, connected in parallel (with each pump capable of discharging at the required discharge rate) and connected to a control board so that each pump will operate alternatively. The pump wet well shall be sized for the 1 in 100 year, 2 hour storm assuming both pumps are not working.
The pump system must also be designed and installed strictly in accordance with Randwick City Council's Stormwater Code.
23. All pump out water must pass through a stilling pit prior to being discharged by gravity to the kerb and gutter.
24. That part of the naturestrip upon Council's footway which is damaged during the construction of the proposed works shall be excavated to a depth of 150mm, backfilled with topsoil equivalent with 'Organic Garden Mix' as supplied by Australian Native Landscapes, and re-turfed with Kikuyu turf or similar. Such works shall be completed at the applicant’s expense prior to the issue of a final Occupation Certificate.
25. A landscape plan prepared by a qualified Landscape Architect who is eligible for membership with the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects (AILA) shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the certifying authority, prior to the issue of a construction certificate, including the following requirements:
a. A site plan at an appropriate scale showing existing site boundaries, existing trees within the property (clearly identified as being retained or removed), existing street trees (clearly identified as being retained or removed), features on adjoining sites within 6 metres of the common property boundary (buildings, trees, other structures etc), council’s footway, existing and proposed ground levels shown as spot heights and/or contours over the site, at site boundaries, and at the base of the trees to be retained, proposed building envelope, proposed areas of pavement, and proposed landscaped areas.
b. A planting plan at a scale of 1:100 or 1:200 indicating the location of all proposed planting and existing trees to be retained. All plants are to be drawn at their mature size with a suitable mixture of shrubs, accent plants and ground covers which are suitable for the intended use.
c. A planting schedule listing all plants by botanic & common names, plant numbers, plant spacings, pot sizes, the estimated size of the plant at maturity (height & spread) and proposed staking methods when applicable.
d. Plant selection shall be restricted to species that require minimal watering once established or species with water needs that match rainfall and drainage conditions (of which Gardenia’s would not comply), incorporating suitably selected and located shade trees, and avoiding species known to be toxic, poisonous or to cause skin irritations or breathing difficulties.
26. Documentary evidence is to be obtained from a suitably qualified Landscape Architect and submitted to the principal certifying authority (PCA; and Council, if Council is not the PCA) prior to the issuing of a final occupation certificate, confirming that the landscape works have been installed in accordance with the approved landscape plans and relevant conditions of development consent, to the satisfaction of the PCA.
27. The requirements and provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, must be fully complied with at all times.
28. All new building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA), in accordance with Clause 98 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.
29. Prior to the commencement of any building works, a construction certificate must be obtained from the Council or an accredited certifier, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.
A copy of the construction certificate, the approved plans & specifications and development consent conditions must be kept on the site at all times and be made available to the Council officers and all building contractors for assessment.
30. Prior to the commencement of any building works, the person having the benefit of the development consent must: -
31. The building works must be inspected by the Principal Certifying Authority (or another certifying authority if the Principal Certifying Authority agrees), in accordance with sections 109 E (3) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 162A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, to monitor compliance with the relevant standards of construction, Council’s development consent and the construction certificate.
32. A sign must be erected and maintained in a prominent position on the site for the duration of the works, which contains the following details:
33. An Occupation Certificate must be obtained from the Principal Certifying Authority prior to any occupation of the building work encompassed in this development consent (including alterations and additions to existing buildings), in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.
34. Prior to the issuing of an interim or final occupation certificate, a statement is required to be obtained from the Principal Certifying Authority, which confirms that the development is not inconsistent with the development consent and the relevant conditions of development consent have been satisfied.
35. The required Long Service Levy payment, under the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986, is to be forwarded to the Long Service Levy Corporation or the Council, prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate, in accordance with Section 109F of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.
36. The demolition of buildings and the removal, storage, handling and disposal of building materials (including asbestos) must be carried out in accordance with the relevant requirements of WorkCover NSW, the NSW Department of Environment & Conservation (formerly the Environment Protection Authority) and Randwick City Council policies and conditions, including:
37. Except with the written approval of Council’s Manager of Health, Building & Regulatory Services, all building, demolition and associated site works including site deliveries) must only be carried out between the hours of 7.00am to 5.00pm on Monday to Friday inclusive and between 8.00am to 5.00pm on Saturdays and all building activities are strictly prohibited on Sundays and Public Holidays.
39. Public safety and convenience must be maintained at all times during demolition, excavation and construction works.
Any part of Council’s nature strip which is damaged as a result of the work must be back-filled, top-soiled and re-turfed with kikuyu turf prior to occupation or finalisation of the development, to Council’s satisfaction.
40. Building materials, sand, soil, waste materials or construction equipment must not be placed upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time and the footpath, nature strip and road must be maintained in a clean condition and free from any obstructions, soil and debris at all times.
41. Public safety must be maintained at all times and public access to the site and building works, materials and equipment on the site is to be restricted, when work is not in progress or the site is unoccupied.
42. A local approval application must be submitted to and be approved by Council's Building Services section prior to commencing any of the following activities on a footpath, road, nature strip or in any public place:-
· Placement of a waste skip (greater than 3m in length) or any container or other article.
43. The existing levels of fire and safety within the building are to be upgraded in accordance with the following requirements and the fire safety certificate Provisions of Part 9 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 must be complied with, prior to issuing an occupation certificate:
a. The following works are to be undertaken in accordance with the specified provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA), as applicable:
1. Install a smoke detection and alarm system in the building in accordance with specification E2.2a of the BCA,
2. Provide illuminated exit signs to the required exit doors, in accordance with clause E4.5 & E4.7 of the BCA,
3. Provide portable fire extinguisher/s within the kitchen, in accordance with clause E1.6 of the BCA,
4. Prior to commencing the abovementioned works, a Construction Certificate must be obtained from Council’s Building Certification Services or an accredited certifier, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.
5. Upon completion of the fire safety upgrading works and prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, a single, complete fire safety certificate is to be submitted to Council. A copy of the fire safety certificate and fire safety schedule are to be displayed in a prominent position within the building (i.e entrance area) and a copy is to be forwarded to the NSW Fire Brigades, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
44. Toilet facilities are to be available for patrons and staff at all times and adequate signage is to be provided accordingly. Toilet facilities are to be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition at all times.
45. Access and toilet facilities for people with a disability are to be provided for patrons and staff, in accordance with parts D3 & F2 of the Building Code of Australia & AS1428.1 details are to be included in the construction certificate.
46. A Road Opening Permit must be obtained from Council's City Services Department prior to opening-up or carrying out any proposed works within the road, footpath, nature strip or other public place and all works including repairs are to be carried out to Council's satisfaction.
In this regard, the development consent plans do not detail compliance with the deemed-to-satisfy provisions of the BCA.
Development Application Report No. D28/08
Subject: 8A Kitchener Street, Maroubra
Folder No: DA/72/2005/A
Author: Myall Stevens, Development Assessment Officer
Proposal: Installation of an air conditioning unit.
Applicant: Craig Jackson
Owner: Craig and Melissa Jackson
The application has been referred to Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Bastic, Andrews and Seng. The subject application was submitted on 30 October 2007 to install an air conditioning unit on the roof of an existing dwelling at 8A Kitchener St Maroubra. The application was notified to the surrounding properties in accordance with the DCP for Public Notification. A submission was received from the owner of 1 Byng St Maroubra advising Council that the air conditioning unit had already been installed on the roof. As a result, the applicant was requested to remove the air conditioning unit from the roof and nominate a new location for the unit.
Amended plans were received on 5 March 2008 with the unit being located on the roof section of the ground floor level. The roof section has been created by the setback of the first floor addition on the north western corner of the semi detached dwelling. The location of the unit in this position meant that the unit will be in close proximity of the adjoining property to the west. Timber slat screening is also proposed by the applicant to reduce the visual impact of the unit on the surrounding locality.
There was also one objection received from the neighbour to the west at No. 8 Kitchener Street, detailing concerns in relation to noise, visual amenity, and possible increases in ambient temperature as a result of the unit’s location, odour and its close proximity to the boundary. In response, the applicant proposes that the unit be screened by a solid wall on the western side of the unit to protect the neighbour to the west from thermal discomfort, noise, odour and their visual amenity. The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.
2. The Proposed Modifications
It was originally proposed to place an air conditioner on the roof of the existing dwelling. Amended plans were received on 5 March 2008 to relocate the air conditioning unit to the western side of the first floor balcony above the roof of the
Ground floor living area. Photo 1 below shows the proposed location of the air conditioner.
Photo 1: The location of the air conditioner on the roof of the ground floor at the western boundary.
Approximate location of the air conditioning unit.
The Subject Site and Surrounding Area
The subject site is located on the northern side of Kitchener Street in Maroubra and is presently occupied by an existing single storey dwelling semi-detached dwelling. The shape of the site is irregular and has a frontage width of approximately 7.835m and an overall site area of 245m². The surrounding area is residential in character and consists predominantly of single storey dwelling houses and semi-detached dwellings.
3. Application History
The original Development Application for alterations, ground and first floor additions to the existing semi detached dwelling house was approved under delegated authority on 12 May 2005.
The amended proposal has been notified in accordance with the DCP for Public Notification. The following submissions were received:
Adam Capon – 8 Kitchener St, Maroubra
Mr Randal Parsons – 1 Byng Street, Maroubra
The air conditioning unit will be close to the boundary and the noise levels will be unacceptable.
Conditions are included to ensure the noise levels remain within appropriate levels and a solid screen will be provided on the western side facing the neighbouring property to further reduce the noise. A condition has been attached requiring an acoustic report to be submitted to Council prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.
The temperature on the neighbouring property to the west will be increased as a result of the air conditioner blowing warm air into the rear yard.
The neighbouring property to the west will be shielded by a solid screen on the western side of the unit. It can be assumed that the warmer air will rise and that an ambient temperature increase will be isolated to the rear of the 8A Kitchener Street and it will disperse and not spill over to the property to the west.
The exhaust from the air conditioner will blow odours onto the adjoining property to the west.
The neighbouring property to the west will be shielded by a solid screen and will not be adding any additional odours to the air on top of the natural, pre existing odours. No air is being drawn out of the house and passed through the unit.
The air conditioner will not be visually appealing.
The air conditioning unit will be shielded by a solid screen. The colours, materials and finishes of the screen will match the external wall of the existing dwelling.
The only access to the air conditioner for maintenance is via the property to the west, 8 Kitchener St.
There is sufficient access to the site of the air conditioner from the subject site.
The location is not consistent with the Department of Environment and Climate Change Publication Noise Guide for Local Government.
The location of the air conditioning unit is on an inset and not sitting on a location that is overhanging the boundary. The unit will be sufficiently screened and conditioned for the reduction of any noise that is emitted. It is not considered that the location of the air conditioner will be detrimental to the amenity of the locality.
a. Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998
The site is zoned Residential 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed modification is permissible with Council’s consent.
b. Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies
Suitable conditions are included in the recommendation shall be required an acoustic report to be submitted prior to the issue of the construction certificate, that demonstrates compliance with the relevant noise criteria of the adjoining property.
There will be very little impact on the visual amenity as a result of the amended location of the air conditioning unit. It has been discussed with the applicant that a solid screen is to be provided to the western side of the unit. The colours, materials and finishes of the screen will conditioned to be compatible with the external wall of the existing dwelling. The northern side of the unit will be screened by white slats positioned vertically. The combination of the solid screen and the slats will eliminate all visual impact that the air conditioning unit may have on the adjoining properties to the north and west.
Increase in Ambient Heat
Any heat generated by the flow of air through the air conditioning unit will not flow across onto the adjoining properties. It can be assumed that heat will rise. The fans from the air conditioning unit will be forcing the heated air into the solid screen on the western side of the unit. From the wall the air will escape to the north or straight up from the unit and the warm air will be quickly dispersed.
Proximity to the Boundary
The proposed location of the air conditioning unit is located 200mm from the western boundary. The building is a semi detached dwelling sharing a common boundary wall with the adjoining dwelling to the west. The ground floor level is built all the way to the western boundary for the full length of the dwelling. The air conditioner will not be seen as it is screened as outlined above. The location is not adjacent to any windows of the adjoining property to the west and will not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding properties. As can be seen in the photo 2 below the location of the air conditioner is above the roof line of the neighbouring property.
Photo 2: The location of the air conditioner is above the roof height of the neighbouring dwelling.
There is no odour generated by residential air conditioners. The air is drawn in from the surrounding environment and passed through the house escaping through doors and windows. Air that is passed directly through the air conditioner and back into the environment is not further contaminated than before it entered the unit.
Outcome: 4 – Excellence in urban design and development.
Direction: 4a – Improved design and sustainability across all development.
The proposed location of the air conditioning unit will not adversely affect the amenity of the adjoining properties and the character of the area. The unit will be completely screened protecting the visual amenity to the neighbours. There will be no thermal discomfort to the neighbours as a result of its location near to the western boundary. The unit will not produce any odours. The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.
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/72/2005 for permission to carryout alterations and additions to the dwelling in the following manner:
The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA/1a to DA/3a , dated March 2005 and received by Council on 5 April 2005, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the Section 96 plans numbered CC/1T and CC/2b dated July 2005 and received by Council on 5 March 2008, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:
Include Conditions:
56. A solid screen having a minimum height of 1400mm must be provided to the western side of the air conditioning unit and a 50% open screen to be provided to the northern side of the air conditioning unit. The colours, materials and finishes of the screens are to be compatible with the external wall of the existing dwelling.
57. The proposed use of the premises and the operation of all plant and equipment shall not give rise to an ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.
58. The operation of all plant and equipment shall not give rise to an ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.
59. The air conditioning plant and equipment shall not be operated during the following hours if the noise emitted can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises, or, as otherwise specified in relevant Noise Control Regulations:
· before 8.00am or after 10.00pm on any Saturday, Sunday or public holiday; or
· before 7.00am or after 10.00pm on any other day.
60. A report, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, shall be submitted to the Council prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development, which demonstrates and certifies that noise and vibration emissions from the development comply with the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW Environmental Protection Authority Noise Control Manual & Industrial Noise Policy and conditions of Council’s approval, to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager of Health, Building & Regulatory Services.
Development Application Report No. D29/08
Subject: 21 Seaside Parade, South Coogee
Folder No: DA/323/2007
Author: Frank Ko, Acting Coordinator Fast Track
Proposal: Demolish the existing dwelling house and construct a new part three part four storey dwelling house with semi-basement garage, a lap pool on the roof, associated site and landscaping works.
Applicant: Projectpac Consulting Engineers
Owner: Mr P K Simpson
The subject application seeks consent to demolish the existing dwelling house and construct a new part three part four storey dwelling house with semi-basement garage, a lap pool on the roof, associated site and landscaping works.
The proposal was notified to the surrounding properties in accordance with the Development Control Plan for Public Notification and submissions were received from the owners of the nearby properties at Nos. 14 and 16 Seaside Parade. The main issue raised in the objections was view loss.
The proposal fails to comply with the preferred solutions of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP in respect to floor space ratio, wall height and building setbacks. The assessment of the application reveals that the top floor of the proposed development, the proposed planting along the Seaside Parade boundary and the failure to maintain the front building alignment of the existing dwelling houses along the eastern side of Seaside Parade are the main contributing factors to the view loss.
The reasonableness of the proposal, in terms of view loss, has been assessed using the planning principle established by the Land and Environment Court in Tenacity Consulting Pty Ltd vs Warringah Council proceedings. The assessment of the proposal in accordance with the four step process established in the proceedings has demonstrated that the proposal is unreasonable in terms of its identified view impacts on Nos. 14 and 16 Seaside Parade and that a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same or greater development potential and amenity than that offered by the proposal while at the same time reducing the impact on views from Nos. 14 and 16 Seaside Parade to a more reasonable and acceptable level.
For the above reasons, the subject application should not be supported and is recommended for refusal.
It is proposed to demolish the existing dwelling house and construct a new part three part four storey dwelling house with semi-basement garage, a lap pool and associated landscaping works. The details of the proposal are as follows:
§ Demolition of the existing in-ground swimming pool and associated deck at the rear of the site.
§ Demolition of an existing staircase and construction of a new spiral staircase to the levels above.
§ Installation of two water tanks to the southern side of the site.
Semi-basement/Lower Ground Floor Level
§ Front entry court facing Liguria Street.
§ A garage capable of accommodating up to three cars.
§ A plant room.
§ Garbage bins storage area.
§ Two terraces and a courtyard adjoining extensively landscaped areas.
§ A bathroom adjacent to the garage.
§ Open plan living, dining and kitchen area with direct access to an east facing barbeque area and terrace.
§ Stairs from the entry passage to the ground floor level.
§ Two bedrooms with walk-in-robes. One of the bedrooms opens to a courtyard facing Seaside Parade and the other bedroom faces the rear of the site with a small balcony.
§ Three bathrooms including two ensuite.
§ A home theatre room with direct access to an open entertainment area.
§ A laundry.
§ A gym/study room with direct access to a small east facing balcony.
§ Two receiving/guest rooms (each with an ensuite and direct access to south-facing landscaped terrace area).
§ A terrace/theatre terrace facing east with access to a sundeck and lap pool at second floor level.
§ Two bedrooms with ensuite and wardrobe and direct access to a semi open west and south facing balcony.
§ A lap pool with direct access from the adjoining sundeck and the semi open balcony.
The proposal also involves substantial site works including excavation up to site boundaries and landscaping for the whole site. A number of tall trees will be planted along the Seaside Parade frontage with mature height of up to 12 metres.
The applicant has stated in the Statement of the Environmental Effects that “the dwelling has been designed to present as two “sections” which provide different living functions. One section, fronting Seaside Parade, contains the children’s living space and guest areas, whilst the second section contains the main living areas and parents’ quarters”.
The subject site is located on the north-eastern corner of Seaside Parade and Liguria Street in South Coogee and is currently occupied by a part-one, part-two storey rendered brick and tiled roof dwelling house with a double garage at street level and an in-ground swimming pool at the rear of the site.
The site is irregularly shaped having a western frontage to Seaside Parade of 30.72m, a southern boundary of 47.795m, a combined northern side boundary of 58.725m and a rear boundary of 24.145m. The overall site area is 1,454.4sqm. The land falls from north to south and there is also cross fall from west to east.
Neighbouring the property to the north is a part two to part four storey dwelling house at No. 19 Seaside Parade. Across Liguria Street, to the south, is a three storey dwelling house at 39 Liguria Street. Opposite the subject site, at 16 Seaside Parade, was occupied by a two storey dwelling which has been demolished to allow for the construction of a new part two part three storey dwelling house with double garage at street level that was approved by Council in July 2007 (DA/251/2007).
The approved dwelling has two separate living areas including decks and swimming pool located at ground floor level and all bedrooms are located at the floor above. The northern living area at ground floor level comprises of kitchen, dining, TV/study room and casual dining area and the southern living area comprises of lounge room and associated deck and terrace.
The surrounding area is residential in character and consists predominantly of two storey free standing dwellings and semi-detached cottages of varying architectural styles and treatments. Figure 1 is an aerial view of the subject site and surrounding area. Figure 2 is the subject site from the corner of Seaside Parade and Liguria Street.
Figure 2 is the subject site from the corner of Seaside Parade and Liguria Street.
The subject application was lodged on 3 May 2007 and notified to the surrounding properties from 9 May to 23 May 2007. Three objections were received during the notification period and the main issues raised in the objections were view loss, non-compliance with floor space ratio, wall height and setback requirements, glare from solar panels and inappropriate tree selection.
As a result of the notification, a meeting was held at the subject site with the applicant and the applicant’s consultants to discuss the issues raised by the objectors and height poles were also requested to be erected on the subject site to allow an understanding as to the view related impacts of the proposal on the affected properties.
The height poles were inspected by Council Officers and objectors on 16 August 2007. Following the inspection, the applicant has submitted supporting documentation including the assessment of the view loss based on the planning principle established by the Land and Environment Court.
The owners of the adjoining properties were renotified of the supporting documentation in January 2008 and as a result, two submissions were received from the owner of 16 Seaside Parade and a planning consultant acting on behalf of the owner of 16 Seaside Parade and again reiterated the concerns of the development.
The applicant advised that a consultation/mediation process was carried out directly with the owner of 16 Seaside Parade to discuss the issues in relation to the proposal and ways to resolve the issues. The process has failed to achieve a satisfactory outcome and hence the applicant has advised that no amendments will be made. As such, the assessment in this report is based on the application as originally submitted.
b. History of Site Usage
The previous applications for the subject site were for alterations and additions which do not affect the current proposal.
5.1 First Notification
The owners of the adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the proposal in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. As a result of this notification, the following submission was received:
Architect acting on behalf of the owner of 16 Seaside Parade, South Coogee
Loss of views as a result of variations with floor space ratio, wall height and setback controls
An assessment of the reasonableness of the proposal, in terms of view loss, using the planning principle established by the Land and Environment Court in Tenacity Consulting Pty Ltd v Warringah Council is provided in Section 9.4.2 of this report.
The variations with floor space ratio, wall height and setback controls are discussed in Section 9.3.1 of this report.
Glare from solar panels
Solar panels are designed to absorb as much light as possible to generate the maximum amount of electricity. Therefore the materials typically have no or low reflectivity.
Inappropriate tree selection
Council’s Landscape Development Officer has advised that the proposed landscaping is deemed unsatisfactory as there are several issues which will need to be resolved such as the selection of tree species along the Seaside Parade frontage. See Section 6.2 of this report for full details.
An additional objection letter was submitted after inspection of the height poles and the following issues were raised:
The height poles showed that the view lost comprises not only the ocean view but also a significant portion of the horizon.
The assessment of the view loss impact is provided in Section 9.4.2 of this report.
The view is even lost from the garden on the northern side of No. 16 Seaside Parade, where the land naturally slopes up.
Owner of 14 Seaside Parade, South Coogee
The height of the proposed development exceeds Council’s requirement by 4m and will lead to a loss of some views over Lurline Bay.
As noted previously, an assessment of the reasonableness of the proposal, in terms of view loss, using the planning principle established by the Land and Environment Court in Tenacity Consulting Pty Ltd v Warringah Council is provided in Section 9.4.2 of this report.
The proposed trees along the Seaside Parade frontage will further impact on views.
See comments in Section 6.2 of this report.
An additional objection letter was submitted by the owner of 14 Seaside Parade, South Coogee after inspection of the height poles on the subject site and the following issues were raised:
The height poles showed that the proposed development would extend into the south-west corner of the site and would effectively block the corridor views of Lurline Bay between 21 Seaside Parade and 39 Liguria Street. The height poles also showed the proposed building would extend far beyond the current alignment with other odd numbered houses in the street.
5.2 Second Notification
The owners of the adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the additional information (i.e. view analysis) in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. As a result of this notification, the following submissions were received:
1) The owner of 16 Seaside Parade reinstating the issues raised previously in the objections prepared by Susan Fuller.
2) Tony Moody, consultant Town Planner acting on behalf of the owner of 16 Seaside Parade stating that the proposed development is a most unreasonable one and is not worthy of approval on the ground of view loss from 16 Seaside Parade.
6.1 Development Engineer
The application has been referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment, conditions have been provided for inclusion with any consent granted. The following comments were made:
“An application has been received for construction of a new dwelling including a three space garage and swimming pool at the above site.
This report is based on the following plans and documentation:
· Architectural plan by Renato D’Ettorre Architect dated 8 August 2005;
· Survey plan 03115 by Geo-metric Surveying dated 21 February 2004;
· Statement of Environmental Effects by Willana associates dated August 2005.
Stormwater runoff shall be piped to a sediment/silt arrestor pit that drains to a 5 m2 base infiltration area/rubble pit. An over flow pipe shall be provided from the silt arrestor pit that drains to Council’s kerb and gutter (or underground drainage system).
The requirement for an infiltration/rubble pit will not be enforced should the ground conditions preclude the construction of the infiltration pit (i.e. rock and/or the water table is near the surface). If the infiltration area is not constructed (due to demonstrated unsuitable ground conditions), all site stormwater shall be discharged to the kerb and gutter via a sediment/silt arrestor pit.”
6.2 Landscape Development Officer
The proposed landscape plan has been reviewed by the Landscaped Development Officer and the following comments are provided:
“While the plan contains a comprehensive level of detail treatment, it is still deemed unsatisfactory as there are several issues which will need to be resolved, as discussed below:
§ The selection of Eucalyptus cinerea (Argyle Apple) as a feature tree at the northwest corner of the site is not supported as despite being a native species, its natural distribution is limited to the central and southern tablelands of NSW, and as such, would not tolerate front-line coastal conditions, regardless of whether the proposed dwelling would afford protection/shelter upon completion.
Further, it will have insufficient room to properly develop both above and below ground, and would also have the potential to cause an obstruction, or impede a clear line of sight for vehicles existing from the adjoining property to the north, 19 Seaside Parade, as well those travelling on the actual roadway.
As such, this tree shall be replaced with an alternative species which is more suitable for the location and space available.
§ While the area surrounding this property is highly disturbed as a result of stormwater run-off and the resulting weed invasion, the provision of Canna x generalis (Canna Lilly) is still deemed inappropriate given its ‘weed-like’ properties; and as such, shall be deleted from the planting plan and schedule, and is to be replaced with another, non-invasive species.
§ The provision of a row of six Tristaniopsis laurina (WaterGum’s) along the length of the western boundary is inappropriate given firstly, their size at maturity (approximately 6m x 6m) as this will lead to overcrowding. But more importantly, their close proximity to the boundary, combined with the narrow width of Seaside Parade, will result in their western aspects overhanging the roadway which will cause a substantial obstruction to passing vehicles, with the associated maintenance to be ongoing and unnecessary, with a more suitable, alternative species which is more appropriate or this area of the site to be nominated.
§ A mass planting of a total of 11 (eleven) Banksia integrifolia (Coastal Banksia’s) in the open courtyard about halfway along the eastern boundary is excessive as despite their canopy spreads being represented as about 3.5 metres, realistically, it is double this at about 6 metres or more across, and therefore, will also lead to overcrowding.
Therefore, the quantity proposed for this area needs to be reduced to a maximum of about 3-4, and spaced appropriately to allow for their future growth requirements.
§ Traditionally, Council does not support plantings beyond a site boundary, on public property for maintenance and liability reasons; however, this stance can be relaxed in instances where it can be demonstrated that plantings would assist in softening the bulk or scale of a boundary wall or similar structure, or will have a positive impact on the streetscape.
Such a scenario has been proposed at the southwest corner of the site, with the ‘Type C’ planting also proposed along the southern boundary (fronting Liguria Street) also having the potential to overhang onto public space.
As such, the applicant/Landscape Architect will be required to demonstrate that only low growing species which will not encroach over/onto public property, and will in no wayeffect safe pedestrian thoroughfare will be used in these areas, with the species selected to be clearly shown.
In light of the items discussed above, the current plan will need to be reviewed, with the issues raised above incorporated into an amended plan, which is then to be re-submitted to Council for consideration and approval.”
Not applicable as the site is less than 4,000 sqm.
The proposal has been assessed in relation to compliance with the following controls: -
§ Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998
§ Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended)
§ State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land
§ State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004
§ Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies
§ Development Control Plan - Parking
§ Building Code of Australia
9.1 Environmental Planning Instruments
9.1.1 Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP)
The site is zoned Residential 2A and is located within a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area under RLEP. The following clauses of the RLEP apply to the proposal:
Clause 10 – Zone No. 2A (Residential A Zone)
The objectives of Zone No. 2A are:
a) to maintain the character of established residential areas. And
b) to allow a range of community facilities to be provided to serve the needs of residents and workers and visitors, and
c) to enable redevelopment for low density housing forms, including dwelling houses, dual occupancy, semi-detached housing, and the like, where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development, and
d) to allow people to carry out a range of activities from their homes, where such activities are not likely to adversely affect the environment of the locality.
The proposed development is excessive in height, bulk & scale and does not respect the established building alignment along the eastern side of Seaside Parade and will adversely affect the views currently attained from the nearby dwelling houses at Nos. 14 and 16 Seaside Parade. For these reasons, the proposal is considered to be unacceptable as the relevant objective of Zone No. 2A (i.e. objective c) will not be achieved. In addition, the proposed development also fails to comply with the relevant objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of the Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in terms of floor area, height and building setbacks.
Clause 29 - Foreshore Scenic Protection Area
Clause 29 requires that Council consider the probable aesthetic appearance of the proposed development in relation to the foreshore. As indicated in relevant sections of the assessment below, the proposed development will not adversely affect or detract from the visual qualities of the foreshore scenic protection area. Accordingly, the proposal complies with the provisions of Clause 29.
Clause 40 Excavation and filling of land
Clause 40 of the RLEP contains provisions for undertaking of excavation and filling of land. The proposal will require earthworks to be undertaken to construct the lower floor level including the garage. This work will not result in any significant impact on the topography of the site, is unlikely to interrupt the drainage patterns of the site or result in soil instability and will not adversely impact upon the scenic quality of the site and locality. Accordingly, the proposal is acceptable in relation to the provisions of Clause 40.
9.1.2 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 (SEPP 55)
Clause 7(1) (a) of the SEPP 55 requires Council to consider whether the land is contaminated. Notwithstanding that site investigations have not been carried out, the current and previous use of the site and surrounding sites for residential uses would substantially reduce the possibility of contamination.
It is considered reasonable to assume that the site would not be contaminated, or in need of remediation pursuant to SEPP 55 and that the site is suitable for continued residential use.
9.1.3 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.
SEPP: BASIX requirements came into force for all new dwellings, dual occupancies and some transient residential accommodation where development applications were lodged on or after 1 July 2004. A BASIX assessment is a mandatory component of the development approval process under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) Regulation 2004 and State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.
The proposal is for a new dwelling and the applicant has provided a BASIX certificate in accordance with the requirements of the SEPP. The provision of a certificate indicates that compliance with the current targets set for energy and water conservation have been met by the development. The certificate also identifies the measures to be shown on Development Application plans to ensure these targets are maintained through to construction.
The plans have been checked and they are consistent with the requirements indicated on the submitted BASIX certificate for DA stage. Standard conditions of consent requiring the continued compliance of the development with the SEPP: BASIX have been included in the recommendation section of this report.
9.2 Draft Environmental Planning Instruments
a) Draft Local Environmental Plan Amendment No. 36 (Draft LEP)
The Draft LEP Amendment 36 concluded its exhibition on 4 November 2005.
The key LEP changes affect the Residential 2A Zone and include:
§ Reducing the minimum subdivision size from 900m2 to 800m2;
§ Increasing minimum frontage requirements for the development of an attached dual occupancy from 12m to 15m; and,
§ Increasing minimum landscaped area requirement for development other than dwelling houses from 40% to 50% of the site area.
LEP Standards do not apply to this application. Further consideration of the Draft LEP is not required in this instance.
9.3 Development Control Plans
9.3.1 Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies
58% of the site is landscaped area. Complies.
534.5sqm of private open space provided. Complies.
The private open spaces are located in various areas within the site and are all provided with sufficient privacy. Complies.
20% of the total site area has permeable treatment.
Approximately 20% of the site is permeable. Complies.
The preferred solution for an allotment of this area is that a maximum floor space ratio of 0.5:1 applies.
The proposed FSR is 0.64:1. Does not comply – see assessment below.
A summary of the non-compliance is provided below:
Site Area: 1,454.4m²
Maximum allowable FSR: 0.5:1 or 727.2m²
Proposed FSR (including terraces/balconies: 0.64:1 or 934.5m²
Area exceeding maximum allowable FSR: 0.14:1 or 207.3m²
The break down of the proposed floor areas is as follows:
Terrace/Balcony (m²)
Void (m²)
Lower/Garage Floor Level
237.4 (excluding 40 m² of garage, passage to garage)
195.2 (balconies and roof terrace)
40m² of decks/terraces more than 1m above ground level and void up to 10% of total floor area
284.4 – 40 = 244.4
732.4 x 10% = 73.24 (The proposed void area is within the 10% limit)
732.4 – 42.35 (void) + 244.4 (terrace/balcony) = 934.45
NB. The above calculations have been made based on the definition of “gross floor area” contained in the Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.
As indicated above, the proposal represents 207.3 sqm of excess floor area, which is well over the preferred maximum floor area for the subject site. Whilst it is acknowledged that a portion of this area is occupied by balconies/terraces and a considerable portion of the proposed dwelling is below Seaside Parade level, the overall apparent size of the building, particularly, the front two storey portion above the Seaside Parade level is considered to be excessive and will result in an unreasonable impact upon the amenity of the nearby properties in terms of view sharing. In addition, the front portion of the building will be located forward of the existing dwellings along the eastern side of Seaside Parade and will also affect the existing character of the streetscape.
For the above reasons, it is considered that the proposal fails to satisfy the objective and performance requirement of the DCP and should not be supported as the bulk and scale of the proposed development will have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the nearby properties and the character of the streetscape.
External wall height of the building not exceed 7m
The external wall height of the proposed dwelling varies from 8.1m to 11.4m. Does not comply – see assessment below.
External wall height of buildings or additions to the rear does not exceed 3.5 m.
Cut or fill does not exceed 1m.
The proposed cut exceeds 1m in several parts of the site. Does not comply – see assessment below.
No excavation within 900mm of a side boundary.
Excavation will occur within 900mm of the northern and southern side boundaries.
No excavation within 4m of a rear boundary.
No excavation will occur within 4m of the rear boundary.
The length of a second storey portion is no greater than 12m at less than 1.5m from a southern boundary.
The length of the second storey portion is greater than 12m and the external wall is setback more than 1.5m from the southern side boundary.
An assessment of the reasonableness of the proposal, in terms of view loss, using the planning principle established by the Land and Environment Court in Tenacity Consulting Pty Ltd vs Warringah Council is provided in Section 9.4.2 of this report.
The external wall height of the proposed dwelling varies from 8.1m to 11.4m with the highest wall located to the front portion of the building, measured from the roof of the top floor level to the existing ground level (refer to Section BB of the submitted plans). The height of the western external wall varies from 8.1m to 9.7m, which also exceeds the preferred solutions of the DCP. The variation to the wall height control for the whole development is considered excessive, particularly, at the south-western corner of the building where the height reaches 9.7m and will adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding properties in respect of view sharing. In addition, the proposal also includes planting of trees along the Seaside Parade frontage with mature height of up to 12m, which further restrict the views from the affected properties.
Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed flat roof design will have less impact on views than a development with pitched roof, it is still considered that the height of the external wall should be reduced to minimise the impact on the surrounding properties.
For these reasons, it is considered that the proposed development is inconsistent with the relevant objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of the DCP and therefore should not be supported.
Front setback is average of adjoining dwellings or 6m.
The setback of the proposed development from Seaside Parade frontage varies from 2.3m to 7.9m. Does not comply – see assessment below.
No part of the building is closer than 4.5m from rear boundary.
The proposed development is setback more than 4.5m from rear boundary and is also within the foreshore building line. Complies.
Lower Floor/Garage Level:
North: 1.6m (Yes)
South: 1m – 2.2m (Yes)
South: 0m – 6m (No)
Side setbacks be 1.5m at first floor level.
North: 1.5m – 7.6m (No)
South: 1m -6m (No)
Side setbacks be 3.0m for any part of a building more than two levels at that point.
North: 1.1m – 10.7m (No)
South: 1m – 7.2m (No)
The Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP seek to ensure that there is adequate access to sunlight, daylight and fresh air to building occupants and neighbours; and with respect to front boundary setbacks the proposal generally conform to the adjoining development or dominant streetscape.
It is noted that the dwelling houses along the eastern side of Seaside Parade maintains an established streetscape pattern of a consistent front setback and the proposed development will be approximately 10m forward of the adjoining property to the north at No. 19 Seaside Parade which will alter the established streetscape pattern and adversely affect the overall amenity and character of the streetscape. Whilst there is part of the existing dwelling which extends beyond the building alignment, it is at a lower level and is not as visible as the proposed development (see Figure 3).
The non-compliance in side setbacks is considered to be acceptable in that this is off-set by the setback of a greater part of the first and second floor levels which will exceed the minimum requirements thus minimising any potential adverse amenity impact on the adjoining dwelling. Taking into account of the corner location and orientation of the site, it is considered that strict compliance with the side setback requirement in this instance is unnecessary and would not result in any significant improvement to the amenity of the adjoining dwelling.
Lower level of 21 Seaside Parade
No. 21 Seaside Parade
No. 19 Seaside Parade
Figure 3: Existing streetscape pattern
Habitable room windows within 9m of another dwelling’s windows are offset by 45 degrees or have fixed obscure glazing below 1.5m above floor level.
The majority of the windows on the northern elevations are provided with horizontal privacy screens to minimise overlooking into neighbour’s windows.
Direct view into open space of an adjoining dwelling is obscured or screened within 9m and is beyond a 45 degree angle.
The proposed balconies/decks/terraces are all provided with sufficient privacy screens to minimise overlooking into neighbour’s internal living areas and private open spaces.
Windows have sill heights of 1.5m or more or fixed obscure glazing below that height.
The proposal generally complies with this requirement. Where compliance is not achieved and windows face an adjoining property at less than 9m, windows have been screened.
Buildings comply with AS 371 and AS 2107.
Front doors of dwellings are visible from the street.
The proposed front door faces the street. Complies.
Dwellings have at least one habitable room window overlooking the street.
The proposed dwelling has windows and balconies/terraces/decks that overlook the street. Complies.
A Council-approved street number is conspicuously displayed at the front of the dwelling or front fence.
Suitable condition included for any consent granted.
Council’s Parking DCP requires 1 space, for dwellings with 2 bedrooms or less, or 2 spaces, for dwellings with 3 bedrooms or more.
The proposed dwelling has parking for 3 cars. Complies.
Car parking spaces have a minimum dimension of 5.5m x 2.5m.
The dimensions of the parking spaces comply with this requirement.
Driveways have minimum width of 3m and are set back at least 1m from the side boundary.
The proposed driveway is approximately 4.5m at boundary and setback more than 1m from the side boundary. Complies.
Driveway gradients should not exceed a maximum of 1 in 8 for the first 5m from street alignment and 1 in 6 thereafter.
The proposed driveway gradient is less than 1 in 8. Complies.
With respect to garages and carports to rear lanes these should be set back 1m to improve pedestrian visibility.
Parking and access is provided from the rear of the allotment where possible.
Garages and carports located behind the building line where parking only available from the front of the site.
The proposed garage is generally in line with the proposed building.
Driveways, car parking spaces and structures do not occupy more than 35% of the width of the allotment
The proposed driveway occupies about 33% of the width of the site frontage. Complies.
Existing sandstone fences and walls are retained/recycled.
Solid front fences or on street frontages in front of the building line are no higher than 1.2m.
The height of the proposed fence varies from 1.5m to 3.1m on Seaside Parade and Liguria Street boundaries. Does not comply.
Fences in front of the building line or on street frontages may be up to 1.8m provided that the upper two thirds is at least 50% open.
No encroachments on Foreshore Building Line at identified properties.
The rear of the proposed development is within the Foreshore Building Line.
Building form, colour, materials and finishes are sympathetic.
The materials and colours are considered to be acceptable.
Stepped buildings on sloping sites are articulated.
The front section of the building is excessively in height and will adversely affect the views to the ocean from the nearby properties.
Buildings incorporate sufficient setbacks to allow fair sharing of views.
The proposed development does not incorporate sufficient setbacks and as a result, the views from the nearby property at No. 16 Seaside Parade will be greatly affected. See Section 9.4.2 for discussion regarding view sharing.
Ancillary structures do not detract from the appearance of developments.
New dwellings comply with a minimum of 3.5 stars on the NatHERS.
Not applicable. The proposed development complies with the BASIX requirements.
Private open space receives at least 3 hours sunlight over part of its area between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.
The rear yard will receive at least 3 hours of sunlight. Complies.
S2,8
North-facing windows to living areas receive at least 3 hours sunlight over part of its area between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.
The proposal includes north-facing windows that will receive at least 3 hours of sunlight. Complies.
Solar access to existing or future solar collectors on adjacent buildings is maintained between 9am and 3pm each throughout the year.
The proposal will not overshadow existing or future solar collectors on adjoining properties. Complies.
North-facing windows to living areas of neighbouring dwellings receive at least 3 hours sunlight over part of its area between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. If currently less than 3 hours, it is not further reduced.
The proposal will not reduce solar access to less than 3 hours on north-facing windows. Complies.
Principal outdoor recreation space of neighbouring dwellings receive at least 3 hours sunlight over part of its area between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. If currently less than 3 hours, it is not further reduced.
The proposal will not reduce solar access to private open space to less than 3 hours. Complies.
9.3.2 Development Control Plan - Parking
The proposal will provide three car parking spaces in the semi-basement garage, which complies with the numerical requirements of the DCP – Parking (i.e. two car parking spaces for a dwelling house with three or more bedrooms).
9.4 Likely impact of the development - S79C(1)(b)
9.4.1 Natural Environmental Impacts
The subject site contains an existing dwelling house in a developed suburban context. As such, the subject site contains no endangered flora or fauna that will be affected by the proposed development. Accordingly, the proposal will be acceptable in terms of natural environmental impacts which will be minimal, if not, nonexistent.
9.4.2 Built Environmental Impacts
Impact to Adjoining Properties
In terms of view loss, objections have been raised by the owners of Nos. 14 and 16 Seaside Parade citing loss of views to east and south-east of objectors’ properties.
The applicant was requested to erect height poles on the subject site to allow a better understanding of the view related impacts from the nearby dwelling houses at Nos. 14 and 16 Seaside Parade.
The owner of 16 Seaside Parade has also constructed temporary platforms to demonstrate the levels of impact from the living areas and associated decks of the approved development.
It should be noted that the RLs of the height poles and temporary platforms have been verified by the applicant and objector’s surveyors.
The following photos show the views currently available from the objectors’ properties.
a) Views from No. 14 Seaside Parade
Approximate outline of the front portion of the proposed building
Photo 1: View from the front terrace of No. 14 Seaside Parade looking southeast over the subject site
Photo 2: View from the front terrace of No. 14 Seaside Parade looking southeast over the dwelling houses on the eastern side of Seaside Parade (i.e. Nos. 17-21)
b) Views from No. 16 Seaside Parade
Photo 3: Panoramic views from the temporary platform built on 16 Seaside Parade at RL 23.21 (AHD), which is 610mm below the lounge room level of RL 23.82 at ground floor level of approved dwelling, looking east/south-east over the subject site.
Photo 4: View from the temporary platform built on 16 Seaside Parade at RL 24.54, equivalent to the kitchen/dining room level at ground floor level of the approved dwelling, looking east/south-east over the subject site.
35 Liguria St
37 Liguria St
39 Liguria St
Photo 5: Views from 16 Seaside Parade looking directly south over the properties on Liguria Street.
The DCP contains the following Performance Requirements relating to view sharing:
§ Performance Requirement P6 under Part 4.3 Height, Form and Materials of the DCP requires that “buildings are designed to allow a sharing of views”.
§ Performance Requirement P2 under Part 4.4 Building Setbacks of the DCP requires that “building forms and setbacks allow neighbours adequate access to natural light and a share of views and preserve established trees and vegetation and be generally consistent with the setback of adjoining properties.”
§ Performance Requirement P4 under Part 4.9 Foreshore Development of the DCP requires that “buildings incorporate sufficient setbacks to allow planting and a fair sharing of views.”
The concept of ‘view sharing’ was further defined in the Land and Environment Court by Senior Commissioner Roseth in Tenacity v Warringah Council (2004) proceedings. The Senior Commissioner’s discussion of the notion of view sharing is provided below as background:
“The notion of view sharing is invoked when a property enjoys existing views and a proposed development would share that view by taking some of it away for its own enjoyment. (Taking it all away cannot be called view sharing, although it may, in some circumstances, be quite reasonable.) To decide whether or not view sharing is reasonable, I have adopted a four-step assessment.
The planning principle established by the Land and Environment Court in Tenacity v Warringah Council proceeding is used to make an assessment of the reasonableness of the proposal, in terms of view-loss. The following paragraphs provide an assessment of the proposal in accordance with the four (4) step process established in the proceedings.
(1) “The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (e.g. of the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge or North Head) are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views, e.g. a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.
No. 14 Seaside Parade
Views from No. 14 Seaside Parade can be described as follows:
Eastern Views:
§ Majority of water view blocked by the existing dwelling house at No. 15 Seaside Parade.
South-eastern Views:
§ View of land and water interface (i.e. Lurline Bay and Mistral Point).
§ View of the ocean partially obscured by the existing dwellings at Nos. 19-21 Seaside Parade.
Southern Views:
§ View of land and water interface (i.e. Lurline Bay)
§ View of the ocean partially obscured by the existing dwellings at 19-21 Seaside Parade and 39 Liguria Street.
The views obtained from the front of the existing dwelling house at No. 14 Seaside Parade are considered to be highly valuable, insofar as they relates to the uninterrupted views of the interface between land and water (i.e. Mistral Point).
No. 16 Seaside Parade
Views from No. 16 Seaside Parade can be described as follows:
Eastern and South-eastern Views:
§ View of land and water interface (i.e. Lurline Bay and Mistral Point) through the corridor between No. 21 Seaside Parade and No. 39 Liguria Street.
§ View of water and horizon above the roof of the existing dwelling house on subject site.
§ Water views and land/water interface views (i.e. Lurline Bay) partially obscured by the existing dwellings along Liguria Street.
The views can be obtained from the ground and first floor levels of the approved dwelling and are considered to be highly valuable, insofar as they relates to views of water and the interface between land and water (i.e. Mistral Point).
(2) 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.
As noted previously, views from No. 14 and 16 Seaside Parade are currently available from the front and southern side of the dwellings at ground and first floor levels. The views can be attained from standing or sitting position. The front upper portion of the proposed dwelling and the proposed trees along the Seaside Parade frontage will adversely affect the standing/sitting views to the east and south-east from the living areas of the affected properties.
(3) 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.
As shown in Photos 1 and 2 above, the extent of view loss from 14 Seaside Parade would be minor as the majority of water views and water/land interface views will be maintained. However, if the proposed trees along the Seaside Parade frontage reach the mature height (i.e. up to 12 metres), the impact would be devastated.
As noted previously, two platforms were built on 16 Seaside Parade to allow better understanding of the extent of view loss from the two separate living areas at ground floor level of the approved dwelling. Photos 3 to 5 above shows the views from the platforms only and it should be noted that the impact would be different depends on where you stand in the living areas. The views from the upper level of the approved dwelling will not be affected by the proposed development as the finished floor level is significantly higher than the roof ridge of the proposed dwelling.
Based on the views shown in Photo 3 above, it is considered that the extent of impact from the southern living area (i.e. lounge room and associated deck/terrace) would be minor as the view corridor between 21 Seaside Parade and 39 Liguria Street will be maintained. However, as shown in Photo 4 above, the views from the northern living area (i.e. kitchen and dining areas) and associated decks would be adversely affected as the majority of water views and water/land interface views including Mistral Point will be blocked by the top floor of the proposed development. In addition, the proposed trees along the Seaside Parade frontage will further restrict the views from these living areas.
The applicant has submitted a view analysis study to demonstrate the extent of view loss from the northern living area of the approved dwelling at No. 21 Seaside Parade. While the study contains a comprehensive level of detail, it is still considered unsatisfactory as the impact on views arises as a result of variations with Council’s numerical controls.
(4) The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours. If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.
As noted previously, the proposal does not comply with the preferred solutions of the DCP in respect to floor space ratio, wall height and building setback controls. The apparent size of the front upper section of the building and the failure to respect the front building alignment of the adjoining dwellings are clearly the contributing factors to the view loss.
Having regard to the above assessment, and in the absence of any other identifiable constraints, it is considered that the proposal is unreasonable in terms of its identified view impacts on Nos. 14 and 16 Seaside Parade. Considering the size of the subject site and the opportunity exists to distribute the additional floor area, reducing the height of the building and setting the top floor back to maintain the front building alignment of the adjoining dwellings, it is considered that a more skilful design and better selection of tree species could provide the applicant with the same or greater development potential and amenity than that offered by the proposal while at the same time reducing the impact on views from the affected properties to a more reasonable and acceptable level.
9.5 Site Suitability
The proposal involving the construction of a new dwelling house is suitable for the site particularly in view of its residential zoning and surrounding residential context.
10. Relationship to City Plan
Outcome: Excellent in urban design.
11. Financial Impact Statement
The proposed development will result in a detrimental impact to the amenity of Nos. 14 and 16 Seaside Parade and does not address the impact of the quality of views enjoyed by the surrounding neighbours.
The proposal does not satisfy the relevant objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of the DCP in respect to floor space ratio, wall height and building setbacks. The additional height, scale and bulk of the development have not been mitigated or ameliorated through a more skilful design and the selection of the tree species have failed to satisfy Council’s requirement. As such, the proposal fails to address the cumulative and detrimental impact that the proposed development will have to the amenity of the nearby properties and the character of the streetscape.
For the above reasons, the subject application is recommended for refusal.
A. That Council as the responsible authority refuse development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. DA/323/2007 to demolish the existing dwelling house and construct a new part three part four storey dwelling house with semi-basement garage, a lap pool on the roof, associated site and landscaping works at 21 Seaside Parade, South Coogee for the following reasons:
1. The proposal is inconsistent with the objective of the Residential 2A zone as stated in Clause 10(1)(c) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 in that the proposed development will adversely affect the amenity of the nearby properties at Nos. 14 and 16 Seaside Parade.
2. The proposal will adversely affect the views currently attained from the dwellings at Nos. 14 and 16 Seaside Parade and is inconsistent with the performance requirements of Part 4.3.3 (P6), Part 4.4.2 (P2) and Part 4.9.4 (P4) of the Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies which requires the building to be designed to allow a fair sharing of views.
3. The bulk and scale of the proposed development are inconsistent with the objective and performance requirement of Part 4.2 “Floor Area” of the Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies insofar that it will have an intrusive impact on the views enjoyed from the nearby dwelling houses at Nos. 14 and 16 Seaside Parade.
4. The proposal fails to maintain the dominant setback of adjoining development along the eastern side of Seaside Parade and is inconsistent with the relevant objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of Part 4.4 Building Setbacks of the Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.
5. The proposed landscaping along the Seaside Parade boundary is unsatisfactory as it will adversely affect the views from the surrounding properties.
6. The selection of tree species along the Seaside Parade boundary is inappropriate as the trees will obstruct or impede a clear line of sight for vehicles existing from the adjoining property at 19 Seaside Parade as well as those travelling on the roadway.
Development Application Report No. D30/08
Subject: 52 Marine Parade, Maroubra
Folder No: DA/124/2008
Author: Simon Ip, Senior Environmental Planning Officer
Proposal: Demolition of existing structures on site and construction of a 3-storey multi-unit housing development comprising 3 x 3-bedroom dwellings, basement car parking for 5 vehicles, in-ground swimming pool and Strata Subdivision of the development.
Applicant: Julius Boker Architect Pty Ltd
Owner: A Argyrou
The subject application is for demolition of the existing structures on site and construction of a three- (3-) storey multi-unit housing development comprising three (3) x 3-bedroom dwellings, basement car parking for five (5) vehicles, in-ground swimming pool and Strata subdivision of the development.
The subject site is located on the north-western side of Marine Parade, opposite to the Lurline Bay public reserve. The site is rectangular in shape and has a frontage width and land area of 12.19m and 551.75m2 respectively. The site is adjoined by double-storey residential flat buildings to the south-west and north-east, and detached dwelling houses to the rear. Marine Parade is predominantly characterised by two to three and above storeys residential flat buildings.
The application was first advertised and notified in early March, and was subsequently readvertised and renotified in mid April following receipt of amended drawings and additional information. A total of five (5) submissions were received at the conclusion of the public notification periods. The issues raised are in relation to development density, streetscape, bulk and scale, solar access, privacy and noise. The submission issues have been satisfactorily addressed within the body of this report.
The site is identified as being within Zone No. 2C (Residential C Zone) and a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area under Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 1998. The proposal is consistent with the aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of Residential 2C Zone, in that the development will deliver multi-unit housing, which is compatible with the predominant and desired character of the locality. The proposed development incorporates suitable design features that minimise the visual scale and bulk of the structures, and is considered to carry positive design merits having regard to the site’s foreshore location.
The proposal has a floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.75:1, which equates to 415.2m2 gross floor area. The proposed FSR does not comply with the maximum permissible FSR of 0.65:1 stipulated in RLEP 1998. The FSR control is a numerical development standard contained in the LEP. The applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 1 – Development Standards justifying that the breach will not result in significant adverse amenity or visual impacts on the area. The objection has been assessed and is supported.
The Randwick Multi-Unit Housing Development Control Plan (DCP) specifies detailed built form and setback controls for residential flat buildings across Randwick City. The building height, setbacks, landscaped open space provision and façade treatment of the development substantially comply with the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP and are considered to be satisfactory.
The proposed car parking provision within the development complies with the controls contained in Council’s Parking DCP.
The proposed development satisfies the matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended.
The proposed development satisfies the relevant legislation, State policies and local planning controls, and is recommended for approval subject to conditions.
The subject site is described as Lot 18 in DP 1800, No. 52 Marine Parade, Maroubra. The site is located on the north-western side of Marine Parade. The dimension and land area of the site are summarised in the table below:
North-western, rear boundary
South-eastern, street boundary
North-eastern, side boundary
45.263m
South-western, side boundary
The site has a flat terrain with a cross fall of approximately 0.33m (from RL 21.04m to RL 20.71m).
At present, the site is occupied by a double-storey residential flat building containing 2 units, with a detached garage to the rear. A vehicular crossing connects the kerb of Marine Parade with the aforementioned parking facility.
The site is adjoined to the north-east by a double-storey residential flat building (No. 50 Marine Parade), which has a roof top terrace area and garage facilities to the rear. Immediately adjoining the site to the south-west (No. 54 Marine Parade) is a double-storey residential flat building with a detached garage to the rear. The site is adjoined to the rear by a single-storey detached dwelling house (No. 21 Wilson Street). A public reserve, which contains the Coogee to Maroubra coastal walkway, is located on the opposite side of Marine Parade.
Marine Parade is predominantly characterised by two- to three- or above storey residential flat buildings. The locality is currently experiencing gradual transition where the older housing stock is being replaced by modern apartment developments.
Photos 1-5 show the existing buildings on the subject and adjoining sites.
Photo 1 Front elevation of the existing building on site
Photo 2 Adjoining residential flat buildings at No. 44-48 (right) and No. 50 (left) Marine Parade
Photo 3 Adjoining residential flat building at No. 54 Marine Parade
Photo 4 Rear yard area of the site (foreground) and adjoining dwellings along Wilson Street (background)
Photo 5 Recent multi-unit housing development on Marine Parade further to the south-west of the site.
The development proposal includes the following components:
· Demolition of all existing structures on site.
· Construction of a 3-storey residential flat building containing 3 apartment units and a basement car park. The floor space elements of the building are summarised below:
- Basement: car park, garbage storage area and store rooms
- Ground floor: 1 x 3-bedroom unit, private courtyard, and communal open space with an in-ground swimming pool
- First floor: 1 x 3-bedroom unit
- Second floor 1 x 3-bedroom unit
· General landscape works.
· Strata subdivision of the development.
Estimated total construction cost (before GST): $1,968,400
Building Code of Australia classification:
· Residential units – Class 2
· Car park – Class 7a
4.1 Plan amendments
A request was made by letter dated 17 March 2008 for the submission of amended plans / additional information addressing the following issues:
· A geotechnical investigation is to be undertaken to determine whether the proposed development will have any effect on, or be affected by, ground water.
· The driveway gradient is to be amended to ensure compliance with Council’s engineering standards.
· Turning path templates are to be submitted to indicate the entering and exiting movements for car space number 5 at the rear of the basement car park. The above car space is considered to be most likely to encounter manoeuvring problems.
· The plans are to be amended to show the provision of a minimum of 2 bicycle parking spaces, in accordance with the provisions of the Development Control Plan – Parking.
· The side walls of the driveway leading to the basement car park are to be appropriately articulated and finished to avoid a long span of blank walls and discourage graffiti.
· The submitted “Garden Plan” is to be revised by a qualified landscape architect to include a planting schedule listing all proposed species, additional notations and construction details.
· It is considered that the overall bulk and scale of the development can be further improved to respond suitably to the surrounding built environment and the flat terrain of the site. The following design measures are recommended:
- Reduce the dominance of the glazing to the front balconies by decreasing the height of the side privacy screens to not more than 1.6m, as measured from the finished balcony floor level.
- Adopt a stepped built form to diminish the bulkiness of the first and second floors when viewed from Marine Parade. This may be achieved, among other possible measures, by converting the solid roofing to the top floor front balcony to an open pergola structure.
· A substantial proportion of the eastern elevation is characterised by blank walls. It is considered that additional east-facing windows can be provided to bedroom 2, WC and living areas of the proposed dwellings, in order to better utilise the morning sun.
· The western private open space to Unit 1 is not directly accessible from the living areas of the dwelling. It appears that the only access route is via bedroom 3. This arrangement is considered not acceptable.
· Elevational diagrams, showing the anticipated shadow impacts on the north-eastern wall of the adjoining building to the west at No. 54 Marine Parade on the winter solstice, are to be submitted.
· Appropriate draft Strata plans, prepared by a registered surveyor, are to be submitted for assessment.
Amended drawings and Strata plans were received on 9 April and 16 April 2008 respectively. The application was subsequently re-advertised and re-notified to the adjoining and nearby properties.
4.2 Previous development consents relating to the site
There are no recent development approvals applicable to the site.
The subject application was advertised and notified by letter dated 7 March 2008 to 76 adjoining and nearby properties in accordance with Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. The notification period ended on 26 March 2008.
The following submissions were received at the conclusion of the public notification period:
· 21 Wilson Street, Maroubra
· 25 Wilson Street, Maroubra
· 54-56 Marine Parade, Maroubra
· 3/50 Marine Parade, Maroubra
· 5/50 Marine Parade, Maroubra
The application was readvertised and renotified by letter dated 16 April 2008 to 81 adjoining and nearby properties following receipt of amended drawings and additional information. The re-notification period ended on 30 April 2008.
The issues raised in the submissions are addressed as follows:
The proposed development will overlook the adjoining properties to the rear along Wilson Street.
The rear facing windows of the development should have a high sill height of at least 5 feet from the finished floor level.
The proposed building is setback 14.4m from the rear boundary of the site, which significantly exceeds the minimum setback requirements specified in Council’s DCP for Multi-Unit Housing Development.
A 1.8m high solid masonry wall will be erected along the rear boundary of the site. In addition, landscape planting of Lilly Pilly, which has a mature height of approximately 3m, will be provided behind the above boundary wall, which will further reduce the amount of overlooking into the properties to the rear.
The proposed windows on the rear elevation are attached to the bedrooms, which are considered to be low intensity use areas within the development. These windows have a north-westerly orientation and will provide suitable natural lighting for the interior space. It is considered unreasonable to increase the sill heights of these windows given that adequate rear setback has already been reserved in the proposal.
Based on the above, the proposal is considered satisfactory in this regard.
The glazing on the western elevation should be constructed of translucent glass only.
As will be discussed in the “DCP” section of this report, the proposed side windows have been appropriately offset from the living room windows of the adjoining properties and will not result in unacceptable privacy impacts. Accordingly, it is not necessary to require translucent glazing for the southwest facing windows.
Fixed privacy screens should be installed for the proposed rear facing balconies to avoid overlooking into the adjoining properties. Alternatively, the rear balconies should be deleted.
The upper level rear balconies will result in noise generation that adversely impacts on the neighbours.
The proposal includes a rear facing balcony on both the first and second floor levels. These balconies have a dimension of 3.2m (length) x 2.0m (depth) and are attached to the bedroom areas. Due to the limited dimension of the balconies, their use would be confined to passive recreation activities and would not facilitate the congregation of a significant number of persons. Additionally, a privacy screen is proposed to the side elevation of the balcony to minimise any overlooking into the adjoining property at No. 54 Marine Parade.
The balconies have a north-westerly orientation and enjoy adequate solar access throughout the year.
It is considered unreasonable to require deletion of these balconies or the installation of additional screening devices given the limited degree of privacy and noise impacts and the amenity they will afford to the occupants of the building.
The main entrance pathway is positioned along the north-eastern side boundary. The use of this pathway would result in noise generation that adversely impacts on the ground floor units of No. 50 Marine Parade.
The revised drawings include a 2.0m high rendered solid masonry wall along the north-eastern side boundary for a distance of 11.5m, adjacent to the main pedestrian entry to the building. The distance between the wall and the main entry doorway is approximately 1.4m. The above characteristics will ensure that the wall will effectively function as a noise barrier, which will minimise any adverse noise impacts on the bedroom areas of the ground floor units of No. 50 Marine Parade.
The proposed swimming pool will result in significant noise generation. Additionally, there is no landscape screening between the pool and the property boundaries. Mature, tall tree species should be planted to provide a barrier against noise emission.
The proposed swimming pool has a dimension of 4.0m (width) x 9.0m (length). A 1.8m high solid wall will be erected along the rear property boundary, with a 0.8m wide planter box behind, in order to minimise noise impact on the adjoining property.
Given that there are only 3 x 3-bedroom units within the development, it is not considered that the swimming pool will be intensively used by a significant number of persons at any one time, especially during weekdays.
Notwithstanding, a special condition is recommended to require the planter box to be increased to 1.5m in width to accommodate additional screen planting.
Overall, the development is considered to be satisfactory, subject to the above condition.
Concerns are raised in relation to the increased building height and reduced rear setback of the proposed development, as compared to the existing building on the site.
The proposed building is setback 14.4m from the rear property boundary, which significantly exceeds the minimum setback requirements specified in the Multi-Unit Housing DCP. The proposed building height also achieves full compliance with the limit specified in RLEP 1998.
The proposal exceeds the maximum permissible FSR stated in Council’s planning control documents.
Refer to the “SEPP 1” section of this report for details. The proposal is considered to be satisfactory in terms of building bulk, scale and density.
The excessive bulk and scale of the proposal will adversely impact on the streetscape.
The proposed built form has incorporated staggering wall planes on the side elevations. The revised design scheme has replaced the concrete roofing to the top level front balcony with a light-weight operable pergola. The front façade of the building features balconies for all floor levels, which will retain a sense of openness along the street frontage. The above design measures will minimise the visual scale and bulk of the building, despite non-compliance with the FSR development standard. Overall, the architectural character and form of the proposal are considered to carry satisfactory design merits.
The proposal will result in unreasonable overshadowing on the adjoining properties.
Refer to the “DCP” section of this report for details. The proposal is considered to be satisfactory in terms of solar access to the neighbouring properties.
The proposal does not comply with the side setback requirements stated in Council’s planning control documents.
Refer to the “DCP” section of this report for details. The proposal is considered to be satisfactory in terms of side setbacks.
The proposal will result in loss of sea views currently enjoyed by the adjoining properties.
Refer to the “DCP” section of this report for details. The proposal is not considered to result in unreasonable view loss from the adjoining properties.
The site is subject to flooding and adequate drainage system should be provided for the proposed development.
Standard conditions will be recommended to require suitable stormwater drainage system to be incorporated in the development.
The pumping system for the swimming pool should be located as far away from the adjoining properties as possible.
Standard conditions will be recommended to require suitable noise attenuation measures to be incorporated to ensure no adverse impacts on the neighbours will result.
There is insufficient landscape planting along the side boundaries of the site.
Due to the requirement to provide adequate off-street parking facilities and the narrow allotment width of the subject site, it is not possible to include deep soil planting along the side setback areas.
Notwithstanding, planter boxes and screen planting have been proposed along both side boundaries to provide a degree of landscape buffer between the subject and adjoining developments, and to soften the proposed building structures.
Overall, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory in terms of landscape design and planting.
The true north point provided on the plans does not appear to be correct.
The true north point that appears on the floor plans has been verified against the survey plan and is confirmed to be correct.
The subject development will adversely impact on a potential application for a multi-unit housing project at No. 54-56 Marine Parade, which would be submitted to Council in the near future. The potential impacts include overshadowing and visual amenity.
The submission lodged by the owner of No. 54-56 has included sketch floor plans for a potential apartment development scheme. It is noted that a formal Pre-lodgement Application (PL/27/2005) was previously submitted to Council in 2005. However, the current sketch drawings do not relate to the previous Pre-lodgement application.
As will be discussed in the “DCP” section of this report, the proposed development will not result in unreasonable shadow and privacy impacts on the adjoining properties.
The proposed development is also of an appropriate bulk, scale and façade design, which will enhance the streetscape amenity in the locality.
Given that the sketch design scheme has not been submitted to Council as either a Pre-lodgement or Development Application, it is considered appropriate not to give significant weight to the scheme, as it may be amended without notice.
The proposal is considered to comply with the objectives and performance criteria of relevant planning controls and is supported.
Development Engineer / Landscape Development Officer
The comments provided by Council’s Development Engineer and Landscape Development Officer are extracted below:
The site inspection revealed a complete absence of any vegetation on public land, as well as within the subject property and on neighbouring sites that would be affected by this application, with conditions in this report relating solely to the implementation of the proposed landscape scheme.
The provision of street trees on the nature strip in front of this property (as is standard on most development sites) is not recommended in this instance due to the harsh, frontline coastal environment, and lack of success with recent street tree plantings in this same area.
On-site stormwater detention is not required for this development however the stormwater discharge from the site is not to exceed 25 litres per/second for the 1 in 20 year storm.
The Planning Officer is advised that the submitted drainage plans should not be approved in conjunction with the DA, rather, the Development Engineer has included a number of conditions in this memo that relate to drainage design requirements. The applicant is required to submit detailed drainage plans to the certifying authority for approval prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.
Vehicular Access - All new walls adjacent to vehicular crossings must be lowered to a height of 600mm above the internal driveway level for a distance of 1.50m within the site or splayed 1.5 metre by 1.5 metre to provide satisfactory sight lines. Details are to be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to the release of the construction certificate showing compliance with this condition.
The driveway opening at the Marine Parade frontage must have a minimum of 3 metres clear width with a 300mm wide kerb on either side. The driveway opening shall be located at least 0.6 metres clear of the side property.
Parking provision – Council’s DCP- Parking requires that 1.5 carspaces be provided per 3 bedroom unit. The proposed development consists of 3 x 3 bedroom units and therefore requires 5 carspaces. The proposed development achieves compliance with this requirement.
At the Health, Building and Planning Committee meeting on 8 November 2005, it was resolved on the motion of Councillors Nash and Belelli that:
(a) the applicants of development applications be required to meet all costs associated with replacing overhead wires with underground cables in the vicinity of the development site when the cost of works on the site exceeds $2 million;
(b) the applicants of development applications be required to meet all costs associated with replacing overhead wires with Aerial Bundled Cables in the vicinity of the development site, when the cost of works on the site exceeds $1 million up to $2 million; and
(c) the Director, City Planning investigate the feasibility of funding the undergrounding of existing overhead cables for new development under the new options provided for in the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act (Developer Contributions) Act 2005.
Given that the proposed works will be in excess of $2 million the applicant will be required to meet all costs associated with replacing the overhead wires with underground cables in the vicinity of the development site.
An inspection of the site revealed that with the exception of the feeder lines into the subject site there are no overhead cables along the Marine Parade site frontage. Consequently, the applicant will only need to underground the cables servicing the subject development site.
No objections are raised against the proposal, subject to conditions.
Clause 40A(1) of RLEP 1998 provides that consent may be granted to a development application made in respect of a site consisting of more than 4,000m2 only if: (a) a master plan has been adopted, and (b) the consent authority is satisfied that the development is not inconsistent with the provisions of that master plan. The site has a land area of 551.75m2 and a master plan is not required.
8.1 Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998
The site is identified as being within Zone No. 2C (Residential C Zone) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The proposal is consistent with the aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of Residential 2C Zone, in that the development will deliver multi-unit housing, which is compatible with the predominant and desired character of the locality.
The following clauses of the LEP are relevant to the proposed development:
Subdivision permissible with development consent
The proposal seeks approval for Strata subdivision.
Complies, subject to conditions
Adequate facilities for supply of water, disposal of sewage and drainage are required to support a proposed development
The provision of utility services will be required by appropriate conditions of consent.
29 Foreshore scenic protection area
Council to consider the probable aesthetic appearance of the proposed building in relation to the foreshore
The proposed apartment building is considered to be of a form, scale and setback that respect the character of the adjoining residential developments along Marine Parade.
The proposal adopts a contemporary design with modern finishing materials, which appropriately modulate the façades and minimise visual bulk as viewed from the surrounding public and private domain.
Additionally, the proposed front balconies and terraces will enable casual surveillance of the nearby foreshore open space.
The development will replace an existing aged building block and upgrade the streetscape amenity of Marine Parade.
Therefore, the proposal is considered satisfactory having regard to the provisions of Clause 29.
31 Landscaped area
(2) Minimum 50% of the site area (or 275.9m2)
(3) Landscaped areas over podiums or excavated basement areas not to exceed 50% of landscaped area provision
A total of 62.2% site area or 343.0m2 is provided as landscaped area, which complies with Clause 31(2) of the LEP.
31.8% (less than 50%) of the total landscaped area provision or 109.0m2 is located over the basement car park, which complies with Clause 31(3) of the LEP.
32 Floor space ratio
0.65:1 for site less than 700m2 (or 358.6m2 GFA)
Total proposed GFA: 415.2m2
Proposed FSR: 0.75:1
Does not comply, SEPP 1 Objection submitted