Source: http://businesspapers.randwick.nsw.gov.au/Open/2002/04/PL_09042002_AGN.HTM
Timestamp: 2019-02-17 04:15:57
Document Index: 453328487

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application No. 1225', 'Application No. 1225', 'Application No. 1225', 'Application No.1225', 'application No. 982', 'Application No. 982', 'Application No.699', 'Application No. 982', 'Application No.982', 'Application No. 1201']

2nd April, 2002
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A HEALTH BUILDING AND 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, 9TH APRIL 2002 AT 6.30 P.M..
CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE HEALTH, BUILDING & PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 12 TH MARCH, 2002.
138 HOLMES STREET, KINGSFORD.
24 BATTERY STREET, COOGEE.
1 BRISBANE STREET, CHIFLEY.
DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT'S REPORT 14/2002 - DCP DWELLING HOUSES AND ATTACHED DUAL OCCUPANCIES AMENDMENT - CARPORTS AND GARAGES.
DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT'S REPORT 15/2002 - DCP DWELLING HOUSES AND ATTACHED DUAL OCCUPANCIES PROPOSED AMENDMENT - SOLAR ACCESS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY.
DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT'S REPORT 16/2002 - 88-98 KING STREET, RANDWICK - MASTERPLAN AMENDMENT FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF LAND FOR MULTI-UNIT HOUSING AND STA CAR PARKING, THE AMENDMENT REPLACES PART OF THE EXISTING MASTERPLAN ADOPTED FOR THE SIR MOSES MONTEFIORE JEWISH AGED CARE HOME.
1225/2001
Carport to the front of existing dwelling
138 Holmes Street, Kingsford
M and R Ellison
The Section 82A for Review of Determination application has been referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Anthony Andrews, Chris Bastic and Dominic Sullivan.
Development Application No. 1225/01 proposed the excavation of the front yard of the semi-detached dwelling to allow for the erection of a brick and tile roof carport to the front of the premises. The proposed carport has overall dimensions of 2.9m x 5.36m, with a car space width of 2.4m. The combined parking area of the development is 3.7m x 5.36m. The development application was refused under delegated authority on 22 January 2002.
The proposal fails to satisfy the objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of Development Control Plans (DCP) – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies. In particular, the proposal will detract from the visual appearance of the dwelling, will have an adverse impact upon the streetscape, and the car space does not contain the minimum dimensions.
The recommendation is that the determination of DA 1225/01 dated 22 January 2002 be confirmed.
The application details the excavation of the front yard of the dwelling to allow for the erection of brick, tile roof carport to the front of the premises; the carport has overall dimensions of 2.9m x 5.36m, with a car space width of 2.4m. The combined parking area is 3.7m x 5.36m.
The locality is residential in nature and is characterised by single storey semi detached dwellings within a very open streetscape. The subject premises is on the northern side of Holmes Street and forms half of a pair of asymmetrical semi detached dwellings. The adjoining semi at 136 Holmes Street has a side driveway and garage located at the rear of the site. The site has an area of 327m5.
Currently adjoining 136 and 138 Holmes Street to the east and west are semi-detached dwellings. In the immediate vicinity of the site in Holmes Street, (the portion of Holmes Street between Henning Avenue and Cooper Street), there are 37 dwellings and only 4 examples of similarly cited carports. As detailed below, all carports were approved prior to the introduction of the current DCP Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.
Development Application No. 1225/2001 seeking approval to erect a carport to the front of the existing semi-detached dwelling was refused under delegated authority on 22 January 2002 for the following reasons:
1 The proposed carport does not satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the structure being sited at the front of the dwelling will detract from the appearance of the dwelling and the streetscape.
2 The proposed carport does not comply with the preferred solutions of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the structure is sited closer than 1m from the side boundary and does not meet the minimum dimension requirements for car parking structures.
3 Approval of the carport will not be in the public interest.
The proposal has been notified in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan 1998. No submissions were received.
Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act does not contain any statutory requirement to notify any request for review of a determination. As there were no objections to the original development application the current request to review of the determination has not been renotified.
Council’s Asset and Infrastructure Branch have recommended ten conditions of consent should the application be approved.
6.2 Landscape Issues
There are no existing trees, (covered by Council's Tree Preservation Order), that will be affected by this proposal
Council’s Asset and Infrastructure Branch have advised that the submitted plans show the carport as being only 2.4 metres wide and that the Planning Department is to determine whether this is satisfactory.
a. Development Control Plan No. Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies
8.1 Reasons for Review
The applicant has provided the following reasons for the review request:
· Although the structure is sited at the front of the dwelling, the design has been considered to match the dwelling by using identical materials and finishes and by using similar scales and roof shapes as the dwelling.
· The fact that proposal is in front of the dwelling is of no consequence as there are examples of carports in Holmes Street built on the front boundary previously approved by Council.
· To refuse their application on the basis of the proposed appearance when it’s stated that the proposal is to match the house, and to refuse the proposal on the basis of “detracting from the streetscape” when the other carports exists in the street is unfair and unreasonable.
· Believes that the proposal satisfies the performance requirements.
· The fact that proposal is within 1m of the boundary is not an issue as the other carports in the street are within 1m of the side boundary and to insist on a 1m setback is unfair and unreasonable.
· The width is 100mm thinner than required which can be rectified by the deletion of the centre brick piers.
· To argue that the proposal is not in the public interest is unreasonable.
The applicant has provided numerous reasons and arguments for the proposed carport in their request for a review of the decision, including the existence of nearby precedence and the quality of the design of the carport. Notwithstanding, Council must consider the application in accordance with the provisions of the relevant planning controls. The issue of siting of the carport is addressed in section 8.2 of this report and it is clear that the proposed development does not satisfy several of the relevant provisions of the DCP Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies. In particular, due to the proposed location and design of the proposal, it would be visually intrusive and detract from the appearance of the dwelling. Furthermore, the site inspection revealed that Holmes Street is relatively open and the construction of the carport in this location would significantly compromise the streetscape.
Moreover, the existing carports the applicant has provided as examples were all approved under a different planning regime that has been superseded by controls that place more weight on the visual qualities and integrity of the existing streetscape. Whilst it is acknowledged that there are examples of carports forward of the building line, Holmes Street is not predominantly characterised by carports forward of the building line. The site inspection revealed that in the immediate vicinity of the site in Holmes Street (between Henning Avenue and Cooper Street), there are 37 dwellings and only 4 examples of similarly cited carports. The examples of existing carports/garages provided by the applicant serve as examples of the adverse and negative impact that this type of development has on the streetscape.
8.2 Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies
With respect to compliance with the preferred solutions of the DCP, the combined car parking area occupies more than 35% of the width of the site, the carport is sited closer than 1m from the side boundary, minimum dimensions for car parking spaces are not achieved and the structure is located forward of the building line.
In considering the performance requirements and objectives of the DCP, the carport will considerably reduce the contribution the building is able to make in the streetscape by obscuring the front of the dwelling and detract from its appearance. Also, due to the bulky design and location of the carport forward of the building line, the proposal will result in a visually obtrusive structure in the streetscape.
Furthermore, the existing dwelling has a dwarf wall and lawn area within the front section of the premises, which makes a positive contribution to both the appearance of the dwelling, and the local streetscape. It is therefore not considered that the removal of most of the front yard area to accommodate a carport structure and parking area would comply with the overall objectives of the DCP because it would detract from the appearance of the dwelling and the streetscape.
The proposed development clearly does not satisfy the preferred solutions of the DCP. In addition, the applicant has failed to provide relevant supporting arguments and justify variations in order to demonstrate compliance with the performance requirements and objectives of the DCP.
For these reasons, the proposed carport cannot be supported. It is acknowledged that there are other examples of structures at the front of dwellings in the immediate locality, however as detailed on Section 8.1, their existence does not justify approval of further unacceptable structures to the front of dwellings.
9.2 Development Control Plan - Parking
Council’s Development Control Plan Parking Section 3.1.3 states that car spaces should have dimensions of 5.5m x 2.5m. The proposed carport provides for a car space with the dimension of 2.4 m x 5.36m, which do not comply, with the minimum requirements of DCP Parking.
The applicant has advised that the width of the carport is “only 100mm thinner” than required and this can be easily rectified by the deletion of the centre piers. However, this option would still result in an overall width of 2.4m for accessing the carport and does not address primary concerns relating to the non-compliance in regard to its inadequate length. This option is not considered to be a satisfactory solution.
The application has been reviewed taking into account the reasons and arguments submitted by the applicant. However, the proposal does not satisfy the relevant assessment criteria of DCP -Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies. In particular, the proposed development will detract from the visual appearance of the dwelling, the local streetscape and will be visually obtrusive. It is recommended that the Council’s original decision be confirmed.
A. THAT Council’s original Determination of Development Application No. 1225/2001 dated 22 January 2002 for a carport in front of the existing dwelling be confirmed.
Delegated Report dated 21 January 2002
A4 Plans
Report of the Director of Planning –21st January 2002
PROPERTY: 138 Holmes Street Kingsford
FILE REF: DA 1225/01
APPLICANT: M & R Ellison
OWNER: M & R Ellison
PROPOSAL: Carport to front of dwelling
VALUE OF WORK: $ 20 000
DATE SUBMITTED: 21st December 2001
AUTHOR: Perry Head
The locality is residential and is characterised by single storey semi detached dwellings within a very open, flat streetscape. The subject premises is on the northern side of Holmes Street and forms half of a pair of asymmetrical semi detached dwellings, the site has an area of 327m5.
There are no other relevant matters relating to this premises.
3. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
The application details the excavation of the front yard of the dwelling to allow for the erection of brick, tile roof carport to the front of the premises, the carport has overall dimensions of 2.9m x 5.36m and the parking area is 3.70m x 5.36m.
4. ZONING AND STATUTORY CONTROLS:
The site is zoned Residential 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposal is permissible with Council's consent.
5. POLICY CONTROLS:
The existing dwelling has a dwarf wall and lawn area within the front section of the premises which makes a positive contribution to both the appearance of the dwelling, and the local streetscape, and it is therefore not considered that the removal of most of the front yard area to accommodate a carport structure and parking area would comply with the overall objectives of the DCP because it would detract from the appearance of the dwelling and the streetscape.
With respect to compliance with the preferred solutions of the DCP the carport does not meet with these controls either, in that the carport is sited closer than 1m from the side boundary, and the minimum depth of the carport is not achieved.
For these reasons, the proposed carport cannot be supported and is recommended for refusal. It is acknowledged that there are other examples of structures at the front of dwellings in the immediate locality, however their existence does not justify approval of further unacceptable structures to the front of dwellings.
The proposal has been referred to the Director of Assets and Infrastructure for comment, conditions have been provided for inclusion with any consent granted.
7. NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS:
The owners of adjoining properties were notified of the proposed development on the 4th January 2002, no response has been received.
8. SECTION 79C ASSESSMENT:
9. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The proposed carport does not comply with the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies in that it will detract from the appearance of the dwelling and streetscape and it is recommended that the application be refused for the reasons detailed.
The proposal does not satisfy the relevant assessment criteria and is recommended for refusal.
THAT Council's Team Leader under delegated authority from the General Manager, as the consent authority, refuse development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No.1225/01 for permission to erect a carport to the front of the premises at 138 Holmes Street Kingsford for the following reasons:-
1. The proposed carport does not satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the structure being sited at the front of the dwelling will detract from the appearance of the dwelling and the streetscape.
2. The proposed carport does not comply with the preferred solutions of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the structure is sited closer than 1m from the side boundary and does not meet the minimum dimension requirements for carparking structures.
3. Approval of the carport will not be in the public interest.
Having considered the report of the Assessment Officer and after having taken into account Council's Local Environmental Policies and Codes I determine that the application subject of this assessment report should be determined in accordance with the recommendation.
I have exercised my delegation of authority, in accordance with the instrument of delegation dated 22nd August 2000, to determine this application.
G:\TOWN\WP\DEVE2002HOLMES138
D/0982/2001/GB
Section 82A - Review to increase the height of the front fence
24 Battery Street, COOGEE
Simon Stonier
The Section 82A Review of Determination has been referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Freda Backes, Dominic Sullivan, Paul Tracey.
On 27 November 2001, Development Consent was refused under delegated authority to increase the height of the front fence.
The primary issue relating to this review is the appropriateness of the proposed height of the front fence (being 1800mm – 2200mm) in relation to the streetscape.
The recommendation is that Council’s original determination be confirmed.
The application before Council is for an 82A Review of Council’s determination of the development application No. 982/01 dated 27th November 2001.
The original application involved an increase in height of the front fence. The current front fence ranges from a height of 1050mm -1450mm and approval is being sought to increase the height to 1800mm -2200mm. The front fence is located along the street frontage of No. 24 Battery St and is to be rendered brickwork to match the existing wall.
The reasons for the review request are discussed under Section 7 Environmental Assessment.
The subject site is located on the southern side of Battery St opposite the intersection with Mundarrah St. The streetscape contains a mixture of architectural styles and the subject site is a weatherboard cottage of a similar style to the adjoining property.
The existing front fence is of a similar style and forms to that of the adjoining property and is characteristic of the dominant fence form within the street.
There are some examples of terraced fences of a higher height than the dominant form however these fences do not provide a positive contribution to the area and the form is not encouraged within the streetscape.
Development Application No. 982/01 was determined under delegated authority on the 27 November 2001. A previous Development Application No.699/01 was lodged with Council which also sought an increase in height of the front fence to a maximum height of 2200mm, the application was refused on the 21 August 2001.
The current 82A review was received within 28 days of the date of the determination of DA 982/01.
5. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 82A
Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 enables an applicant to request a review of a determination or condition/s of development consent. Council may review the determination and as a consequence of the review, may confirm or change the determination.
A review can only be made on the application as determined. The application cannot be altered or amended as part of the review determination.
The application was not notified as no objections were raised in relation to the original application and the application was not altered from that originally notified.
The site is zoned 2A 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: -
The objectives of this clause are to ensure that development will not have an impact on the aesthetic appearance of the foreshore.
The proposed front fence is located to the front of the building, and is not visible from the foreshore. The development will not have a direct impact on the aesthetic appearance of the foreshore, however it will have an impact on the visual qualities of the locality.
(b) Development Control Plan Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancy
P1 Front fences are integrated with streetscape.
S1 Sandstone fences and walls are retained/recycled.
Solid front fences in front of the building line no higher than 1.2m.
Fences in front of the building line no higher than 1.8m with upper two thirds at least 50% open. (Not applicable in Heritage Conservation Areas).
Non-compliance with preferred solution as the proposed front fence will be of a height between 1800mm-2200mm of masonry construction.
7.1 Reasons for the review
· The proposed increase is required for protection from car noise as the property is located on an intersection.
· The proposed increase is required for protection from car headlights.
· The proposed increase is required for protection form dust and dirt from the street.
· The proposed increase would provide safety to residents in the event of a car accident.
· The fence will make a positive contribution to the streetscape and existing fence form.
· The proposal seeks to satisfy the objectives of Section 4.8 under the Development Control Plan.
· The proposal seeks to minimise deviation from the preferred solutions of the Development Control Plan (DCP)
It is considered that the existing fence of a height of up to 1450mm is sufficient to ensure the property is protected from headlight glare, dust from the street and to provide protection to the property from a car accident. Additional landscaping would better improve sound attenuation to the site.
The subject property is located on an intersection of two narrow residential streets that do not experience traffic flows greater than that of surrounding residents and as such a greater wall height is not necessary to provide for additional protection.
The additional height of the fence will not provide a positive contribution to the streetscape and does not endeavour to meet the objectives performance requirements or the preferred solution contained within the DCP – Dwelling Houses.
7.2 Development Control Plans and Council Policies
The proposed front fence does not comply with the preferred solution for front fences in relation to the proposed height as detailed above in the compliance table.
The objectives for front fences contained within the DCP are to:
1. Ensure the fencing integrates with the streetscape and contributes positively to street character.
2. Ensure front fencing is integrated with landscape and dwelling design.
3. Ensure adequate privacy, amenity, safety and security for occupants.
The proposed additional height does not achieve these objectives, as the front fence does not integrate with the existing pattern of front fences. The front fence does not relate to the landscaping of the site or the dwelling design, as the fence will simply obscure the site from the street. The level of privacy, amenity, safety and security considered reasonable for the subject site is enjoyed/experienced with the existing front fence. The objectives contained within the DCP are not achieved with this proposal.
7.2 Urban Design
Having regard to the existing streetscape, the pattern of front fences and the architectural character of the dwelling the proposed design of the front fence is not an appropriate design solution.
The dwelling contributes positively to the streetscape and the proposed fence would obscure the dwelling. High, solid front fences result in an intimidating and unattractive streetscape where the opportunity for passive surveillance is reduced.
The erection of a 2200mm front fence is 1000mm over the preferred height and as such will result in an unacceptable precedent within the street and the immediate vicinity.
The front fence, if approved, would interrupt the existing continuity between front fences of adjoining properties.
The application has been reviewed taking into account the applicant’s reasons for requesting the review and it is not considered that the reasons for review provide justification to the proposed development objectives and performance requirements of the DCP-Dwelling Houses and as such the proposal does not comply with the determination of DA 982/01 should be confirmed.
A. THAT the Determination of Development Application No. 982/01 dated 27 November 2001, which refused the increase in height of the front fence at 24 Battery St be confirmed.
Delegated Report dated 22 November 2001
Report of the Director of Planning –22nd November 2001
PROPERTY: 24 Battery Street Clovelly
FILE REF: DA 982/01
APPLICANT: S Stonier
OWNER: S Stonier
PROPOSAL: Increased height of front fence
VALUE OF WORK: $ 1 000
DATE SUBMITTED: 19th October 2001
The locality is residential in nature and contains a mixture of older style dwellings, contemporary dwellings and multi unit housing development. The subject premises is on the southern side of Battery Street and contains a single storey older style timber dwelling.
At present there is an existing rendered masonry wall upon the front boundary, which varies in height from 1050mm to 1450mm as the site falls towards the east. This masonry wall matches the wall to the adjoining premises at No.26 Battery Street, which is a similar style dwelling and vintage of the subject premises and together both dwellings make a positive contribution to the local streetscape.
The application details the provision of additional courses of brickwork above the existing fence, which will increase the overall height of the wall to between 1800mm and 2200mm, with returns to both side boundaries.
Generally the objectives and performance requirements for fences in the DCP are to ensure that front fencing is integrated with the street scape and is compatible with the appearance of the dwelling and any established local fence form and material.
The proposed addition to the existing masonry wall does not comply with either the overall objectives or the preferred solutions of the DCP in that the increased height of the wall will not integrate with the local streetscape and will be incompatible with the established fence form, particularly the adjoining premises. With respect to the preferred solutions, the solid wall would have a total height varying from 1800mm to 2200mm, which is in direct contravention of the maximum permitted height of a solid fence or wall of 1200mm.
It is acknowledged that there are other examples of solid masonry walls in excess of 1200mm within this street, however those walls were considered under previous controls and have set a poor precedent for streetscape amenity, and it is not considered that the local streetscape is significantly compromised to satisfactorily accommodate further solid walls of this height.
In support of their application the applicant states that the increased wall height is necessary to alleviate nuisance caused by car headlights, noise from cars and dust from the road. Battery Street and the adjoining Mundarrah Street are normal residential streets that are not used for any through traffic and an argument that this particular premises has exceptional circumstances that would permit departure from Council’s DCO controls could not be substantiated.
In addition, it is noted that the applicant has recently bought the premises, however the local environment and constraints of the site have not altered since the applicant considered the purchase of the premises.
The application has been referred to the Director of Assets and Infrastructure for comment, an advisory condition has been provided for inclusion with any consent granted.
The owners of adjoining properties were notified of the proposed development on the 25th October 2001, no response has been received.
The proposed alterations to the existing masonry wall to the front boundary, with returns to both side boundaries do not comply with the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies and will have a significant adverse impact upon the local streetscape and will be out of keeping with the established local fence forms.
The proposal does not satisfy the relevant assessment criteria and therefore is recommended for refusal.
THAT Council's Team Leader under delegated authority from the General Manager, as the consent authority, refuse development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No.982/01 for permission to alter the existing masonry wall to the front of the dwelling at 24 Battery Street Clovelly for the following reasons:-
1 The proposed alteration to the existing masonry wall to the front boundary does not comply with the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the addition to the boundary wall will not be integrated with the existing local fence form or make a positive contribution to the streetscape.
2 The proposed alteration to the existing masonry wall to the front boundary does not comply with the preferred solutions of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the solid masonry wall will exceed the maximum nominated height of 1200mm.
3 Approval of the increased height of the existing masonry to the front and side boundaries would not be in the public interest.
G:\TOWN\WP\DEVE2001BATTERY24NO.2
DA1201/2001
Subdivision of the approved attached dual occupancy development into two Torrens Title allotments
1 Brisbane Street, Chifley
Mr O Sobel
The application has been referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Michael Daley, Charles Matthews and Alan White.
The main issue relates to proposed non-compliances with the minimum lot size requirements applying in the Residential 2A Zone under Clause 30 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. An objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 (SEPP No.1) has been submitted in this regard.
The SEPP 1 objection is not considered to be well founded and the application is recommended for refusal.
It is proposed to subdivide the approved attached dual occupancy development currently under construction on the site into two Torrens Title allotments. The proposed Lot 1 would have an area of 408.7sq.m and a frontage to Brisbane Street of 19.06m. The proposed Lot 2 would have an area of 379.3sq.m and a frontage to Brisbane Street of 13.275m.
The subject site is located at the corner of Brisbane Street, Wassell Street and Burke Street, Chifley. The site is located at the western end of Brisbane Street and is an irregular shaped allotment, with a frontage to Brisbane Street of 32.3m and a narrow rear boundary (3.13m). The site area is 787.9sq.m.
The site contains an approved two storey, attached dual occupancy development, which is currently under construction. The dwellings are of a symmetrical form running along the length of the site.
Development in the locality comprises mainly single and two storey dwelling houses, with some attached and detached dual occupancy development interspersed. On the opposite side of Wassell Street however, is 2B zoned land which contains two storey townhouse development.
01/00429/GD To erect a two storey attached dual occupancy.
Approved 24 September 2001.
6.1 Asset and Infrastructure Services
An application has been received to Torrens Title subdivide 1 Brisbane Street into two new lots.
It is noted that the LEP specifies that the minimum allotment size for allotments resulting from the subdivision of land (within zone 2A) is 450 square metres. The proposed lots at the above site do not meet this requirement. The Planning and Environment Department to determine whether the proposed allotment sizes are satisfactory.
A two-storey Dual Occupancy is currently under construction at 1 Brisbane Street in accordance with Development Application 429/01. Should the application for subdivision be approved, the applicant shall comply with all development consent conditions for Development Application 429/01 prior to release of the subdivision plan.
A Master Plan is not required as the site is less than 4000sq.m in area.
- State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standards
- Subdivision Policy
The site is zoned Residential 2A 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:-
Clause 30(1):
Minimum allotment size that may be subdivided for an attached dual occupancy in the Residential 2A zone is 900sq.m.
Clause 30(3):
Minimum 450sq.m and 12m frontage for each lot resulting from the subdivision of land with the Residential 2A zone.
Site area=408.7sqm Frontage=19.06m
Site area=379.3sqm
Frontage=13.275m
The site areas of the existing lot and each of the two proposed lots do not comply. SEPP No.1 objection submitted in this regard. See Section 9.1 of report.
Proposed lots comply with minimum 12m frontage requirements.
9.1 Allotment Sizes
Under Clause 30(1) of Randwick LEP1998, the minimum allotment size resulting from the subdivision within Zone 2A is 450sq.m and each allotment must have a frontage of at least 12m.
Under Clause 30(3), the minimum allotment size for an allotment which may be subdivided to create separate allotments for the dwellings comprising an attached dual occupancy within Zone 2A is 900sq.m.
The proposed Lot 1 has an area of 408.7sq.m and frontage of 19.06m and the proposed Lot 2 has an area of 379.3sq.m and a frontage of 13.275m.
The existing and proposed area of the lot sizes does not comply with the above standards.
The applicant has submitted an objection under SEPP No.1 to the proposed non-compliances with these standards. In the objection, the applicant argues that compliance with the standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case for the following reasons:
- The proposed allotment areas, although deficient from the minimum standard specified in the LEP, are still sufficiently sized to satisfy the needs of the future occupants of the dwellings, will adequately fit in with the existing subdivision pattern and will have no impact on the amenity of the locality.
- The ample street frontage of each lot will not allow the subdivision to be perceived from the public domain as a subdivision that would fail to comply with any relevant development standard.
- The proposal maintains the scale and character of development already approved and will have no adverse impact on the local amenity.
- The proposed allotment frontages and configurations are consistent with the subdivision pattern in the locality and are sufficiently sized to provide adequate amenity to occupants within each dwelling.
- The proposal therefore will not set a precedent.
The purpose of the subdivision standards as stated under Clause 30 of the LEP are:
To establish minimum requirements for the subdivision of land within the Residential 2A Zone for a single dwelling house and an attached dual occupancy in order to protect and enhance local amenity.
Under Clause 2 of the LEP, the stated Aims of the LEP include:
Under Clause 10 of the LEP, the stated objectives of Zone 2A include:
(c) to enable redevelopment for low density housing forms including dwelling houses and 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.
Existing development on the Residential 2A zoned land in this locality may be characterised as comprising predominantly freestanding dwelling houses with some attached dual occupancy development interspersed. Existing lot sizes in the locality
generally range from about 625 to 650sq.m with frontages of about 13-15m.
The smallest existing lot sizes in the locality may be found at No.4 Burke Street (461.6sq.m) and Nos.2 and 2A Warburton Street (467.9sq.m each) to the east of the site, all of which comply with the minimum 450sq.m lot size (and 12m frontage) requirement of the LEP. It should be noted that the allotment areas and configurations of these properties are in fact atypical of the locality
The proposed allotment areas of 408.7sq.m for Lot 1 and 379.3sq.m for Lot 2 depart significantly from both the established allotment sizes and subdivision pattern in
the locality and the minimum 450sq.m requirement of the LEP. It is therefore considered that the proposed subdivision would set an undesirable precedent for future Torrens Title subdivision in the locality and would not achieve the stated purpose of the standards or the relevant aims and 2A Zone objectives of the LEP, which seek to protect and enhance local residential amenity. Further, the proposal is inconsistent with the predominant existing character of the locality, which is reflected in the locality’s prevailing subdivision pattern. The proposed irregular boundary configuration that delineates the rear yard spaces of the approved dwellings is also inconsistent with the standard configuration of lots within the subdivision pattern in the locality. The SEPP1 objection is not considered to be well founded.
9.2 Amenity Impacts
The proposal will not alter the external appearance of the approved development on the site except by the provision of dividing fencing between the proposed lots. No adverse amenity impacts will be occasioned to adjoining properties by the proposal. The proposed subdivision will provide adequate areas of private open space for each of the approved dwellings.
Notwithstanding that the physical relationship of the development to adjoining properties will not alter, any formal subdivision of the site will alter the classification of the development and the attached dual occupancy development will become two dwelling houses with the potential for greater floor space on each new allotment (i.e. a FSR of 0.6:1 would apply to the two dwellings if subdivided, as opposed to the 0.5:1 FSR standard which applies to attached dual occupancy development resulting in greater amenity impacts to adjoining properties). The subdivision also creates the potential for the symmetrical arrangement and form of the existing attached dual occupancy building to be compromised by additions to either of the two dwellings in the future. Any additions to the two dwellings should be integrated and subdivision would make this objective much more difficult to achieve.
The proposed allotment areas depart significantly from the relevant standards of LEP1998 and the proposed allotment areas and configurations are inconsistent with the existing subdivision pattern in the locality.
The SEPP No.1 objection to the subdivision standards of the LEP is not considered to be well founded as the proposed subdivision will not maintain the character of the established residential area. The 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. 1201/2001 for Subdivision of the approved attached dual occupancy development into two Torrens Title allotments at 1 Brisbane Street, Chifley for the following reasons:-
1. The proposal does not comply with the minimum subdivision standards applying in the Residential 2A Zone under Clauses 30(1) and (3) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, and the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 in relation to these standards is not considered to be well founded.
2. The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the existing established subdivision pattern in the locality in terms of the proposed allotment areas and configurations.
3. The proposal would create an undesirable precedent for future Torrens Title subdivision in the locality due to the significant departures from both the subdivision standards of Clauses 30(1) and (3) of Randwick LEP1998, and the established allotment sizes and subdivision pattern in the locality
4. The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with and contravenes the relevant Aims [Clause 2(g)] and 2A Zone Objectives [Clauses 10 (1) (a) and (c)] of Randwick LEP1998, which seek to maintain the character of established residential areas and to protect and enhance local residential amenity.
5. The proposed subdivision would be inconsistent with and contrary to the desired objective of integrating the design of any future additions to the two dwellings so as to maintain the symmetrical form and appearance of the existing development on the site.
A4 configuration
Director Planning & Environment's Report 14/2002
DCP Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual occupancies amendment - Carports and Garages
98/S/0897
Copy of existing Clause 4.7 DCP - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.
This report reviews the current provisions for car spaces, carports and garages, which are regulated by the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies, adopted on 15th February 2000. Following Council’s resolution of 9th October 2001 to review the provisions, options and recommendations are now provided for an alternate approach.
The DCP discourages the location of car spaces, carports and garages in front of the building line. This is principally because these types of structures generally deter from the existing streetscape, especially where there is not already a substantial predominance of such structures. Since the adoption of the DCP Council has resolved, on many occasions, to vary recommendations made in accordance with these elements of the DCP. It was resolved by Council to initiate amendments to the DCP to accommodate the recent pattern of resolutions.
An investigation of the relevant resolutions could not link a tangible pattern to the decisions other than the fact that most of the proposals were marginal in terms of their impact on the street when compared with other more obvious (larger and bulkier) proposals. However, exceptions to this pattern do exist. Some larger double carports, that dominate the streetscape, have in the past, been approved. Therefore it is proposed to amend the DCP with the aim of achieving consistency with the recent resolutions.
The issue was considered by Council on the 9th October 2001, the report outlined the various areas of impact on streetscapes including reference to the Randwick Heritage and Visual Character Study (stage one).
The report concluded by stating; “Parking provision on sites which are not large enough to accommodate cars detracts from the appearance of dwellings and the streetscape, and from the character of existing neighbourhoods. The provision of car spaces, carports and garages on such sites detracts from the setting of the dwelling and from the urban landscape.
On 9 October 2001 Council resolved that it review and amend the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies, in conjunction with an investigation of the cost to Council of loss of on-street parking spaces as a result of the provision of on-site parking, including consideration of options for reimbursement to Council for the loss of public car parking.
The existing DCP controls are as follows:
To ensure on-site parking and driveways are not visually obtrusive and do not detract from the appearance of dwellings or the local streetscape.
To provide convenient and safe car parking and access.
Note: Council’s car parking DCP sets out on site parking requirements. The Parking DCP requires that each 1 or 2 bedroom dwelling house be provided with one on site car parking space. Each dwelling with three or more bedrooms is provided with two on site parking spaces. For more information readers are referred to the Parking DCP.
Carports, garages and car parking areas are located and designed to:
Conveniently and safely serve users;
Enable the efficient use of car spaces and access ways, including adequate manoeuvrability for vehicles between the site and the street
Not breach the predominant building alignment.
Not dominate or detract from the appearance of the development and the local streetscape;
Be compatible in scale, form, materials and finishes with the associated dwelling.
Car parking areas and access ways are designed, surfaced and sloped to facilitate stormwater infiltration on the site.
Uncovered car parking areas are suitably landscaped to enhance amenity.
The relevant Preferred Solution (S2) states;
“Where vehicle access is available only from the front of the allotment, car parking areas, carports and garages (are) located behind the building line”.
The Preferred Solution is definitive as to where to locate parking related structures and it could be viewed as a benchmark control, which may be varied if compliance with the relevant Performance Requirement can be satisfactorily demonstrated. However, the Performance Requirement (P2) is also specific in not permitting the general building line to be breached. The only element of flexibility in this requirement is with the variability associated with the definition of “predominant” building alignment. The predominant building alignment may vary significantly from street to street and even within a street. Council has approved a number of carports and garages breaching the predominant building line, therefore being inconsistent which the objectives (and P2) of the DCP.
Car Parking (spaces) Areas:
This section of the DCP also regulates hardstand parking areas. As these spaces are subject to the same Performance Requirements (P2) they are also generally prohibited from the area before the building line. This is inconsistent with the DCP for Exempt and Complying Development, which allows this type of development before the building line providing it meets with other specific conditions. Two conditions, which directly relate to the Preferred Solutions of the DCP for Dwelling Houses and attached Dual Occupancies concern maximum permissible width (35% of the site) and a minimum landscaped area of 40% (20% permeable). This effectively means that one DCP allows hardstand parking areas (conditionally) before the Building line whilst the other does not.
Hardstand parking areas are considered to be less obtrusive in streetscape terms when compared with carports and garages. They usually only present a problem when a site is too narrow or generally small as the extent of paving would significantly compromise existing landscaped area and dominate the front yard. In some instances where the depth of the front yard is inadequate to park a vehicle the front veranda is compromised. This occurrence detracts from the subject dwelling house as well as the street scape if there is not already a pattern of these within a street.
In many instances, however, where a carport or garage would significantly detract from a particular streetscape a hardstand parking area may be acceptable. It should therefore be regulated differently to garages and carports.
It is recommended that a note be included in the DCP to clarify the relationship of this DCP and the Exempt and Complying DCP and to highlight instances where these spaces may be considered preferable to “structures” before the building line.
The DCP options include; retaining the current controls; deleting the restrictive Performance Requirement (P2); or changing it to make it less prescriptive (as at present it acts in a similar way to a prohibition).
Option 1: No change to current controls
Retaining the existing controls in the DCP (P2 and S2) will continue to restrict parking structures before the building line. This would continue to give definitive direction and controls for applicants and assessment officers to follow. However, each time a structure breaching the “predominant” building line is approved by Council, it is effectively contradicting the relevant Performance Requirement. Although this is Council Officers preferred option, it’s application has been inconsistent.
Option 2: Amend the Performance Requirement P2 by deleting the existing Preferred Solution (P2).
The absence of a prescriptive Performance Requirement would create a greater degree of flexibility in varying from the Preferred Solutions and would place more reliance on merit assessment of streetscape impact. Retaining the Preferred Solution would continue discouraging Garages and Carports before the predominant building alignment by inferring unacceptability. This option would generally allow hardstand areas in front of the building lines subject to not detracting from the streetscape.
Option 3: Delete controls relating to Garages and Carports before the building line.
Delete DCP controls relating to the building line restriction (P2 and S2). This would permit structures before the building line. This would give a general indication of acceptability subject to performance assessment and may make it difficult to consistently apply P3 “not dominate or detract from the appearance of the development and the local streetscape”. It should be noted that a general proliferation of garages and carports before building lines should be expected, with likely adverse impacts on many streetscapes. This option would lead to a general permissibility of structures and a proliferation of garages/carports in front of the building line thus adversely impacting on the amenity of the streetscape. This option is not supported.
Effect on Street Parking
The provision of driveway crossings on narrow sites generally results in the loss of on street parking spaces. These driveways in narrow streets often also result in the need for additional space on the opposite side of the street to allow manoeuvring in and out of the driveway. While these proposals create a parking space within the applicant’s property, they result in fewer spaces on the street available to the community. They effectively result in the privatisation of public street car parking. The costs and benefits associated with off street parking provision are arguable.
As per council’s resolution a number of Local Governments have been consulted to explore ways in which to seek reimbursement for the loss of public parking. Whilst some Councils have investigated this issue it was found that none had translated into a reimbursement mechanism or contribution scheme as no mechanisms under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act exist. Establishing a satisfactory nexus between reimbursement and the provision of public parking is difficult. Council would need to have in place a series of programs to provide public parking within proximity of where the contributions are collected. It is anticipated that the contribution amounts would also vary depending on extent and location (being based on the cost of local land acquisition) of the required driveway access. If Council was to only target driveway access to parking areas and associated structures before the building line a question of equity would emerge. It would then seem equitable to apply it to all new driveway applications.
Reimbursement for Impacts on Streetscape Amenity
In the absence of any feasible parking provision programmes in residential areas an alternate option may be to link the scheme to a street planting/amenity improvement program. Council already has in place, as part of its Tree Policy, a surcharge for loss of amenity caused by the removal of valuable street trees. This is administered as part of DA assessments by Assets and Infrastructure and applied as a condition of consent. It specifically relates to the amenity value of single (significant) trees. If a DA proposes the removal of a street tree it is assessed and a value is placed on the tree in terms of what it is worth to Council and the local community. The value is derived from a formula utilised by a Draft Australian standard based on the Thyer Method of Tree Valuation. This “amenity” charge has proved useful to Council in helping to fund suitable tree plantings within the locality from where the charge derives. This charge is rarely contested by applicants, presumably as a result of its proportionately insignificant cost relative to the average cost of building works. It is anticipated that an amenity charge based on maintaining streetscape amenity would be considerably higher.
A streetscape amenity value could be derived by establishing a formula based on factors such as; visual impact, historic significance and replacement value (of components that may be provided by Council to improve streetscape amenity). This exercise would, however, be complex and could not be expeditiously dealt with parallel to the aforementioned amendments to the DCP if these amendments are considered an imperative.
It is recommended that an appropriate scheme be investigated in conjunction with Council’s Assets and Infrastructure Department by identifying a suitable program and then linking it by way of a nexus to an appropriate reimbursement scheme.
The existing DCP Performance Requirement (P2), which prescriptively restricts garages and carports before the building line, may be amended to allow greater flexibility in terms of merit assessment. This would make it more consistent with the DCP for Exempt and Complying Development, which presently permits parking areas before the building line in certain circumstances. At the same time, this would also ensure more consistency with the pattern of recent resolutions by removing the inherent contradiction to the existing Performance Requirement, each time these structures are approved when they breach the predominant building line. Therefore Option 2 is the preferred alternative with the inclusion of a ‘note’ relating to hardstand areas.
The likely outcome of changing this DCP control is that a greater number of garages and carports will be approved in front of existing building lines. It is considered that this will also generally be at the expense of some streetscape amenity and existing on street parking spaces.
Before introducing any program based on amenity impact, a complex plan would be required to create such a program. The time required to establish a plan would hinder amending the DCP expeditiously if the changes are subject to this reimbursement scheme. It is recommended that the amendment to the DCP not be subject to the scheme at this stage. The exercise may be investigated, initiated, devised and possibly introduced at a later date.
Council agree to one of the following options:
i. Option 1.
That no change be made to current DCP controls.
ii. Option 2.
Council resolve to prepare and exhibit the following recommended amendments to the Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies, under Section 72 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, amending the DCP by deleting:
P2 Not breach the predominant building alignment
Council further investigate the validity and possible establishment of a program to reimburse for loss of public parking and/or streetscape amenity associated with parking structures and spaces in front of building lines through out the city area.
Copy of existing Clause 4.7 DCP- Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies
THOMAS KULCHAR
Director Planning & Environment's Report 15/2002
DCP Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies proposed amendment - Solar Access and Energy Efficiency
This report reviews the current provisions for solar access and energy efficiency, which are regulated by the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies, adopted by Council on the 15 th February 2000. In the past two years these provisions of the DCP have been tested and in the majority of infill development areas this requirement cannot be met. This provision has been reviewed and an appropriate performance requirement is proposed.
The Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP addresses the importance of minimising the loss of and providing for solar access to neighbouring properties when designing a new building or additions to an existing dwelling. Clause 3.1 Solar Access and Efficiency includes performance planning controls that require at least 3 hours of sunlight to the living areas and principal outdoor recreation space of the neighbouring dwelling. The objective of these controls is to maintain and protect the solar access and amenity enjoyed by neighbours.
The performance requirement of the DCP could have the effect of prohibiting two (2) storey dwellings in many infill areas.
The lack of flexibility within these planning controls has become quite evident. Identical Performance Requirements and Preferred Solutions reduce the ability to conduct a case-by-case merit based assessment of a proposal. A review of the current planning controls in the DCP was instigated to examine this situation.
SEDA’s (Sustainable Energy Development Authority) energy efficiency initiatives are relevant to the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP. SEDA have advised that Council’s development standards should remain compatible with the Energy Smart Homes Policy. Council’s DCP addresses most issues, however its hot water system requirements are more limiting.
Existing DCP Controls:
The existing controls for solar access and energy efficiency are as follows:
3.1.1Objectives
· To promote energy efficiency in the design, construction and use of housing.
· To encourage the use of reusable, recyclable and renewable resources in construction.
· To reduce energy costs in demolition, reconstruction and recycling by maximising the life cycle of buildings.
· To encourage the use of passive solar design.
· To protect solar access enjoyed by neighbours.
Performance Requirements (P1) & (P9) and Preferred Solution (S9)
A full list of these requirements is contained in Attachment 1. The relevant Performance Requirement (P1) & (P9) and Preferred Solution (S9) are contained below:
Buildings and internal layouts are designed to minimise energy consumed for heating and cooling, eg. by incorporating:
· solar hot water systems;
The design and siting of new buildings, alterations and additions to existing buildings and landscaping minimises loss of solar access to neighbouring properties.
North facing windows to living areas of neighbouring dwellings receive at least 3 hours of sunlight over at least part of their surface between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June. If less than 3 hours is available under current conditions, access to sunlight is not reduced.
The principal outdoor recreation space of neighbouring dwellings receives at least 3 hours of sunlight over at least part of its area between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June. If less than 3 hours is available under current conditions, access to sunlight is not reduced.
Solar access to existing or future solar collectors on adjacent buildings is maintained between 9.00am and 3.00pm each day throughout the year.
Currently the performance requirement (P1) relates only to solar hot water systems. It would be beneficial to incorporate solar, gas and heat pumps into the one requirement. Once Council has implemented SEDA’s hot water requirements residents would become eligible for a discounts under SEDA’s Energy Smart Homes Policy.
The Preferred Solution is definitive as to the availability of at least 3 hours of sunlight to the living areas and principal outdoor recreation space of neighbouring dwellings between 9.00am and 3.00pm on the 21 June. This Preferred Solution could be viewed as a benchmark control, which may be varied if compliance with the relevant Performance Requirement can be satisfactorily demonstrated. However, at present the Performance Requirement is identical to the Preferred Solution. There is no element of flexibility in this requirement therefore compliance is mandatory making merit based assessment very difficult.
The control options include; retaining the current controls, deleting the restrictive Performance Requirement or changing it to make it less prescriptive
Option 1: No change to current controls.
Retaining the existing performance requirements (P9) in the DCP will continue to inhibit potentially viable developments by imposing controls that lack flexibility with regard to providing at least 3 hours of sunlight to living areas and outdoor recreation space of the neighbouring dwellings. Where available under current conditions the existing situation where the Performance Requirements and Preferred Solutions are identical does not allow for any variation when designing a development for a specific site.
Option 2: Delete the performance requirements and preferred solutions relating to providing at least 3 hours of sunlight to living areas and outdoor recreation space of the neighbouring dwellings.
Deleting these performance requirements (P9) and preferred solutions (S9) would allow for inappropriate and unsatisfactory development when considering the impact upon neighbouring properties. Overshadowing of neighbouring dwellings and private open space could become a major issue if the controls were deleted. It should also be noted that a loss of privacy could be experienced by neighbouring properties in the event of removing the controls relating to sunlight availability due to an increase in the bulk of new developments. The deletion of the controls relating to providing at least 3 hours of sunlight to living areas and outdoor recreation space could potentially impact greatly upon the surrounding properties.
Option 3: Amend existing Performance Requirements (P9) related to providing at least 3 hours of sunlight to living areas and outdoor recreation space to neighbouring dwellings whilst retaining the existing Preferred Solutions.
The amendment of the prescriptive Performance Requirements would create a greater degree of flexibility in varying from the Preferred Solutions while meeting solar access requirements and would place more reliance on a merit assessment of access to sunlight for neighbouring properties. By retaining the Preferred Solution, the ability to utilise the simple and prescriptive approach will also be retained.
Performance requirement (P1) should be amended to incorporate solar, gas and heat pumps under one control relating to energy efficient hot water systems.
The existing performance requirements (detailed above) should be amended to allow for greater flexibility in terms of merit based assessment. This would enable a situation where the performance requirement would provide for more merit-based assessment yet the preferred solutions would still provide for prescriptive planning control when required.
The likely outcome of removing the numerical controls from the performance requirement will be to enable the applicant of a proposal to display how they meet the objectives of the DCP relating to solar access to neighbouring properties without being overly restricted by set standards
Copy of existing Clause 3.1 DCP - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies
ACTING MANAGER ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
Director Planning & Environment's Report 16/2002
88-98 KING STREET, RANDWICK - MASTERPLAN AMENDMENT FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF LAND FOR MULTI-UNIT HOUSING AND STA CAR PARKING. THE AMENDMENT REPLACES PART OF THE EXISTING MASTERPLAN ADOPTED FOR THE SIR MOSES MONTEFIORE JEWISH AGED CARE HOME.
98/S/4404
This application is brought before the Committee as it relates to a Master Plan.
The proposal is to amend part of the existing Master Plan adopted for development of an aged care facility (Sir Moses Montefiore Jewish Home) on former State Transit Authority land at 88-120 King Street, Randwick (Lots 201 and 202 on DP879576).
The new proposal relates to that part of the land immediately adjacent to the bus depot, between King Street and the University Press property to the rear (Lot 201 on DP879576). The Montefiore group is no longer able to develop Lot 201, although it still intends to develop the aged care facility on Lot 202. The new proponent for Lot 201 (De La Vega Architects) is seeking to develop the site for multi-unit housing.
The Master Plan amendment sets out the long term strategic direction for redevelopment of Lot 201 for multi-unit housing (approximately 100 dwellings in buildings of 4-5 storeys above basement parking) and car parking associated with the adjoining State Transit Authority bus depot (approximately 60 spaces).
The main issues associated with the proposal are its interrelationship with the Montefiore scheme, appropriate building heights, density and spacing, streetscape impact, amenity for future residents within the site and the future adjacent aged care facility, and preservation of the heritage values of the chimney.
The Master Plan amendments are recommended for adoption subject to a number of variations to address the key issues.
The proposal for Lot 201 is to develop multi-unit housing in a series of buildings across the site. Four main buildings are proposed being 4 and 5 storeys in height over two basement car parking levels.
Building A- 4 storeys; runs east-west through the site near the north (rear) boundary;
Building B- 5 storeys, runs east-west through the middle of the site;
Building C- 4 storeys, runs north-south along the east side of the front part of the site;
Building D- 4 storeys, runs north-south along the west side of the front part of the site.
The first floor level of Buildings C and D above the basement will be below the level of King Street and below the original ground levels of the site (due to the excavation) such that Buildings C and D will be 3 storeys above the level in King Street. Building B is to be placed over three levels of parking and will be 5 storeys above the level in King Street
The arrangement of Buildings C and D either side of the chimney creates an open space axis behind the chimney. The chimney is to be restored and a forecourt area accessible to the public is to be provided around the base of the chimney to allow for its appreciation. The central axis is continued through a gap at the ground level of Building D providing pedestrian access for residents through to the rear of the site.
The Master Plan document proposes approximately 100 dwelling units (the notional floor plans indicate approximately 95 units). All of the units are in a ‘cross-over’ arrangement (spanning the width of the building with walls and openings to each side to enable cross ventilation and outlook in both directions). Some of the units are to be on a single storey some are two storey.
The proposed dwelling mix is: 35% 1 bedroom
60% 2 bedroom
Although the building plans are not sufficiently progressed to accurately determine the floor space ratio, the Master Plan material refers to a floor space ratio of up to 1.3:1 (0.4 over the maximum of 0.9 permitted under the LEP).
The buildings will have a site cover of 60% (leaving the remaining area above ground) for landscaping and open space. Of that 60%, 30% will be clear of the basement podium and able to be deep-planted. Common open space areas for residents will be provided in two main areas; between buildings A and B (a large area of about 1200sqm), and between buildings C and D (an area of about 300sqm). Individual dwellings will be provided with private open space in the form of courtyards or balconies.
Building setback and separation distances indicated in the Master Plan, include:
Side Boundaries - 3.5m for Buildings A and B; 9m for Buildings C and D
Rear Boundary - 12m for Building A
Front Boundary – 12m for Buildings C and D
Separation Distances – 24m between Buildings A and B; 2m between Building B and Buildings C and D; 12m between Buildings C and D.
The building depths (excluding balconies) range 13-14m and the uppermost level of Buildings A and D is stepped back behind the footprint of the levels below.
On-site car parking for residents is to be provided in accordance with Council’s DCP – Parking (approx. 150 spaces). A further 60 spaces are to be provided for STA staff parking.
Vehicular access to the site is to be via a combined entry/exit driveway off King Street to the west side of the chimney. The STA parking area is intended to be separated from the main site by stratum subdivision at a future stage. Cars will enter the STA car park from the main vehicular access point on King Street, and will exit to the bus depot via a driveway at the north-west (rear) corner of the site.
The proposal has been revised since it was first lodged, in response to issues raised by Council officers and public submissions. The revisions include:
· deletion of a 5th building that was proposed to run east-west at the front of the site;
· reduction in the height of Building A from 5 to 4 storeys;
· reduction in the extent of the basement car park, and corresponding increases in the area available for landscaped open space (from 50 % to 60% of the site) and the area available for deep planting (from 30 to 40% of the site).
The revisions were intended to address issues related to building density and spacing, solar access to units and open space within the site and on the adjoining Monetfiore land, landscape character, streetscape appearance, and heritage values of the chimney. The revision open up the axis behind the chimney into the centre of the site and although Buildings C and D have been lengthened in place of the deleted building, the overall floor space of the development has been reduced.
The site is located on the northern side of King Street in Randwick. It is 7032sqm in area and has a frontage to King Street of 58.58m. It represents approximately 20% of the total site area previously proposed for an aged care facility under the Montefiore scheme.
The land is located immediately east of a State Transit Authority (STA) bus depot. The land was previously part of the bus depot. It is still owned by the State Transit Authority and its sale is subject to a requirement to provide 60 car parking spaces for STA staff.
The site previously formed part of the largest depot for Sydney’s tram system. The depot dated from circa 1881. It later became a depot for the bus system. The bus depot operations on the site ceased in 1985 and the buildings have been largely demolished. A 45m high brick chimney stack from a former boiler house remains on the site, adjacent to the King Street frontage. The chimney is visible from a number of locations in the surrounding area and is a prominent local landmark and reference to the historic use of the site. It is recognised as one of the major industrial chimney stacks surviving in NSW.
Substantial earthworks have taken place across the site as part of the former depot and its demolition. The levels in the centre of the site are up to 3m below the levels adjacent to King Street, and there is a concrete stockpile towards the rear boundary.
Land surrounding the site includes:
· To the west – STA bus depot, which includes a large workshop building setback 15m from the site’s western boundary;
· To the north – University Press, which includes a large workshop building located along the site’s northern boundary (the building’s eaves overhang the site);
· To the east – vacant land formerly part of the bus depot, owned by Montefiore and proposed for development with an aged care facility;
· To the south – on the opposite site of King Street residential properties including dwelling houses and multi-unit buildings.
Apart from the bus depot and university press, the locality is predominantly residential.
On 10 July 2001, the Council (Health, Building & Planning Committee) resolved to adopt a Master Plan for redevelopment of 88-129 King Street (Lots 201 and 202) for an aged care facility incorporating self-care residential units, nursing / hostel care facilities, day care centre, synagogue, supporting retail, and ancillary facilities including therapy centre, pool, dining hall, and library.
The proponent of the aged care facility (Montefiore) is now only interested in developing the aged care facility on Lot 202 and has submitted a revised conceptual layout plan for Lot 202 only. The new multi-unit housing proposal for Lot 201 is in effect an amendment to the adopted Master Plan.
17 objections were received from the following local residents:
1. R & T Laurendet – 20 Dangar St, Randwick
2. A Aitken – 45 Govett Lne, Randwick
3. B & B Findlay – 61 Govett Lne, Randwick
4. Randwick Precinct Committee
5. S East – 7 / 2 Prince St, Randwick
6. S & F Joseph – 28 Dangar St, Randwick
7. Owners of Strata Plan – 89-91 Dangar St, Randwick
8. D & F Ruckert – 15 Mort St, Randwick
9. A Manning – 89 King St, Randwick
10. D Gillespie – no address
11. M Gizycki & J Myatt – 13 Mort St, Randwick
12. H Rigopoulos – 3 Mort St, Randwick and M Criticos – 67 Govett Lne
13. D Pace – 16 Govett St, Randwick
14. R & J Jones – 53 Govett St, Randwick
15. L Ryan – 63 Dangar St, Randwick
16. R Richardson – 55 Dangar St, Randwick
17. C Stopic – 99 King St, Randwick
The main concerns raised in the submissions related to:
· floorspace ratio exceeding the LEP controls without sufficient justification;
· building heights exceeding the LEP controls without sufficient justification;
· scale, height and density of development being out of keeping with the immediate neighbourhood, particularly the predominant one and two storey dwelling houses;
· the height of the heritage chimney and university press building being exceptional and not appropriate to use as a guide to the height of development on the site;
· adverse impacts on the special character and amenity of the surrounding area, including dominance of buildings and increased population pressures such as noise, traffic congestion, lack of parking, and overcrowding of community facilities;
· insufficient capacity in local roads to cater for increased traffic flows;
· adverse impacts from the bus depot detracting from the site’s amenity and value;
· potential restrictions on the future operation of the university printing office;
· noise impacts from the access driveway on the residential buildings opposite;
· modern building design fails to address the heritage character of the area;
· density of development is far in excess of that under the Montefiore scheme; and
· implications for the Montefiore scheme including vehicular access, parking, number of dwellings, open space, and the pedestrian pathway through to Govett Lane.
Montefiore’s representatives also wrote to Council foreshadowing changes to the Master Plan as it relates to the remaining Montefiore site (Lot 202). In making this submission, some concerns were raised over the multi-unit housing proposal in relation to the building bulk, scale and density being considerably in excess of that envisaged by the current planning controls and not in the spirit of the original Master Plan which was prepared on the basis of consultation with the local community for their views on density and scale.
The issues raised in the submissions are addressed in Sections 8 and 9 of this report.
The application has been referred to the relevant technical officers and the following comments and conditions have been provided.
The Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services has reviewed the application material and requirements to be imposed should the Master Plan amendments be adopted.
The requirements include submission of further information at development application stage regarding management of overland stormwater flow and upgrading/reconstruction of an existing stormwater pipeline, and adjustments to the access and parking layout.
The Environmental Health Unit has reviewed the application and supplied conditions to be imposed should the Master Plan amendments be adopted. The conditions require submission of further information addressing site contamination and noise impacts. The information is to be submitted at a later stage, prior to issue of any development consent.
6.3 Strategic Planning (Heritage)
The Council’s Heritage Planner has reviewed the application. Initially, on review of the application as lodged, concerns were raised over the potential impacts of the proposed development on the heritage values of the chimney, particularly in respect of the arrangement of buildings behind the chimney and the extent of earthworks proposed.
In relation to the arrangement of buildings, it was suggested that alternatives should be investigated involving deletion of the southern-most building and extension of the pair of north-south aligned buildings to create an elongated open space backdrop to the chimney, rather than a built backdrop, and provide for better outlook and views of the chimney. This concern is addressed in the revised plans, which include deletion of the southern-most building, creating an open space axis through the site as a backdrop to the chimney. Adoption of the Master Plan amendments should be subject to a requirement for provision of a space around the base of the chimney that is accessible to the public.
In relation to the impact of earthworks, the precise position of the basement and the finished levels around the chimney can not be resolved without detailed assessment of the existing ground levels, the footings and structural stability of the chimney, and the impact of proposed works in proximity to the chimney. Information to support a detailed assessment has not been supplied by the applicant and was not requested for the purpose of assessing the Master Plan submitted previously by Montefiore. A detailed assessment of these aspects is more appropriately undertaken at the future development application stage. Adoption of the Master Plan amendments should be subject to the precise position of the basement and the finished levels around the chimney being subject to further investigation. The same requirements under existing Master Plan for restoration and ongoing maintenance of the chimney, provision of interpretive material, and submission of an archival recordings, should be applied to the Master Plan amendments.
The Master Plan has been submitted to Council for determination under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (LEP) Amendment No. 17. Under the provisions of this LEP, a Master Plan is required for development sites over 4,000m2.
- Development Control Plan – Corner of King and Dangar Streets, Randwick
- Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended
8.1 Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (LEP)
The site is zoned Residential 2C under the LEP. In the 2C zone, multi-unit housing is permissible subject to Council’s consent and the following development standards apply:
Landscaped Area: minimum 50% of the total site area (of which no more than 50% can be over podiums or excavated basement areas).
Floor Space Ratio: maximum 0.9:1
Building Heights: maximum overall 12m; maximum for any external wall 10m
The proposal complies with the minimum landscaped area requirements, but exceeds the floor space ratio and building height requirements.
Although precise areas can not be determined at this stage, the applicant has indicated that the revised layout of buildings and the basement car park achieves a total landscaped area of 60% and an area available for deep planting (clear of the basement and driveways) of 40% of the site area. The proposed areas are in excess of the LEP minimum requirements. Given the increased building heights and floorspace ratios proposed, landscaped areas greater than the standard minimum requirement should be provided to balance the density of development on the site. The landscaped areas should be specified clearly in the adopted Master Plan amendments to ensure that there are in fact achieved.
The building heights proposed are:
Building A (north) - 9.5m
Building B (central) - 15.5m
Buildings C and D (south)- 9.5m
The height proposed are measured above the level in King Street of RL 40m.
Under the LEP definitions, building height is measured as the height above the ground levels that existed on the day that the LEP was gazetted (i.e. 26 June 1998). Substantial earthworks took place on the site long before 1998. However, earthworks associated with demolition of the bus depot facilities may have taken place since that date. The site’s existing levels range from RL37m in the middle sections to over RL43m at the top of the stockpile towards the rear. Strictly, under the LEP, the building heights should be measured against the excavated levels that existed in 1998. However, a reasonable assessment of an excavated site would also have regard to the building heights relative to the previously existing natural ground levels. Insufficient information has been supplied with respect to the previous ground levels of the site to accurately determine the building heights according to the LEP definitions.
Even if measured against the excavated levels, it is likely that Buildings A, C and D would comply with the maximum building height of 12m, with exceptions granted for skylights, lift overruns and other ‘service installations’ located on top of the main rooves.
Building B however is 3.5m over the maximum height relative to King Street, and up to 6.5m over the maximum height measured relative to the excavated ground levels in the building’s proposed location. Building B is set well back into the centre of the site some 55m from the King Street frontage, and with this setback will not have a significant impact on the streetscape. From King St, views to Building B will be limited by Buildings C and D in the foreground. From immediately in front of the chimney, and to a lesser degree from Prince Street as it runs down towards King Street, the full five storeys of Building B would be visible. To reduce the visibility of its full height, the centre section of the upper two levels of Building B should be deleted, creating two separate full height sections aligned behind buildings C and D with a gap of about 10m in between. The setback of Building D from the side boundaries should also be increased to at least 6m, for all five storeys, to allow for planting of tall trees and help buffer the visible building bulk from the adjoining Montefiore site and from more distant views from the surrounding area. An increased setback from the side boundaries will also reduce overshadowing impacts on Buildings C and D and the adjoining Montefiore land.
The proposed 2m separation between Building B and Buildings C and D is inadequate. From most angles, the buildings will appear to be joined, with a total length of wall along the site’s boundaries of 55-60m. This extent of wall is excessive, tending to crowd the internal spaces of the site and dominate the future development on the Montefiore land.
A separation should be provided between Building B and Buildings C and D of at least 10m. This would create a visible space between the buildings, reducing the building bulk and density of development on the site. It would enhance natural light and ventilation through the site, open up the outlook from the open space axis between Buildings C and D, and reduce the extent of overshadowing both within and external to the site. 10m is equivalent to the separation achieved between buildings on separate sites with a 5m side boundary setbacks as required by Council’s Multi-unit Housing DCP.
The proposal refers to a floor space ratio (FSR) of up to 1.3:1 (although calculations based on the floor plans, and building setbacks and depths shown on those plans, estimate an FSR of about 1.38:1). Precise floor areas can not be determined at this stage, however, the proposal substantially exceeds the maximum FSR of 0.9:1 under the LEP.
The site is a large site (7032sqm). Sites of this size are rarely available for development within Randwick City. The size of the site and its context being adjoined on two sides by industrial development increase its ability to accommodate slightly higher densities of development without adverse impacts on the surrounding area. The site provides for the integrated development of a number of buildings, arranged to be compatible with one another, with ample open space areas, and with sufficient separation and buffering from adjoining properties. On this basis, a floor space ratio in excess of the standard minimum is potentially acceptable.
Another factor which supports a higher floor space ratio is the excavation of the site. The extent of excavation provides for the first storey of each building to be constructed at a level below King Street, thereby reducing the visible scale and density of development.
An FSR of 1.38:1 is far in excess of the standard minimum (by 0.48 or 50%). It represents a density of development well beyond that envisaged in the Residential 2C zone, especially when compared with the difference between the 2B and 2C zones (0.25:1). An FSR so far over the standard would only be justified where special strategic planning circumstances exist which create a strong imperative for achieving higher densities; for example where there is an extreme shortage of housing and/or the site is particularly well located in proximity to public transport nodes, commercial services and facilities, and centres of employment. Such circumstances do not exist in this case.
The changes recommended earlier in respect of the height, setbacks and separation of Buildings B, C and D should result in a reduction in floor space of the order of 1450sqm (0.2:1). This would reduce the FSR (from the 1.3:1 proposed) to 1.1:1. This is comparable to the FSR of the Montefiore scheme of 1.08:1. If the remainder of the first storeys of Buildings A, C and D, which are situated at a level below King Street, are excluded from the calculation (some 1400sqm or 0.2:1), the FSR would be reduced to about 0.9:1; an amount that could reasonably be expected on a large site in the 2C zone.
The FSR that is ultimately allowed on the site should be determined on a merit assessment of the detailed design, having regard to impacts on the amenity and character of the site and the surrounding area. It is recommended that the Master Plan amendments be adopted subject to a reduction in FSR to no greater than 1.1:1 (of which no more than 0.9:1 is located above the level of King Street).
8.2 Development Control Plan – Corner of King and Dangar Streets, Randwick
This DCP was adopted in 1993 as a site-specific guide for the development of multi-unit housing on the former bus depot land. The DCP’s controls have been overtaken by the inclusion of the land in a residential zones and the adoption of a Multi-Unit Housing DCP in 2000. Nevertheless, some of its principles and guidelines remain relevant, including:
· prior to submission of a development application, a concept plan indicating the likely location of buildings, open spaces, cross site links, community facilities, roads etc must be prepared and submitted to Council for endorsement;
· a conservation plan must be prepared for the chimney and conservation work undertaken prior to sale of the land by the State Transit Authority;
· advantage should be taken of the existing levels of the site to minimise the effect of development on the existing streetscape, and the depression in the ground levels on the site off King Street should be used to provide basement car parking for residential flat buildings and minimise the effect of the height of buildings in this location;
· the treatment and design of buildings along the street frontages is particularly important;
· development of the site should contribute to the provision of community facilities and public open space in accordance with the Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan, and a preferred location for a facility provided on the site is adjacent to the chimney; and
· the layout of development should incorporate a number of pedestrian/bicycle links, including at least one cross-site link between King Street and Govett Lane to facilitate access to Centennial Park.
These principles and guidelines are addressed in the following manner:
· the concept planning process is inherent in the Master Plan process;
· preparation and implementation of a conservation plan for the chimney is required by the existing Master Plan and should similarly be required by any amendments to the Master Plan; the requirement is for the conservation plan to be addressed at the future development application stage; it is neither reasonable nor practical to require the conservation works to be undertaken prior to the sale of the land by the STA, as the Council has no control over the sale of land, the funds for restoration works would be generated through redevelopment of the land, and presumably it is more efficient to undertake restoration works in conjunction with redevelopment works; the appropriate order and time frame for completion of restoration work can be determined at a future development application stage when more detailed plans are available;
· the proposal takes advantage of the excavated levels of the site to minimise the height of buildings and streetscape impact; the buildings closest to King Street (Buildings C and D) are setback 12m from the frontage and are limited to four storeys in height, with the first storeys located below the level of King Street, such that they will appear to be three storey buildings in the streetscape, consistent with the 2C zone;
· the north-south alignment of Buildings C and D ‘side-on’ to King Street is designed to limit the building bulk visible at the street frontage and provide an open space backdrop to the chimney to complement its presence in the streetscape;
· provision of a publicly accessible space around the chimney and a pedestrian/cycle link through to Govett Lane are important contributions to community facilities in the area, and further contributions can be negotiated at the development application stage; and
· provision of part of a pedestrian/bicycle cross-site link will be required (see below).
8.3 Development Control Plan – Parking
The proposal is to provide on-site car parking in accordance with the rates specified in the DCP, which amounts to approximately 150 spaces for the anticipated number and size of dwellings. The indicative layouts of the proposed car parking areas demonstrate that this amount of parking should be able to be provided on site whilst still achieving the minimum landscape and deep-planted areas.
The site has been inspected and the application has been assessed having regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended. The main issues considered in the assessment are discussed below.
Compatibility with Montefiore Scheme
The new multi-unit housing proposal alters a number of aspects of the original Montefiore scheme and compromises its ongoing validity as it relates to Lot 202 including vehicular access, parking, building placement and density, open space areas and the cross-site pedestrian/bicycle link. Discussions have been held with Montefiore’s representatives and a submission has been received which foreshadows amendments to the adopted Master Plan as it relates to Lot 202 to resolve these issues. The amendments include deletion of the building which straddled the boundary between Lots 201 and 202, creating a setback of about 10m to the next building from that boundary, and relocation of the vehicular access point off King Street to a position adjacent to the western boundary of Lot 202 (the common boundary). These amendments resolve the practical aspects of restricting the Montefiore development to Lot 202. The rest of the adopted Master Plan for Lot 202 remains unchanged. Planning issues such as the overall balance of building density and open space areas on the site have not been addressed in any detail. Such issues can be considered when Montefiore formally applies to amend the Master Plan.
Height, Scale and Density of Development
The proposed development, incorporating the revisions recommended earlier, achieves a height, scale and density of development that is generally compatible with the future amenity of the site, the adjoining Montefiore site, and the surrounding locality. The two buildings nearest King Street are setback 12m from the street, are aligned side-on to the street with open space areas to each side, and are set down into the excavated levels of the site to be no more than three storeys above the level of King Street. Given these features, the buildings will not be out of scale with the streetscape. The taller of the proposed buildings (Building B) is setback a considerable distance from King Street and will be substantially screened by Buildings C and D in the foreground, so it should not have a significant effect on the visual amenity and character of the area. With the creation of a gap in the centre of the upper two levels, increased side boundary setbacks and increased separation from Building C and D (as recommended earlier), Building B should not result in significant adverse impacts on the internal amenity of the site or future development on the Montefiore site. The proposed landscape and open space areas are in excess of that required under the site’s 2C zoning and will provide an appropriate balance to the scale and density of buildings on the site.
Council’s Heritage Planner is supportive of the proposed layout of buildings which provides an open space axis behind the chimney. The proposal includes provision for a space around the base of the chimney that is accessible to the public. Existing and finished ground levels around the base of the chimney, the position of the basement car park, and the structural integrity of the chimney can be resolved through detailed investigation at the future development application stage.
The provision of a cross-site pedestrian/bicycle link from King Street to Govett Lane is a requirement under the existing Master Plan adopted for the original Montefiore scheme across both sites (Lot 201 and Lot 202). As both sites should contribute towards provision of the link, it should be located along the common boundary between the two. As Lot 201 does not have frontage to Govett Lane, it should provide the first half of the link in from King Street. The second half could then be provided on Lot 202. To accommodate both pedestrians and bicycles, a minimum width of 3m will be required. The developers of each site should be responsible for construction of a pathway, and 24hr public access secured through creation of an easement in favour of the Council. Landscaping and fences adjacent to the pathway should be designed to enhance its amenity and security for users, and buildings nearby should provide for casual surveillance. Requirements to this effect should be incorporated in the adoption of the amendments to the Master Plan
Development of the site is constrained by overland flow paths and an existing pipeline. The applicant has submitted concept details for how these constraints can be managed. Council’s drainage engineer has reviewed the concepts and is satisfied that the constraints can be addressed without compromising the general design of the development as shown in the Master Plan. Further information will be required at development application stage.
Given the previous uses of the site, it is possible that contamination still exists on the site. Information submitted relating to contamination is insufficient for Council to deem the site suitable for the intended residential use. Further information should be submitted at the development application stage. This is a requirement under the existing Master Plan and the same should be applied to any Master Plan amendments. Council’s Environmental Health section has recommended that a Statutory Site Audit Statement and Summary Site Audit Report be submitted to Council prior to development consent being granted.
The adjoining bus depot and university press building have the potential to generate noise detrimental to the site’s future residential amenity. The applicant’s site analysis plan shows an acoustic wall along the western boundary to the bus depot. However, insufficient information has been submitted to assess the extent of noise impacts or the suitability of any controls. Council’s Environmental Health Unit has recommended that an acoustic assessment report be submitted to Council prior to development consent being granted. The report should address all noise sources including the bus depot and university press, traffic on King Street, and vehicles using the exit ramp from the site to the bus depot.
The applicant’s traffic report estimates that the proposed multi-unit housing will generate 43-55 vehicle trips to and from the site per hour during peak times. The STA staff parking is not expected to generate additional traffic as it is a relocation of vehicles that currently park in the street. The report assesses the impact of traffic generated by both the proposed development and the Montefiore aged care facility, and concludes that the traffic flows would remain within the environmental capacity of the surrounding roads and would not result in any significant changes to the operations of the surrounding road network.
Council’s traffic engineer estimates that the proposed development will create a 17% increase in vehicular traffic along King Street and recommends that, in order to manage the increased traffic, the development should provide for installation of traffic calming measures in King Street, and the vehicular access point should be located adjacent or as close as possible to the site’s western boundary, to minimise impacts on the intersection of King Street and Prince Street. The proposal for STA parking to exit the site via a ramp to the bus depot is considered suitable, provided the STA parking area is kept separate from other parking areas and a device such as a boom gate is installed to prevent residents/visitors from accessing the exit ramp to the bus depot.
Since lodgement, the applicant has revised the proposal to reduce the scale and density of development on the site, create an open space axis behind the heritage chimney, and generally improve the provision for open space, landscaping, outlook and solar access. While the density remained somewhat excessive, further revisions are recommended which would achieve an appropriate height, scale and density of development. The site’s large size and excavated ground levels enhances its ability to accommodate a reasonable scale and density of development without adverse impacts on the streetscape character or the amenity of the adjoining Montefiore land. The proposal offers significant community benefits in the form of restoration of the chimney and provision of a publicly accessible space around its base. It will also be required to incorporate part of a pedestrian/bicycle link through the site between King Street and Govett Lane. Issues related to chimney preservation, drainage, noise, and contamination can be addressed through detailed investigation at the future development application stage. Montefiore’s representatives have foreshadowed amendments to the Master Plan to accommodate development of the aged care facility confined to Lot 202.
The proposal, subject to the recommended revisions, represents a suitable response to the opportunity for integrated development of a large site in the Residential 2C zone.
A. That the Council adopt the amendments to the Master Plan for 88-98 King Street, Randwick, subject to the following variations and/or requirements:
16. Stormwater discharge is to be managed in accordance with the following general requirements:
· The applicant shall be required to meet the full cost for the existing Council controlled stormwater pipeline that burdens the site to be reconstructed. The minimum pipe size for the reconstructed pipeline will be 1200 millimeters. A suitable width drainage easement shall be created centrally over the line of the reconstructed pipeline; and there are to be no structures located within the easement or encroachments over the drainage easement. Reconstruction of the stormwater pipeline will need to be acceptable to Council and such reconstruction works are not to adversely affect upstream or downstream properties.
17. Provision of traffic calming measures installed along King Street with details. The following devices should be considered:
18. Investigations and works in respect of the chimney are to include:
19. Contributions shall be negotiated in accordance with the Major Development section of Council’s Section 94 contributions plan.
20. A Statutory Site Audit Statement (in the format defined by the Contaminated Lands Management Regulation 1998) and Summary Site Audit Report is to be compiled by an accredited site auditor and submitted to council prior to any development consent being granted.
21. An acoustic report, prepared by an independent, suitably qualified and experienced acoustic consultant, is to be submitted to the council prior to any development consent being granted.
B. THAT the applicant be requested to provide a revised Master Plan document, incorporating the variations listed above, prior to the lodgement of any development application.
SENIOR PLANNER, DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT