Agenda of Planning Committee Meeting

Planning Committee 12 April 2016

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Development Application Report No. D27/16

Subject: 15A & 15B Higgs Street, Coogee (DA/658/2015)

Folder No: DA/658/2015

Author: Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer

Proposal: Alterations and additions to existing semi-detached dwellings including ground and first floor additions and new pergola to 15A Higgs Street, first floor alterations and additions to 15B Higgs Street

Ward: East Ward

Applicant: Mr S Rees, Ms T B Altbeker,Mr J Bell, Ms L E Bell

Owner: The Owners - Strata Plan No. 49706

Summary

Recommendation: Approval


	Subject Site




	Submissions received
	Ù North
	Locality Plan

Development Application Executive summary report

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for consideration at the request of Councillors Andrews, Nash and Stavrinos.

Proposal

Alterations and additions to existing semi-detached dwellings including ground and first floor additions and new pergola to 15A Higgs Street, first floor alterations and additions to 15B Higgs Street.

Amended and additional details:

Amended plans received by Council on 30 October 2015 indicate the following amendment:

· Increase separation between first floor level additions to the two semi-detached dwellings – see plan excerpt of originally proposed and amendment.

Originally proposed southern elevation

Amended southern elevation

Additional shadow diagrams:

The applicant provided additional hourly shadow diagrams (between 9am and 4pm), received by Council on 30 October 2015. These shadow diagrams seek to demonstrate the proposed development will comply with the requirements under Part C1 of the RDCP requiring a minimum of three hours of solar access to neighbouring properties rear yard and north facing windows. An assessment is carried out further below under the key issues section of this report.

Site

The subject site is occupied by two semi-detached dwellings with 15A Higgs Street located at the front and 15B Higgs Street located at the rear. The sites in total have a frontage width of 10.06m, side boundary depths of 41.94m and an overall site area of 417.3m².

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Higgs Street orientated on an east-west axis with the western boundary fronting Higgs Street and an eastern rear boundary adjoining a portion of the western side boundary of No. 137 Oberon Street Coogee. See photo and aerial image below.

Street view photo of the subject site and neighbouring properties

As shown in the aerial image below, the southern side boundary of the site adjoins several properties. The front half of the southern side boundary adjoins an electrical substation identified as 15S Higgs Street. The rear half of the side boundary adjoins the rear of properties fronting Oberon Street from No. 133 Oberon Street to 135 Oberon Street. No. 17 Higgs Street and No 131 Oberon Street do not adjoin the subject site but rather adjoin the southern side boundary of the electrical substation.

Aerial of subject site and neighbouring properties.

No 131 Oberon Street:

Identified bounded in blue in the aerial image above is a elevated grassed area whilst shown in the cadastral as being part of No. 15S Higgs Street (substation site) is accessible and used by No. 131 Oberon Street occupants – see photo below. It is unknown what if any arrangements exist between the two owners. Notwithstanding, this matter has been raised for the purposes of assessment of the level of solar access retained (and therefore shadowing caused) to the rear yard area of No. 131 Oberon Street.

Photo of elevated rear grassed area identified as part of the property at No. 15S Higgs Street housing the substation shown behind beige fence.

View of the subject site from the rear of No. 131 Oberon Street

View of the subject site from the rear of No. 17 Higgs Street. Note the proposed first floor addition to No. 15A Higgs Street is located behind the front porch and is located behind the front building line of the substations.

Other properties neighbouring the subject site to the north and separated by a (6m wide) vehicle access corridor is a single dwelling identified as No. 11 Higgs Street. It is noted that the access corridor leads to two rear allotments identified as No. 13B and 13C Higgs Street both of which contain two storey scale dwellings land sloping down from north to south.

The character of the surrounding area contains predominately low density residential development consists predominantly of dwellings.

Submissions

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

17 Higgs Street, Coogee

Issue	Comment
No mention is made to the unequal strata entitlement distribution creating grounds for future strata scheme disputes.	The allocation of floor area and distribution of entitlements do not raise any significant planning matters. A condition is included requiring the strata plans to be amended accordingly.
The proposed FSR is clearly over the 0.5:1 limit and the building which exists as a two unit strata scheme should comply with the standards.	The existing strata subdivision of the two dwellings means that they are classified as semi-detached dwellings and as each lot is less than 300sqm there is no maximum FSR standard that applies except that a merit assessment is required against the objectives of the standard. Council’s Lawyers have advised that as each dwelling is contained on its lot and the two dwellings are only attached to each other they should be classified as semi-detached dwellings rather than as an attached dual occupancy which only allows two dwellings or one lot of land. See key issues section of this report.
Concern with the effects of the proposal on the amenity and quality of life of surrounding neighbourhood relating to winter sun and privacy.	See key issues section of this report. In relation to privacy and overshadowing impacts, these impacts are considered reasonable given the context of the site and the surrounding development. In terms of privacy, the rear yard of the neighbour’s property is viewable from the existing terrace over garage and therefore there is no change to the privacy situation. The proposed first floor balcony and windows are adequately separated from this neighbour’s rear yard.
The proposed development will result in significant overshadowing to our rear yard and north facing windows.	The overshadowing caused by the proposed development is considered acceptable. See key issues section of this report.
Question as to whether proper procedure has been followed in regards to the change in the application.	The application has been notified to the surrounding properties likely to be affected by the proposed development. Relevant matters raised in the submissions have been considered in the assessment of the application. The physical changes to the building and their impacts have been addressed in the report and the appropriate classification of the proposal has been the subject of legal advice.
Legal interpretation can lift expectations that existing planning controls can be overturned on a point of law. Legal opinion is indifferent to planning outcomes.	Council has applied a consistent approach to the definition of subdivision in being applied to both strata and Torrens lots as provided for under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (the Act). The proposed development will not result in an undesirable planning outcome having regard to the relevant matters for consideration under the Act.

131 Oberon Street, Coogee

Issue	Comment
The design of the proposal does not reference the heritage item with regards to the scale and character.	The proposed first floor addition is a contemporary design and contains a two storey scale that is not considered to dominate the features of the adjoining heritage item (substation). The existing roof form is not a significant element as it is setback from the front building line behind garaging at the front that already dominates the front of the site. The removal of gabled roof form and replacement with contemporary additions is balanced by the retention of the most visible portion of the garage and balustrade at the front boundary. It is considered that the contemporary lines of the first floor addition will fit in well with the simple design of the heritage item. The pergola is deleted as a condition of consent.
The proposed FSR is not a minor variation and will result in unreasonable adverse impacts on our rear yard.	As explained in the key issues section of this report the development is classified as semi-detached dwellings and as these dwellings are on lots measuring less than 300sqm each there is no maximum FSR standard that applies. As such a merit assessment is carried out against the objectives. See key issues section of this report. In brief, the proposed development will satisfy the relevant objectives of the FSR standard and will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on the neighbour’s property having regard to solar access, visual bulk and privacy.
Loss privacy	The windows on the southern elevation are appropriately treated or conditioned to be treated to mitigate overlooking.
Overshadowing impacts	The solar access retained to their rear yard is adequate and complies with the controls in part C1 in RDCP 2013. See key issues section of this report.
The number of living areas is not a reasonable development expectation.	The ground level contains several living area however there is predominately only one large open plan living area at ground level. There is another area which provides an alternative. The overall bulk and scale of the development is not inconsistent with the bulk and scale that would be permitted on site for the purposes of a detached dwelling house.
Would like to be kept up to date with the progress of the application and if there are changes would like to be notified ahead of a decision being made.	The application has been amended reducing the scale and therefore re-notification of the development is not necessary. Notwithstanding, the application is considered at a Council meeting to which the objectors will be notified and have the opportunity to address Council.

15S Higgs Street, Coogee (Ausgrid)

Issue	Comment
The developer should make a formal submission to Ausgrid to assess impacts on infrastructure and determine local electrical supply requirements.	An appropriate condition is included.
The proposed works should not contravene Ausgrid’s technical standards and statutory requirements in regards ot safe and reliable operation and maintenance of Ausgrid’s network.	A suitable condition is included.

Key Issues

Classification of the development and application of the provisions of the FSR standards under the RLEP

The buildings on site are classified as a two semi-detached dwellings by virtue of being contained within their own lots and the building having a clear structural wall along the subdivision line between the two dwellings on site. As they currently stand they are appropriately defined as a pair of semi-detached dwellings.

The application was submitted and notified to neighbouring properties as seeking development consent for alterations to an attached dual occupancy which applied the maximum FSR standard of 0.5:1. However due to the development on site being classified as a semi-detached dwellings, for the purposes of the floor space ratio provisions in Clause 4.4(2B) of the RLEP, as the allotments are less than 300sqm each there is no maximum FSR standard that applies. In such instances, a merit assessment is required against the objectives for the FSR standard which is carried out below.

Floor space ratio

The RLEP 2012 and RDCP 2013 identify floor space ratio (FSR) as a measure that assists in controlling the mass and bulk of a development. The FSR operates in conjunction with building height, wall height and setback controls to define the 3D space within which a development may occur. The RLEP 2012 does not provide maximum numerical provisions for sites that are less than 300sqm and requires a merit assessment against the floor space ratio objectives.

The floor space ratio of the development as defined under the RLEP is 0.78:1 for the front lot (15A Higgs St) and 0.45:1 for the rear lot (15B Higgs St).

A merit assessment of the proposed development is carried out against the FSR objectives which seek to:

a. Ensure that the size and scale of development is compatible with the desired future character of the locality,

b. Ensure that buildings are well articulated and respond to environmental and energy needs,

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

a. Ensure that the size and scale of development is compatible with the desired future character of the locality,

The proposed development is an asymmetrically integrated design across the two allotments. Only one semi-detached dwelling (No 15A) presents to the street with the other located behind. It is noted that if the combined FSR was applied to the two sites there would be an FSR of 0.615:1 which would be below the 0.75:1 FSR standard that would apply to a combined site area 417.3sqm.

The site coverage or building footprint of each dwelling is not markedly changing as a result of the proposal and remains generally consistent with the footprint of the dwellings within the area and those along Higgs Street.

There are larger scale developments in the wider area and the proposed upper level additions will be generally consistent with the majority of these.

The proposed bulk and scale of the development is acceptable providing a two storey scale which is the envisaged scale of development on lots within the R2 low density zone. Whilst the elevated nature of the site above those neighbouring to the south will mean a larger mass it is considered that the applicant has incorporated certain building design elements that restrict the size and scale to an acceptable level having particular regard to the elements of visual bulk and solar access. These include increasing the separation between the two first floor level additions and reducing the wall heights along the southern elevation to the minimum.

Having particular regard to FSR objective a), the proposal, responds well to the surrounding built environment and the broader context of the low-density residential zone (R2) and as a whole, the proposed development will be compatible with the desired future character of the locality.

b. Ensure that buildings are well articulated and respond to environmental and energy needs,

The proposed building is well articulated, it contains good elements of visual interest at street level by responding to the elevated nature of the site. It respects the adjoining heritage item by stepping back the upper level addition 4m from the front ground level awning.

However the proposed pergola is located close to the front boundary and will unnecessarily result in additional bulk which is inconsistent with the scale and size of dwellings within these elevated parts of the site. Subject to a condition requiring the pergola to be deleted, it is considered that the overall building design elements associated with the proposal are a good planning response to the existing topography of the site and the surrounding area that will also meet environmental and energy needs of the occupants.

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

The amenity of surrounding neighbours properties are not adversely affected by the amended scheme. In terms of visual impact, solar access and privacy protection, where necessary amendments have been incorporated in to the plans received by Council on 30 October 2015. The amendment includes an increase in the separation at the upper level addition between the two semi’s. Whilst this is a minor increase in the separation it improves and achieves compliance with the solar access controls in the RDCP which requires a minimum of three hours of solar access to the neighbouring properties rear yard areas during the shortest day of the year (winter solstice).

The visual bulk of the proposed development is also considered acceptable. The proposed upper level is setback 975mm from the existing southern side boundary satisfying the minimum setback controls under the RDCP. The wall height facing the southern side boundary as viewable from the rear yard of No. 131 Oberon Street is between 5.9m and 6.25m and well below the 7m permissible under the RDCP 2013 controls for maximum wall heights.

Although the upper level when viewed from the southern neighbour’s properties will have greater mass than the current building, this is largely a consequence of the high land level of the subject site which is a natural topographical characteristic that is exhibited along the majority of the subject sites southern side boundary as well as other properties further north along Higgs Street. It is also noted that the rear boundary of the neighbour’s property at No. 131 Oberon Street is not technically adjacent to the southern side boundary of the subject site but is rather setback 7.6m away.

Notwithstanding, it is considered that the objective c is being satisfied where the massing of the development is minimised by incorporating the following design elements:

· Additional separation between the upper level additions reduces the length of walls viewable from the rear of neighbouring properties to the south and also achieves greater levels of solar access to their rear yards;

· Windows along the southern elevation break up the expanse of walls

· Lower than permissible external wall heights along the southern elevation minuses the visual bulk of the development

· Side setbacks provided at the upper level are greater than the minimum required under the RDCP 2013 for low density development.

Overall, the proposed development, as amended, will be appropriately scaled and located within the site containing an appropriate envelope that will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on neighbouring properties or streetscape character and therefore satisfy the floor space ratio objectives.

Solar access to neighbouring development:

Several submissions have been received by Council concerning the level of overshadowing to the southern neighbours rear yards as a result of the proposed development.

The relevant controls under Councils RDCP relating to the required minimum levels of solar access to the neighbours rear yard areas and northern facing windows is that they receive a minimum of three hours of solar access.

The following shadow diagrams were submitted as part of amended material received by Council on 30 October 2015. The shadow diagrams show the existing shadow and the shadow from the proposed development including that from the existing substation at No. 15S Higgs Street. The neighbouring properties to the south from left to right are identified as No. 17 Higgs Street, No, 131, 133 and 135 Oberon Street.

9am shadow - existing	9am shadow - proposed

10am shadow - existing	10am shadow - proposed

11am shadow - existing	11am shadow - proposed

12noon shadow - existing	12noon shadow - proposed

1pm shadow - existing	1pm shadow - proposed

2pm shadow - existing	2pm shadow - proposed

3pm shadow - existing	3pm shadow - proposed

4pm shadow - existing	4pm shadow - proposed

An assessment of overshadowing and solar access to neighbouring properties is carried out as follows:

· Solar access and overshadowing to neighbours rear yards

No 17 Higgs Street:

There is also no additional shadow impact to this neighbour’s rear yard. The majority of the shadows are cast by the existing substation at No. 15S Higgs Street and by the existing high boundary fencing within their own site.

No 131 Oberon Street

The proposed development causes additional shadows to their rear yard between the hours of 9am, and 12noon. Solar access to their rear yard is retained between 10am and 3pm with the majority of their rear yard having direct solar access between 12noon and 3pm. The solar access requirements are satisfied.

Taking into consideration the rear elevated grassed area, which is part of the substation site, whilst the proposed development adds shadows to this area there is already substantial overshadowing to this area. The additional overshadowing is not considered fatal to the support of the proposed development as this area is particularly vulnerable to overshadowing being in close proximity to the southern side boundary of the subject site and below their ground level.

No. 133 Oberon Street

The proposed development results in additional overshadowing to their rear yard throughout the day between 9am and 4pm. However the additional overshadowing is mostly over the rear sections of their rear yard with solar access retained to the principle area of their rear yard area and pool area. The proposed development complies.

No. 135 Oberon Street

Solar access of this neighbour’s rear yard is not affected between the hours of 9am and just before 12 noon by the proposed development. The proposed development results in additional overshadowing to their rear yard between 12 noon and 4pm. The salient point about the additional overshadowing is that parts of their rear yard are still retaining solar access during this period.

Overall, despite the proposed development resulting in additional shadow impacts to the rear yards of these southern neighbours it is considered that the additional shadow impacts are also acceptable for the following reasons:

o The subject site being elevated above the rear yards of these neighbours to the south is a natural characteristic of the topography of the subject site and those along the same axis.

o The east-west configuration of the site means that the adjoining land to the south will be unavoidably impacted by greater levels of shadows

o The proposed development meets the relevant provisions for FSR, height, wall height, and site coverage under the RLEP and the RDCP.

o The proposed development provides greater than the 900mm minimum RDCP 2013 side setback control from the southern side boundary providing a 975mm side setback for the first floor addition to No. 15A Higgs Street (the front allotment) and a 1245mm side setback from the southern side boundary for the first floor addition to No. 15B Higgs Street.

· Solar access and overshadowing to neighbours north facing windows

The proposed development results in additional showing to the north facing windows of No. 17 Higgs Street and No. 131 Oberon Street. The development is assessed against the RDCP controls requiring a minimum of three hours solar access.

131 Oberon Street

No 131 Oberon Street is not unduly impacted by the proposed development and will receive the minimum of three hours during the winter solstice. It is noted that development consent has been granted for extensions to the height of the boundary fencing at the rear and side boundaries which means that these existing structures would overshadow the rear yard of this neighbour’s property around the 8am and 4pm times during the winter solstice.

No. 17 Higgs Street

The proposed development results in additional shadows to the north facing windows during the winter solstice between 8am and before 10am. Despite the additional shadows during the morning period, their north facing windows will continue to receive the minimum three hours between 11am and 4pm (excluding those shadows that may be cast by the existing secondary street boundary fencing.

Visual Privacy

· Windows

The proposed development contains several bedroom and bathroom windows along the southern elevation of the first floor level will have the potential to result in additional overlooking into the rear yards of neighbouring properties to the south (those facing Oberon Street). The applicant has sought to reduce the privacy impact by treating the bottom sashes of the bedroom windows with obscure glazing and restricting the opening of the bottom sash to a maximum of 125mm. Given the windows are attached to relatively low use rooms, which are not living rooms, and the restricted view through a 12.5cm gap it is not considered that there will be any significant privacy impacts on the neighbouring properties.

Required treatment to windows

The ground level south facing kitchen window is identified as having obscured glazing to the bottom sash; however it is fully operable and given the high use nature of this room, it is considered reasonable to include a condition restricting the bottom sash of this window to a maximum of 125mm. This condition is considered to ensure reasonable privacy protection of the neighbour’s properties to the rear.

No other windows are considered to require further treatment as they are either low use rooms such as bathrooms, laundries or existing windows servicing the same rooms.

· Balcony

There is one upper level balcony at the front however its shallow 1m depth and attachment to a low use bedroom does not raise any significant privacy concerns.

Outbuilding and front setback

The proposed development seeks to locate a pergola at the front of the site facing Higgs Street which is inconsistent with the RDCP control requiring outbuildings amongst other elements such as POS to be located behind the front building line. Although the POS is already at the front an unavoidable existing site condition however it is not considered that this outcome extends to locating a permanent structure that will be readily viewable at the front will be inconsistent with the predominant and desired built form and front setbacks from Higgs Street.

Therefore, the proposed pergola is not supportable and a condition is included requiring it to be removed from the application. This condition is considered to maintain reasonable protection of the character along Higgs Street.

Relationship to City Plan

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

Outcome 4: Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction 4a: Improved design and sustainability across all development.

Financial impact statement

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

Conclusion

The proposed development has been assessed against FSR RLEP 2012 standard and the relevant Randwick DCP 2013 controls and objectives and is considered to be acceptable.

Approval of the development is considered acceptable as it will be in line with the objectives of the abovementioned documents and will not result in any significant environmental impact on neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing, site planning and streetscape amenity (as conditioned).

It is therefore considered that the proposed development is reasonable, subject to the recommended non-standard conditions below and the standard conditions contained within the Compliance report (attached).

Recommendation

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/658/2015 for Alterations and additions to existing semi-detached dwellings including ground and first floor additions and new pergola to 15A Higgs Street, first floor alterations and additions to 15B Higgs Street, at No. 15A and 15B Higgs Street, Coogee NSW 2034, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

Non-standard conditions

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

2. The approved plans and documents must be amended in accordance with the following requirements:

a. The bottom sashes of the south facing kitchen window must be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing and operability be restricted to a maximum of 125mm above the bottom sill.

b. The location of air conditioning units must satisfy the relevant criteria under the State Environmental Planning Policy - Exempt and Complying Development Codes 2008.

c. The pergola located over the terrace at the front shall be deleted from the application.

Attachment/s:

DA Compliance Report - 15A & 15B Higgs Street, Coogee

Included under separate cover

Planning Committee 12 April 2016

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Development Application Report No. D29/16

Subject: 697-699 Anzac Parade, Maroubra (DA/107/2013/A)

Folder No: DA/107/2013/A

Author: Matthew Choi, Senior Environmental Planning Officer

Proposal: Section 96(2) modification of the approved development by increasing the western setback to 3 metres on levels 1 & 2, reduction in the overall height of the building by 600mm, reduction in the floor space ratio and deletion of apartment no. 605 and various amendments to address the requirements of the conditions of consent.

Ward: Central Ward

Applicant: Fox Johnston Architects

Owner: Mr. A S C Chan

Summary

Recommendation: Approval


	Subject Site




	Submissions received
	Ù North
	Locality Plan

Development Application Executive summary report

This section 96 modification application is referred to the Planning Committee as the original development application was determined by Council at the Planning Committee meeting on the 3 December 2013.

Proposal

The subject section 96 modifications involve the following works:

Ground floor level:

· New splay to the north-western corner to shop no.4 and adjacent the proposed vehicular access way to the basement parking level as required per condition no. 22

· The external wall to the vehicular access ramp has been relocated up adjacent to the southern and western boundary to allow Council access to the stormwater as required per condition no. 34

· Inclusion of new service water main termination cupboard at the north-western corner of the site.

First floor level:

· Modification of sliding door and window openings to the western external wall of apartment no. 106 to a single window with screen

· Installation of privacy screen along the western and southern edge of the private open space of apartment no. 106

· Deletion of external wall between the deck and the courtyard to apartment no. 6

· Setback the western external wall 3 metres from the western boundary from apartment no. 106 as required per condition no. 2a

· Deletion of brick screen wall adjacent the communal courtyard and set up to the eastern property boundary as required per condition no. 2c

· Lower the finished floor level by 600mm as required per condition no. 2e

Second floor level:

· Modification of sliding door and window openings to the western external wall of apartment no. 206 to a single window with screen

· Setback the western external wall 3 metres from the western boundary from apartment no. 206 as required per condition no. 2a

· Deletion of brick screen wall adjacent the communal courtyard and set up to the eastern property boundary as required per condition no. 2c

· Lower the finished floor level by 600mm as required per condition no. 2e

Third floor level:

· Lower the finished floor level by 600mm as required per condition no. 2e

Fourth floor level:

· Lower the finished floor level by 600mm as required per condition no. 2e

Fifth floor level:

· Lower the finished floor level by 600mm as required per condition no. 2e

Sixth floor level:

· Amend condition 2(d) to delete apartment no. 605 and reposition fire stairs and new plant room set up to the northenr boundary adjacent apartment no. 606

· Lower the finished floor level by 600mm as required per condition no. 2e

Roof floor level:

· Lower the finished floor level of the roof and associated plant and equipment as required per condition no. 2e

Site

The site is presently occupied by one and two storey buildings and is situated within the Maroubra Junction Business Centre. The surrounding development is comprised of multi storey buildings varying in height between 6 -10 storeys.

The site is has a slight fall in topography from Anzac Parade to the rear. It has a frontage of 25.5m to Anzac parade and a maximum depth of 56.9m being the frontage to Mason Street. The two allotments that make up the development site have a combined site area of 1104m². The subject site and surrounding development is shown in the figures below.

Mason Anzac Angle

Figure 1. Subject site with 701 Anzac, 112 Boyce Rd, and 108 Boyce Rd in the background

Mason Street Angle Part 1

Figure 2. View of subject site from Mason St, with pool of 108 Boyce Rd (red facebrick) in foreground

Section 96 Amendment

Substantially the same development:

The proposal involves minor modifications to the approved development including changes to doors and window openings, new privacy screen along the eastern-most boundary and amendments to the approved plans to address the conditions that were imposed as part of the previous consent including condition nos. 2(a) to 2(e). The proposed modifications will not result in a change to the nature of the original application and the works will result in an application that is substantially the same as that for which was consent was originally granted. The amendments will not result in any unreasonable impact upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the streetscape.

Notification and consideration of submissions:

· 108-110 Boyce Road, Maroubra

Issues	Comments
Loss of solar access	The section 96 modification involves a reduction to the building envelope including lowering of the overall building height by 600mm and the deletion of unit no. 605 as conditioned by the previous development consent. The development will not contribute to any significant overshadowing impacts to the affected neighbour given that development consent has already been granted as part of the original application.
Visual and acoustic privacy	The section 96 modification will not contribute to any visual and acoustic privacy impacts to the neighbouring premises. The amendments involve demonstrating compliance with the conditions of consent that were included as part of the original determination. Notwithstanding the above, the proposed modifications include a new privacy screen on the southern-edge of apartments 106 and 206 which will minimise cross viewing into the adjoining courtyard spaces to the objectors premises.
Building Height	There is no recourse to lower the overall height of the building further given the works have received development consent. The section 96 modification seeks to demonstrate compliance with condition 2(e) and involves a reduction in the overall height of the building by an additional 600mm.
Structural Integrity	Suitable conditions of consent have been included to ensure the structural integrity of the adjoining neighbours
Dilapidation Report	A standard condition of consent has been included as part of the original application that a dilapidation report be carried out prior to the commencement of any demolition, excavation or building works. The report will be issued to the affected owners prior to commencing any works.

Key Issues

View Loss Impacts:

The subject section 96 modification seeks to delete condition no. 2(d) of the original development consent which read as follows:

2d. Unit 605 and the associated fire stairs at the upper level shall be deleted from the plans. Details must be submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessments for approval prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

The proposed modification involves deleting apartment 605 at the sixth floor level as per the above condition, however also seeks to retain and reposition the fire stairs in order to comply with the relevant BCA requirements for access and safety. Condition no. 2(d) was included as part of the original consent given both the fire stairs and apartment no.605 resulted in a breach to the number of storeys to building height control and would create the most significant view loss impacts of a distant view of the Sydney CBD and city skyline including Centrepoint Tower to the southern neighbouring building at no. 112-114 Boyce Road.

The section 96 modification seeks to splay the fire stairs to ensure a view corridor is preserved and aligns with the south-western edge of the blade wall to the deck of apartment 404, 504 and 604. The fire stairs will only impact views from a northern aspect and the view obtained from this aspect is the walls, roofs and balconies of the buildings between nos. 679-695 Anzac Parade, Maroubra. Consequently, the proposed section 96 modifications are acceptable and will allow for equitable distant views of the city skyline to be maintained and the stairs will not result in any appreciable view loss impacts from the top most levels of no. 112-114 Boyce Road. The proposal will continue to comply with the Land and Environment Court Planning Principle established in the matter of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah (2004) NSWLEC 140.

boyce112

Figure 1: The existing view from the balcony of no. 37/112 Boyce Road

Figure 2: The extent of view loss from the approved development from no. 37/112 Boyce Road

Relationship to City Plan

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

Outcome 4: Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction 4a: Improved design and sustainability across all development.

Financial impact statement

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

Conclusion

The proposed modifications to the approved development has been assessed against the requirements of the relevant planning guidelines of the RLEP 2012, the relevant council policies including the RDCP 2013 as well as in regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended. The proposed modification will result in substantially the same development as that previously approved and will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

Recommendation

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/107/2013 for modifications of the approved development by increasing the western setback to 3 metres on levels 1 & 2, reduction in the overall height of the building by 600mm, reduction in the floor space ratio and deletion of apartment no. 605 and various amendments to address the requirements of the conditions of consent., at No. 697-699 Anzac Parade, MAROUBRA, subject to the following conditions:

A. Amend Condition No. 1 to read as follows:

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

1. The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans and supporting documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s approved stamp, except where amended by Council in red and/or by other conditions of this consent:

*Plan*	*Drawn by*	*Dated*	*Received by Council*
DA2.08 - Section DD - Amended	Fox Johnston	20 August 2013	23 Sept 2013
DA2.07 - Section CC - Amended
DA2.06 - Section BB - Amended
DA2.05 - Section AA - Amended
DA2.01 – North Elevation - Amended
DA2.02 – East Elevation - Amended
DA2.03 – South Elevation - Amended
DA2.04 – West Elevation - Amended
DA1.12 - Roof Plan - Amended
DA1.10 - Level 6 Plan - Amended
DA1.09 - Level 5 Plan - Amended
DA1.08 - Level 4 Plan - Amended
DA1.07 - Level 3 Plan - Amended
DA1.06 - Level 2 Plan - Amended
DA1.05 - Level 1 Plan - Amended
DA1.04 - Ground Floor Plan - Amended
DA1.03 - Basement 1 - Amended
DA1.02 - Basement 2 - Amended
DA1.01- Basement 3 - Amended -
DA3.01- Façade Section - Amended -
DA 4.04 – Shadow Diagrams Elevation - Amended -
DA 4.05- Shadow Diagrams Elevation - Amended -
SDoc - DA0.02 - Site Plan - Amended

except as amended by the Section 96A plans as detailed below, and only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

*Plan*	*Drawn by*	*Dated*	*Received by Council*
DA00.02 – Site Plan (Revision B)	Fox Johnson	2 December 2015	11 December 2015
DA01.04 – Ground Floor Plan (Revision D)	Fox Johnson	2 December 2015	11 December 2015
DA01.05 – Level 1 Plan (Revision E)	Fox Johnson	2 March 2016	2 March 2016
DA01.06 – Level 2 Plan (Revision E)	Fox Johnson	2 March 2016	2 March 2016
DA01.07 – Level 3 Plan (Revision D)	Fox Johnson	2 December 2015	11 December 2015
DA01.08 – Level 4 Plan (Revision D)	Fox Johnson	2 December 2015	11 December 2015
DA01.09 – Level 5 Plan (Revision D)	Fox Johnson	2 December 2015	11 December 2015
DA01.10 – Level 6 Plan (Revision E)	Fox Johnson	2 March 2016	2 March 2016
DA01.12 – Roof Plan (Revision D)	Fox Johnson	2 March 2016	2 March 2016
DA02.01 - North Elevation (Revision D)	Fox Johnson	2 March 2016	2 March 2016
DA02.02 – East Elevation (Revision D)	Fox Johnson	2 March 2016	2 March 2016
DA02.03 – South Elevation (Revision D)	Fox Johnson	2 March 2016	2 March 2016
DA02.04 – West Elevation (Revision D)	Fox Johnson	2 March 2016	2 March 2016
DA02.05 – Section AA Elevation (Revision D)	Fox Johnson	2 March 2016	2 March 2016
DA02.06 – Section BB Elevation (Revision C)	Fox Johnson	2 March 2016	2 March 2016
DA02.07 – Section CC Elevation (Revision C)	Fox Johnson	2 March 2016	2 March 2016
DA02.08 – Section DD Elevation (Revision C)	Fox Johnson	2 March 2016	2 March 2016

B. Delete Condition Nos. 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(d) and 2(e)

Attachment/s:

Nil

Planning Committee 12 April 2016

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Development Application Report No. D31/16

Subject: 31 Pitt Street, Randwick (DA/373/2015/A)

Folder No: DA/373/2015/A

Author: Frank Ko, Coordinator Fast Track

Proposal: Section 96 application to delete Condition 2(a) of the consent in relation to the deletion of rear upper level balcony and reduction in the size of the upper level bedroom

Ward: East Ward

Applicant: Mr R J Foley

Owner: Mr R J Foley

Summary

Recommendation: Refusal


	Subject Site




	Submissions received
	Ù North
	Locality Plan

Development Application Executive summary report

The application is referred to the Planning Committee as the original development application was determined by Council on 27 October 2015.

1. Details of Current Approval

The original Development Application for alterations and additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling including new first floor addition and front hardstand car space was approved at the Ordinary Council meeting on 27 October 2015 subject to conditions including Condition 2(a) which requires the deletion of rear upper level balcony and reduction in the size of the rear upper level bedroom. Condition 2(a) of the consent read as follows:

2(a) The proposed upper level addition shall be amended in the following manner:

1) The rear upper level balcony shall be deleted.

2) The rear upper level eastern wall to the bedroom shall be shifted west by 1m. A maximum 1m depth of balcony may be provided to the rear upper level adjacent to the repositioned bedroom wall.

2. Details of Proposed Modification

The subject Section 96(2) application seeks consent to delete Condition 2(a) and make amendments to the configuration and design of the first floor balcony as follows:

· Increase the setback of the rear upper level balcony by 900mm from the southern side boundary; and

· Reduce the height of the privacy screens on the southern and northern sides of the rear upper level balcony from 1.8m to 1.6m.

3. Site

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Pitt Street and is legally described as Lot 111 in DP 1173340, No. 31 Pitt Street, Randwick. The site has a frontage to Pitt St of 7.43m, is approximately 47m in depth and has an area of 342.6m². The site falls dramatically from street level to the rear of the site.

The site is occupied by a semi-detached dwelling of brick and tiled roof construction, with a lower ground level (not visible from the street). The adjoining semi (No. 33 Pitt Street) is situated on its southern side. To the north is a single-storey semi-detached dwelling with lower ground and basement level at the rear (No. 29 Pitt Street). The locality is residential in nature and is characterised by a combination of semi-detached dwellings, single dwellings and low rise residential flat buildings.

Figure 1: Subject site, 31 Pitt St Randwick

4. Section 96 Assessment

Under the provisions of Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, Council may only agree to a modification of an existing Development Consent if the following criteria have been complied with:

Section 96(2) Criteria	Comment
(a) it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and	The proposal is considered to represent substantially the same development as it relates to the deletion of a condition and modification to the size and configuration of a first floor balcony.
(b) it has consulted with the relevant Minister, public authority or approval body (within the meaning of Division 5) in respect of a condition imposed as a requirement of a concurrence to the consent or in accordance with the general terms of an approval proposed to be granted by the approval body and that Minister, authority or body has not, within 21 days after being consulted, objected to the modification of that consent, and	Not applicable.
(c) it has notified the application in accordance with: (i) the regulations, if the regulations so require, or (ii) a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent, and	The owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed modification in accordance with the DCP. See Section 5 of this report.
(d) it has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification within the period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be.	Not applicable.

5. Submissions

33 Pitt Street, Randwick

Issue	Comment
The extension reduces solar access to the rear room of 33 Pitt Street. The objector states that the room presently receives little direct sunshine and this will be lost as a result of the development.	The DCP requires that a portion of north-facing living area windows of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. The adjoining semi is situated on the southern side of the subject dwelling and has no north-facing living room windows. The proposal therefore complies with the DCP requirements for solar access. The shadow diagrams submitted with the original development application indicate that overshadowing of east facing windows relates to the approved ground floor addition.
The bulk and scale of the proposal will impact on the privacy and environmental amenity of 33 Pitt Street.	See Section 6 of this report for discussion regarding bulk and height.

Issue

Comment

The extension reduces solar access to the rear room of 33 Pitt Street. The objector states that the room presently receives little direct sunshine and this will be lost as a result of the development.

The DCP requires that a portion of north-facing living area windows of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

The adjoining semi is situated on the southern side of the subject dwelling and has no north-facing living room windows. The proposal therefore complies with the DCP requirements for solar access.

The shadow diagrams submitted with the original development application indicate that overshadowing of east facing windows relates to the approved ground floor addition.

The bulk and scale of the proposal will impact on the privacy and environmental amenity of 33 Pitt Street.

See Section 6 of this report for discussion regarding bulk and height.

32 Milford Street, Randwick

Issue	Comment
The narrow site cannot accommodate additions as it will increase the over-whelming size of the development and result in loss of amenity.	See Section 6 of this report for discussion regarding bulk and height.
The proposal will reduce solar access to living areas of 33 Pitt Street.	As noted, no north facing living room windows at 33 Pitt Street. Therefore modification application complies with the DCP requirements for solar access.
The rear balcony will compromise visual and acoustic privacy of 33 Pitt Street.	As noted in the original application, the sitting of proposed rear balcony is consistent with the location of other decks/balconies at the rear of the adjoining dwellings. Thus, the acoustic impact from the proposed balcony is not expected to exceed the noise generally from typical residential use. Further, visual privacy impact can be addressed by the provision of privacy screens.
The proposal will reduce solar access to outdoor space and north facing verandah of 32 Milford Street.	The northern edge of the verandah referred to in the submission is approximately 14m from the southern property boundary of the subject site. The rear yard of 32 Milford is approximately 3m deep and contains a 1.8m wide pool running along the northern property boundary. Shadow diagrams submitted with the original application indicate that the approved component of the development (i.e. the upper floor) will cast part of the rear yard in shadow. A substantial portion of the rear yard will receive direct solar access throughout the morning. Solar access to north facing living room windows does not appear to be reduced. The shadow cast by the privacy screen to the upper level balcony will not reach as far as 32 Milford St on the winter solstice. The shadow associated with the proposed additional 1m of upper level will cast negligible additional shadow over a small part of the rear yard of 32 Milford. Despite the proposed changes, the portion of POS will continue to receive sunlight throughout the morning as per the numeric requirements stipulated in the DCP.

6. Key issues

Bulk and Height

Condition 2(a) was imposed due to concerns relating to the perceived bulk and height of the development. The following discussion is an excerpt from the Director City Planning Report No. CP54/15 presented to the Ordinary Council at the 27 October 2015 meeting:

“The form and massing of development need to be modelled to respond specifically to the site characteristics and the surrounding natural and built context. The proposed first floor addition does not comply with the external wall height requirement. Moreover, the rear balcony will add to the perceivable bulk and scale, as the height of the side elevation measured from the existing natural ground level to the top of the proposed privacy screen is 9.4m. The first floor level addition with balcony having 1.8m high privacy screen are therefore considered to be inappropriate to the proportions of the building. The perceivable bulk and scale and the proportion of dwelling are unsympathetic to adaptation of the site characteristic in terms of topography, orientation and surrounding natural and built context.”

The applicant argues that the imposition of condition 2(a) is unreasonable and unnecessary for the following reasons:

· The proposal is significantly below the permissible FSR of 0.75:1, having an FSR of 0.58:1, which equates to 60m² below the permissible gross floor area.

· The proposed bulk and scale has no adverse impact upon any surrounding neighbour as the rear extension at the upper level is setback significantly further than the neighbouring residential dwelling to the north.

· The elevated nature of the upper level additions also reduces the potential visibility due to the steep angle of viewing that would be out of one’s typical line of sight (assumed to be towards the backyard rather than upwards over the side boundary).

· The properties are zoned R3 Medium Density Residential, which permits a residential flat building. The proposed form of development is far more modest than that which could potentially be allowed on these sites.

· The proposal would be subservient to the height, bulk and scale of surrounding properties, including the approved (yet to be constructed) residential flat building at 34 Milford Street.

It is acknowledged that the proposed modifications remain compliant with Council’s floor space ratio and maximum building height standards, however, the overall external wall height is still up to approximately 9.3m (measured above the existing ground level) and is considered to be excessive. Whilst the proposed modifications include offsetting the rear upper level balcony from the southern side boundary by 900mm, the majority of the privacy screen on the southern edge of the balcony would still be visible from the neighbouring properties and will contribute to the perceived visual bulk. Further, the proposal will appear as bulkier development when compared with the approved development and other two storey dwellings within the vicinity of the site. The form and massing of the proposal also fails to respect the topography of the site and remains unsympathetic to the site characteristics in terms of the surrounding natural and built form context.

Overall, it is not considered that the proposed modifications have addressed Council’s concerns in relation to perceived visual bulk and also failed to respond appropriately to the permissible building envelope. For these reasons, the proposed modifications are regarded as unsatisfactory in meeting the relevant objectives of the DCP for building envelope & building design and should not be supported in its current form.

7. Section 79C Assessment

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.

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’	Comments
Section 79C(1)(a)(i) – Provisions of any environmental planning instrument	Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP) The site is zoned R3 – Medium Density under the LEP and the proposal relates to alterations and additions to an existing dwelling, which is permissible with Council’s consent. The proposed modification will not alter the compliance of the development with the relevant clauses of the LEP.
Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) – Provisions of any draft environmental planning instrument	Not applicable.
Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) – Provisions of any development control plan	Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP) The proposal fails to respond satisfactorily to the permissible building envelope and therefore does not satisfy the relevant objectives of the DCP.
Section 79C(1)(a)(iiia) – Provisions of any Planning Agreement or draft Planning Agreement	Not applicable.
Section 79C(1)(a)(iv) – Provisions of the regulations	The relevant conditions of the existing consent remain enforceable.
Section 79C(1)(b) – The likely impacts of the development, including environmental impacts on the natural and built environment and social and economic impacts in the locality	The proposed modification has not responded to the permissible building envelope and will result in adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining neighbours.
Section 79C(1)(c) – The suitability of the site for the development	The site is considered to be suitable for a residential accommodation.
Section 79C(1)(d) – Any submissions made in accordance with the EP&A Act or EP&A Regulation	The issues raised in the submissions have been addressed in this report.
Section 79C(1)(e) – The public interest	The proposed modification will result in adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining neighbour and is not considered to be in the public interest.

Relationship to City Plan

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

Outcome 4: Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction 4a: Improved design and sustainability across all development.

Financial impact statement

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

Conclusion

The proposed modification fails to respond to the permissible building envelope and respect the topography of the site and remains unsympathetic to the adaptation of the site characteristics in terms of surrounding natural and built form context. The modification application is therefore recommended for refusal.

Recommendation

That Council, as the consent authority, refuse its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended to delete Condition 2(a) of Development Consent No. 373/2015/A in relation to the deletion of rear upper level balcony and reduction in the size of the rear upper level bedroom of a semi-detached dwelling at 31 Pitt Street, Randwick for the following reasons:

1. The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant objectives of R3 – Medium Density zone under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in relation to the protection of residential amenity.

2. The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant objectives of Building Height under Part C1 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 in that the form and massing of the proposed modification fails to respect the topography of the site.

3. The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant objectives of Building Design under Part C1 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 in that the overall form, scale, massing and proportions of the dwelling do not recognise and adapt to the characteristics of the site in terms of topography, configuration, orientation and surrounding natural and built context.

4. The proposal exceeds the maximum external wall height control under Part C1 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 and will result in unreasonable impacts upon the neighbouring dwellings in terms of visual amenity.

Attachment/s:

Nil

Planning Committee 12 April 2016

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Development Application Report No. D32/16

Subject: 89-89A Mooramie Avenue, Kensington (DA/484/2015)

Folder No: DA/484/2015

Author: Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer

Proposal: Change of use of the existing dual occupancy and outbuilding to a boarding house consisting of 8 rooms (containing 11 lodgers) with associated alterations and additions, including construction of access ramp, bin store area and landscaping

Ward: Central Ward

Applicant: Ms W Wu

Owner: Ms W Wu

Summary

Recommendation: Approval


	Subject Site




	Submissions received
	Ù North
	Locality Plan

Development Application Executive summary report

The application is reported to the Planning Committee at the request of Councillors Stavrinos, Nash and Andrews.

1. Proposal

The development application seeks to change the use of the existing dual occupancy and outbuilding to a boarding house consisting of 8 rooms (containing 11 lodgers) with associated alterations and additions, including construction of access ramp, bin store area and landscaping.

Amended number of lodgers and rooms

The number of lodgers and rooms is reduced down from 11 lodgers to 9 and down from 8 rooms to 7 as follows:

o First floor boarding room BR4 is less than the 16sqm minimum required for double lodging thus this room is converted from a double lodger to a single lodger room – the applicant submitted an amended plan to this effect.

o A condition is included in the recommendation requiring the deletion of boarding room BR9 located within the outbuilding. This room contains poor amenity and it is only recommended that it be used for the purposes of storage - see key issues section.

2. Site

The site is a corner allotment of land with a western frontage of 10.215m to Mooramie Avenue, a 39.015m secondary south facing frontage to Barker Street and a total site area of 589.7sqm. The subject site has a 4% gradient from Mooramie Avenue down to the rear of the site. It contains an approved dual occupancy development comprising the two storey dwelling and an outbuilding containing a granny flat. Parking is also located within the outbuilding accessed off Barker Street to the south. The outbuilding abuts a 6m wide Stormwater Channel that also abuts the rear of properties fronting Doncaster Avenue.

Adjoining the site to the north is a detached dwelling at No. 87 Mooramie Avenue and to the east is the rear boundary of a property identified as No. 207 Doncaster Avenue containing a single dwelling. To the south on the opposite side of Barker Street is recreational open space identified as Kensington Park. The aerial photo below shows the site and the surrounding area

Below is an aerial image photo and photos 1 and 2 showing the subject site and surrounding as well as the front western elevation to Mooramie Avenue and the southern side elevation to Barker Street.

Aerial: Subject site (bounded in green) and the surrounding area. The site fronts Mooramie Avenue with a secondary frontage to Barker Street and is located approximately 350m from Anzac Parade and 280m from the Kensington Town Centre (B2 Local Centre zone). The regular bus services offered along Anzac Parade and proximity to the town centre mean the site qualifies as accessible site as required under the State Environmental Planning Policy – Affordable Rental Housing (SEPPARH) 2009.

Photo 1: View of the subject site from the western side of Mooramie Avenue

Photo 2: View of the rear of the subject site from the opposite side of Barker Street.

3. Site history

A review of Council’s files indicate that the property is currently approved as a dual occupancy, permitted to contain a two (2) storey residence and detached rear garage and single dwelling. The application history is summarised in Tables below.

Table 1: Development Application History

Date

Application Reference

Development Considered

06.02.1989

539/89/D-355/88

Approval granted for the construction a new single dwelling and garage to the rear of No. 89 Mooramie Avenue to create a dual occupancy.

At the time of granting consent the existing dwelling (located to the front of the property) was identified as single storey.

25.01.1993

539/89/D-535/92

Approved second storey addition to existing detached dual occupancy (front residence).

A specific condition (condition 5) was imposed restricting the use of each domicile to a single dwelling.

The property was sold in mid-2013 at the time of sale indicative floor plans were provided showing the main residence having being converted into two (2) separate domiciles. Notably this adaption contravenes the conditions of consent 539/89/D-535/92. It is unclear at what point these works were undertaken.

Table 2: Most recent Development application

Date	Application Reference	Development Considered
25.11.2015	DA/560/2014	Refusal of the proposed change of use into a boarding house for the following reasons: The submitted documentation did not suitably articulate the illegal works carried out; The proposed 17 lodger boarding facility was considered an over intensive use of the site and would result in significant adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties The development was not considered accessible under the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992
Notes: The proposal is considered suitable for the locality and the delivery of affordable housing is generally supported. It was considered by the assessment officer of the above DA that “If further application is made, it should be accompanied by a concurrent building certificate to regularise any unauthorised construction intended to be retained and seek to improve the plan and site layout by reducing the number of boarding rooms and residents”.

Date

Application Reference

Development Considered

25.11.2015

DA/560/2014

Refusal of the proposed change of use into a boarding house for the following reasons:

The submitted documentation did not suitably articulate the illegal works carried out;

The proposed 17 lodger boarding facility was considered an over intensive use of the site and would result in significant adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties

The development was not considered accessible under the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992

Notes:

The proposal is considered suitable for the locality and the delivery of affordable housing is generally supported.

It was considered by the assessment officer of the above DA that “If further application is made, it should be accompanied by a concurrent building certificate to regularise any unauthorised construction intended to be retained and seek to improve the plan and site layout by reducing the number of boarding rooms and residents”.

4. Submissions

· 34 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

· 38 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

· 40 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

· 46 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

· 48 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

· 52 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

· 54 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

· 56 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

· 58 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

· 59 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

· 60 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

· 62 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

· 64 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

· 65 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

· 66 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

· 69 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

· 75 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

· 77 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

· 79 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

· 81 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

· 83 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

· 85 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington (Head Petitioner containing 26 signatures)

· 87 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

· 205 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington

· Kensington & West Kingsford precinct

· Rapport Heritage Consultant

The issues raised in submissions received by Council are noted and assessment comments follow:

Issue: Residents and visitors will cause noise and disturbance to elderly residents and young families and the quiet and peaceful safe environment.

Comment: The premises are subject to management practices that will serve to ensure that the quiet enjoyment of the neighbouring properties will be reasonably protected. Additional conditions are also included to restrict use of the communal spaces so that they don’t occur between the hours of 10pm and 7am when sleep disturbance is more likely to occur. It is also noted that a management plan accompanies the application indicating that no parties will occur on site. Additional conditions have also been recommended for inclusion by Councils Senior Environmental Health Officer to minimise noise disturbance.

The safety of neighbours is not considered to be unduly impacted by the proposed use of the site as a boarding house for lodgers. There is nothing to suggest that the future occupants would pose a threat to the local community.

Issue: Increased numbers of transient people will bring increased noise at night when people want to relax

Comment: The 3 month minimum period of stay is not considered to represent a transient lodger. It is also noted that a nominated person is required to be responsible for the management of the boarding house. This person shall maintain a record of all residents with details of their names, length of stay & number of persons in each room. This information shall be stored for a minimum of 12 months on site and made available to Council Officer’s upon request.

Issue: The common room and TV room should be on the other side of the house as they are in close proximity to the bedroom of No. 87 Mooramie Avenue.

Comment: The common room is offset from the neighbour’s windows opposite and the TV room only contains a small window that is required to be treated with fixed obscured glazing to 1.6m above floor level. This will assist with noise attenuation. Notwithstanding, the use of the common rooms is restricted to the hours between 7am and 10pm thus minimising the potential for sleep disturbance. Locating these rooms during the parts of the day in which sunlight is most needed is not considered a good outcome.

Issue: There isn’t enough visible landscaping on site and removal of more trees

Comment: The landscaping provided on site is considered reasonable particularly in relation to the amount retained within the front yard with two trees being retained. See also key issues section under Part C1 – Low Density Residential - Landscaping and Permeable surfaces.

Issue: Waste bins should be located in the outbuilding. The proposed location of the waste bins will create smells to the street, park and BR3 and the rear balcony. Locating bins on the first floor landing is unsafe.

Comment: The location of the waste bins is considered acceptable and not considered to have any significant impact on odours to the street, parkland or BR3. A condition is also included requiring adequate provisions to be made within the premises for the storage, collection and disposal of waste and recyclable materials, to the satisfaction

of Council. There is no waste being located on the first floor landing, this is a cleaners room.

Issue: The acoustic study does not address noise from the use of the premises as a boarding house. The large number of students or boarders plus visitors at all hours will cause noise disturbance.

Comment: The acoustic report has been submitted with the application and is considered to suitably address the required noise source that is mechanical plant and equipment from the premises. In relation to lodger and visitor noise, these are considered to be adequately attenuated by the management plan, inclusive of house rules and other conditions of consent relating to behaviour and permitted use of communal space areas within the site. It is also considered that relocating the entry gate to the southern side of the building lessens the potential for noise disturbance from lodgers or visitors entering the premises during hours where sleep disturbance occurs. The reduction of lodgers from 11 down to 9 will also assist as will the removal of the boarding room BR9 from the outbuilding.

Issue: The removal of the first floor common room will mean more use of the first floor balconies.

Comment: As indicated the use of the premises if adequately managed will not result in any unreasonable noise impacts on the neighbouring properties.

Issue: Room BR9 within the outbuilding will be subject to fumes and fire hazard.

Comment: it is considered that the amenity of BR9 within the outbuilding is poor due to its only window facing the communal open space area and because of the proximity to the parking facilities.

Issue: The rear garden is too small and doesn’t appear to have the required width when considering the access path located alongside it

Comment: The communal open space in the rear yard is considered to be of a suitable width and area to provide suitable amenity for the occupants of the premises. It is noted that the communal open space provided represents an area of 2.2sqm per lodger which is greater than the 1.2sqm minimum required. It is also noted that there are multiple areas within the site that are capable of providing other options for the use of open space.

Issue: The number of lodgers should be reduced to reduce impacts on neighbouring properties.

Comment: The number of lodgers was firstly reduced from the 17 lodgers proposed under DA/560/2014 which was refused by Council. The original number of lodgers sought as part of this application was 11; however this was reduced by 1 lodger down to 10 as a result of the shortfall in the size of room BR4. A further reduction of 1 lodger as a result of the required deletion of BR9 within the outbuilding means that the total number of lodgers within the boarding house is reduced by 2 lodgers down to 9.

Issue: Residents from the upper floor will eat and socialise on the upstairs balcony particularly during bad weather causing noise to surrounds

Comment: The use of all communal open space areas is conditioned to only be permitted between 7am and 10pm hours where sleep disturbance is unlikely to occur.

Issue: The windows of No. 87 Mooramie Avenue are very close and windows near the neighbours should be properly fire treated.

Comment: The requirements for fire protection are a prescribed requirement under the Building Code of Australia (BCA). All openings will be required to comply with the deemed to satisfy or alternative solutions requirements under the BCA for fire safety and protection of neighbouring properties.

Issue: The constant shorter term stay of lodgers in a boarding house will conflict with the capacity for use to get to know our neighbours and to allow us to feel safe. The boarding house will feel like a hotel in the street. This type of accommodation should not be in the R2 zone.

Comment: The boarding house is permissible in the R2 zone under both the SEPPARH and the Council RDCP. A hotel is a use that would permit only short terms stays from a few hours and it is only permitted in certain local centres within Randwick LGA. The management and operation of the premises will require the lodger’s registration to be kept on-site.

Issue: The share room arrangement promotes short term accommodation and not long term housing.

Comment: The share room arrangement does not necessarily promote shorter term accommodation. Notwithstanding, it is noted that there are only two rooms in the premises that would be capable of accommodating double lodgers. These rooms would also be usable for a couple of students or friends.

Issue: The first floor has many people sharing rooms and no eating or dining area so boarders will have to use the balconies more, creating more noise for neighbours

Comment: The first floor contains only one shared room (BR8). The originally proposed double lodging of BR4 has since been amended by the applicant to house only one lodger as the room size was smaller than 16sqm. There are a total of five lodgers using the first floor level and it is considered that in combination with the area within the kitchen, and the first floor balconies at the front and rear that there is sufficient areas for the purposes of having a meal. It is further considered that the management of the premises and restrictions on use of the outdoor spaces during late night periods that the amenity of neighbouring residents will be protected.

Issue: With the 11 lodgers, high turnover and no manager on site the potential for impacts is greater and more likely complaints

Comments: The number of lodgers is reduced down to 9, a condition is included requiring a nominated person is required to manage the premises. It is considered that if the property is managed effectively and efficiently that this will lessen the need for complaints to be made and therefore investigated by relevant authorities.

Issue: the management plan seeks to rely on neighbours to complain which is unreasonable.

Comment: Noted, however the complaint procedure is aimed at reducing the potential for conflict between the proposed uses carried out on site and to promote the orderly use of the site. Thus, the complaint procedure amongst also house rules encompassed within the management plan seek to ensure that the premises is run as efficiently and effectively as possible without resulting in any unreasonable adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties and the surrounding area.

Issue: Boarders and friends will be parking in the street creating higher demand for on street parking

Comment: The proposed parking for the boarding house complies with the SEEPARH standards for parking. Under the SEPPARH, explicitly prohibits Council from refusing an application on parking grounds if it meets those standards. It is also important to consider that the premises meets the criteria as an accessible site as it is within 400m of both an accessible transport route and a town centre which would lessen the need for vehicle ownership by lodgers.

Issue: The number of people proposed is out of proportion with other houses and number of occupants within each dwelling.

Comment: The boarding house is conditioned to be limited to a maximum of 9 lodgers which is not considered an inordinate number when considered in the context of a dual occupancy premises to which it currently has approval for.

Issue: If passed the outdoor areas should be limited to 9pm

Comment: The outdoor areas are limited to up to 10pm and not before 7am. These are considered to be reasonable restrictions for the quiet enjoyment of neighbouring properties

Issue: Concerned with overlooking into neighbouring properties

Comment: The proposed development contains adequate privacy measures inclusive of the use of screening along the northern side of balconies. The rear balconies which are most susceptible to resulting in overlooking to the northern neighbour’s property at No. 87 Mooramie Avenue have privacy screens that wrap around to their rear elevations ensuring the outlook is further minimised to limit overlooking to the rear most sections of this neighbours rear yard which is not an inordinate outcome having regard to privacy within the urban context. In relation to the neighbours at the rear it is considered that the 20m separation to their boundary provides sufficient separation for the purposes of privacy protection.

Issue: How would the residents escape the building if there was a fire on the 1st floor as there is only an exit through the front door on the ground floor.

Comment: All rooms within the first floor level are separated from the travel path and required to have a fire bounding construction to comply with the BCA and Australian Standards

Issue: The illegal building is still part of the DA

Comment: The illegal works carried out are merely there to identify the works that do not form part of the DA and therefore the Construction certificate. If the development is considered suitable for boarding house use then these works will be required to be appropriately certified prior to any further works being carried out.

Issue: the front entry must be maintained for safety and security

Comment: The relocated entry to the southern part of the site is still located in close proximity to the front boundary of Mooramie Avenue. It is considered that relocated front entry to the secondary street frontage reduces the potential for amenity impacts on neighbouring properties also.

Issue: Wil this application set a precedent for other similar uses in the area therefore transforming the character of the area.

Comment: Every application is assessed on its merits. It is considered that the subject site is suitable for the proposed use as amended and as conditioned. It will achieve good planning outcome having regard to satisfying the requirements under the SEPPARH and the relevant controls under the RDCP and RLEP.

Issue: The proposed boarding house adds considerable noise, traffic and parking in the street which have already been felt from the UNSW expansion.

Comment: The site is capable of accommodating the proposed use on site, which is smaller than that originally proposed. The surrounding area is in close proximity to a Local Centre contains a number of service industries such as health and education. This location lends itself to being used for the purposes of a boarding house and will not subject to compliance with relevant conditions will not result in any significant or unreasonable adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties.

Issue: The privacy screens on the verandahs will not restrict noise impacts

Comment: Acknowledged however this area is sited alongside a living area on the adjoining site and not considered to result in any significant noise impacts on the neighbouring properties living area.

Issue: Request that council imposes the highest standards on boarding house proposals to protect the visual, acoustic, social, environmental amenity of surrounding residents and make no concessions unfavourable to long term residents when compared to boarding house developers who seek short term development yield.

Comment: Council is charged with assessing the application for a boarding house within policy guidelines. The assessment is carried out against these relevant standards guided by Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and its regulations. These policies and guidelines consider the amenity of residents in the surrounding area.

Issue: Who is the owner accountable to in relation to ensuring the noise and management plans are adhered to and what sanctions will apply.

Comment: Having regard to the SEPPARH, the number of boarding rooms within the premises does not require an onsite manager. Notwithstanding, a condition is included requiring that a person be nominated to be the manager for the premises. Whilst this does not require them to be on-site it does however require that a person be charged with adhering to the management plan and associated conditions of consent. In relation to the sanctions, there are certain regulations that Council can rely on that would be directed to the owner of the premises.

Issue: The management plan will not be able to adequately manage noise as with shared rooms lodgers will want to go somewhere else to talk when their roommate is studying or sleeping. We believe that the noise can only be managed by reducing lodger numbers.

Comment: There are ample areas within the premises for the purposes of talking. As noted the communal open space areas provide suitable areas for said purposes as do the internal communal areas and these are appropriately restricted.

Issue: The overall plan does not fit in with the concept of good eco-living conditions it is overcrowded, congested and noisy

Comment: The plan is accompanied by a BASIX certificate ensuring the ecologically sustainable development measures are being satisfied. Aspects such as solar access and generally amenity are considered throughout the assessment of this report. It is considered that the rooms are of a sufficient size that they are able to sustain lodging for 9 lodgers.

Issue: The plan for the TV room is very small, how many people would fit in there

Comment: The TV room is not required to fit all lodgers, provides an alternate passive activity within the communal living areas of the boarding house.

Issue: All the rooms are too small and will not be lodged for long periods

Comment: The room sizes are suitable for the number of occupants (9) and suitable amenity will be afforded for future occupants of these rooms.

Issue: The proposed screens of the balcony will result in the loss of view of the park from the lounge room living room facing south

Comment: The screens will result in loss of outlook from their window however it is a sideways view across the subject site – see photo 3 below. These side views are not easily protected having regard to the view sharing planning principle set out by the Land and Environment Court. There will also be views of the park that are retained in a more rearward diagonal angle across the subject site from this neighbour’s window – see photo 4 below. It is also noted that the development in terms of its size and scale is compliant with the relevant RLEP and RDCP controls for side and rear setbacks and heights.

Photo 3: showing views from the neighbour’s south facing living room window that will be lost as a result of the installation of privacy screens along the northern and eastern side of the ground level balcony.

Photo 4: showing the view of park from the same level of neighbour’s south facing living room window. Note: The photo is taken from within the subject site at a height at which an unobstructed view will be retained from this neighbour’s living room window in a sitting position.

Overall, having regard to the view sharing planning principle provided by the Land and Environment Court, it is considered that the proposed development will achieve a reasonable level of view sharing. In other words, the view loss of the park from the neighbour’s living room window is acceptable, there will be retained views of the park that are of reasonably good quality and the proposed size, and location of the development represents a reasonable development having regard to the relevant planning policies and guidelines.

Issue: The following windows appear to have been altered and do not appear to be the original dimensions:

· Ground level north facing common room window

· First floor level north facing boarding room (BR5)

These windows result in adverse privacy impacts.

Comment: The ground level common room window dimensions have been altered slightly at the header and a condition is included ensuring the works carried out to the header do not form part of the consent. There does not appear to be works that have been carried out to the first floor window to boarding room BR5.

· Common room window: In relation to the common room window it is slightly offset from the neighbour’s window and in order to ensure sufficient visual privacy a condition is included requiring an external screen to 1.6m above the internal floor level to provide greater levels of privacy to the northern neighbours windows.

· BR5 window: Window to BR5 a first floor level room is on a higher horizontal plane to that the northern neighbour’s lower ground level window and therefore suitably offset to ensure no significant privacy impacts.

Issue: First floor boarding room Window to BR4 will affect my future development of No. 87 Mooramie Avenue

Comment: BR4 is a relatively small window and it is not anticipated that the total number of north facing windows at first floor level is either excessive or would unreasonably affect the future first floor addition to No. 87 Mooramie Avenue

Issue: there is only one common room and is likely to be the location for parties and gatherings within the house

Comment: The management plan indicates that the premises are restricted from having parties within the premises. Notwithstanding, gatherings may well occur as this is an area in common. However it is important to also consider that the common room window is offset from the windows on the southern elevation of the dwelling opposite and further there are restrictions on the use of this room within certain hours.

Issue: Fire separation works are not intended to be carried out

Comment: The applicant has submitted a satisfactory and comprehensive Fire Engineering report including alternative solutions and also a BCA report accompany the application.

Issue: The accessibility to the manager from between 8am and 10pm does not factor the likely periods in which the manager may be called upon to ensure that the premises is operating within acceptable boundaries in terms of noise and occupant behaviour.

Comment: The necessity for 24 hour on call manager is considered onerous for the purposes of a boarding house containing a maximum of 9 lodgers.

Issue: If the boarding house facility is approved it should be reduced to a maximum capacity of 5 lodgers

Comment: The 9 lodgers as conditioned is considered suitable for the site and a recommendation is made for an approval subject to appropriate conditions being imposed

Issue: The revised plans still fail to differentiate between the unauthorised works commenced by the applicant and other unauthorised works carried out by previous owners.

Comment: An inspection of the site reveals that the works carried out have been documented as shown on the submitted plans. It is not considered that

Issue: The calculations provided by the applicant are incorrect

Comment: The calculations have been carried out independently and the applicant has further acknowledged as such and it is noted that the additional soft landscaping provided is increased to counteract the loss of landscaping at the front.

Issue: The proposed development does not qualify as accessible under the Disability Discrimination Act having regard to the internal communal area and the rear private open space areas

Comment: See comments under disability discrimination act in the key issues section of this report.it is noted that certain measures have been documented in this key issues section of this report. These works are considered to adequately address the requirements under the Disability Discrimination Act and a suitable condition is included. These works are also minor and will not result in any adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties.

Issue: The communal room measures less than 20sqm excluding the TV room

Comment: it is considered that the opening between the communal room showing a table and chairs should be considered as including the TV room which totals 20sqm

Issue: The lack of communal room at first floor level will mean more noise to boarding rooms within the development

Comment: The boarding room adjacent to the areas of private open space at first floor level includes only BR8 at the rear and BR4 at the front. BR4 has no window openings to the private open space and is therefore suitable protected. BR8 does have a window opening to this area. It is considered that for the purposes of amenity within the room that the restrictions on the use of the first floor level balcony to between 7am and 10pm will allow for reasonable levels of privacy during sleep periods.

It is also noted that this is not the only window that provides light to the room as it also has a window that is unobstructed by buildings opposite but has a relatively open view across to large areas of open space.

Issue: tenants will cook in their rooms creating a fire hazard

Comment: There are no cooking facilities in any boarding rooms.

5. Key Issues

The following section of this report contains an assessment of the key issues of relevance to the subject application.

5.1 Unauthorised works

It was noted by the assessment officer of the previous development application (DA/560/2014) that following an inspection of the property combined with a review of the last known floor plan layout of the dwellings there was much more unauthorised works that had taken place than that shown on the plans submitted with the application. Due to this lack of clarity in identifying the extent of works that have taken place and the restriction placed on Council to retrospectively approve any such works the application was required to be refused.

The submitted plans as part of this application suitably document the extent of unauthorised works and where necessary suitable conditions are included encompassing the works to the header of ground level common room window.

Should a recommendation be made for approval, an appropriate condition will be included excluding the illegal works from the determination. These unauthorised works will be the subject of Council’s Building and Regulatory Services Section who will be required to ensure that there are no BCA or fire safety implications and that they are structural sound which will be required to be completed prior to a Construction certificate being issued for the proposed works encompassed within this application.

5.2 Disability Discrimination Act 1992

The previous development application contained certain elements that did not comply with the Access to Premises standards or the Building Code of Australia in relation to minimum access requirements. These elements have been rectified by the subject application as follows:

· A continuous path of travel is now provided to the rear of the property and between the detached outbuilding and the main dwelling for mobility restricted persons.

· The common areas including the internal communal room and shower and laundry facilities are now accessible by virtue of the increased width of openings

The applicant has furnished a letter of recommendation from GN Consulting, dated 05/03/2015, indicating that the proposed development will, satisfy the relevant requirements under the Part D3 of the BCA 2014, and other standards for Access and Mobility subject to the following works:

- Relocation of the pedestrian entrance to the southern side of the dwelling;

- Increase in width of openings to no less than 850mm;

- Removal of an existing Avocado Tree near the front of the property;

- The design of all ground surfaces

- Increase in width of rear stairway to 1000mm minimum

- Installation of threshold ramps at the doors leading to private open spaces at the front and rear

- Provision of braille signage for accessible facilities and exits

- Install handrails on the principle pedestrian ramp and increase width of the landing

- Locate all switches and door handle to between 900-1100mm above the finished floor level.

These works are minor and there are no objections to these works being carried out.

In relation to the Avocado tree it is considered that the site is able to sustain the loss of the Avocado Tree and the retention of two trees in the front yard ensure that suitable landscaping and open space is retained at the front to soften the development from street level.

Outbuilding

It is noted that the recommendation by GN consulting indicates that the Class 1b outbuilding is not included in their assessment. This is not fatal to the application in so far as the amenity of the room (BR9) is poor and therefore required to be deleted from the application as a condition. This room will be limited for use as a store room.

Overall, it is considered that the requirements under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 are satisfied and should approval be recommended a suitable condition shall be included requiring compliance with the associated documentation from GN Consulting and required deletion of Room BR9.

5.3 State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

Division 3: Boarding houses

The subject application is made pursuant to the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and its relevant clauses. The key clauses are addressed as follows:

· Clause 26 of the SEPP provides that Boarding Houses under this Division are permissible within the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

· Clause 28 stipulates that such development may be carried out with consent.

· Clause 29 provides standards that cannot be used to refuse consent and

o Clause 29(3) Landscaped area

Landscape treatment is required if the front setback area is compatible with the streetscape in which the building is located.

The main built form remains setback from the Mooramie Avenue frontage with the only new element located between the existing building and front boundary being the external access ramp.

The proposed ramp is considered acceptable having regard to the requirements under Clause 29(3) for the following reasons:

It is located at ground level and will not be immediately noticeable from street level

The front setback of the development from the Mooramie Street frontage will remain retaining generally consistency with the prevailing setback in this section of the Street.

The application now retains two of the three existing trees in the front yard, with the Avocado tree required to be removed, providing suitable landscaping and open space fronting Mooramie Avenue ensuring the open spaces will be compatible with surrounding development.

o Clause 29(d) Private open space

The proposed development includes 1 communal area in the rear yard measuring 24sqm between the outbuilding and the rear decks thus complying with the minimum requirements under the SEPPARH. The rear yard has minimum dimension of 3m which encompasses the garden bed. Notwithstanding the trafficable area in the rear yard only has a minor shortfall which is largely a consequence of the requirement for an access ramp to address the inaccessibility issue identified in the previous application considered by Council DA/560/2014.

It is also important to note that under the SEPPARH the areas of open space do not exclude the garden beds or access areas. It is also important to consider the amenity of the area of private open space and whether there are alternative areas within the premises that would allow for suitable areas for this purpose. In this respect, the site contains suitable amenity for the purposes of private open space in the rear yard with good amenity. In addition. The boarding house also provides additional private areas for the lodgers at the rear ground and first floor level balconies as well as the front ground and first floor level balconies. In addition, the site is also opposite Kensington Park which also provides the capacity for more active recreational uses.

o Clause 29(f) Accommodation size

This section of the SEPPARH requires that each boarding room has a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of at least 12sqm for a single lodger and 16sqm for any other case.

The ground level room BR4 has an area less than the required 16sqm and is therefore required to be a single lodger room. The applicant acknowledged as such and submitted amended first floor plan showing only one bed is located within this room. There are two rooms with areas above 16sqm allowing double lodgers (BR3 & BR8).

A suitable condition shall be included should a recommendation be made for approval

· Clause 30 prescribes that a consent authority must not grant consent to a development unless it is satisfied that certain standards for boarding houses are being met.

o Clause 30(a) Communal living room

The SEPPARH requires that “If a boarding house has 5 or more boarding rooms, at least one (1) communal living room will be provided.

A communal living room has been provided within the building at ground floor level. The proposed communal living room is located at ground level allowing for both passive TV viewing and a larger area with table and chairs allowing for more active communal interaction. Under the previous application (DA/560/2014) the communal living rooms were not considered to contain adequate amenity as they were two rooms that did not meet the minimum requirements under the RDCP for size, they were inappropriately located for the purposes of good amenity and they didn’t allow direct accessibility.

The communal room now contains a size and is located adjacent to the kitchen ensuring that it provides reasonable amenity for the purposes of the RDCP controls and objectives. The amenity of boarding rooms and their location relative to the communal room will be discussed further below under the RDCP key issues relating to the application.

· Clause 30A requires the consent authority is required to take into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.

o Clause 30A - Character of the local area

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

Context:

The site has a frontage of 10.215m to Mooramie Avenue, a 39.015m secondary frontage to Barker Street and a total site area of 589.7sqm.

To the north, west and east the site is surrounded by detached dwelling houses. Further to the east on either side of Houston Road are properties zoned R3 medium density residential allowing for smaller scale residential flat buildings that also permit boarding houses with a bonus of 0.5:1 FSR allowed under the SEPP ARH 2009. Further eastward, the site is located within 300mm of the Kensington Town Centre along Anzac Parade that allows for developments with a height limit of 24m. The UNSW located on the eastern side of Anzac Parade contains large elements of student accommodation. The site is located approximately 6km from the Sydney CBD.

The locality is occupied by a mix of low to medium density residential and infrastructure type land uses of a built form and spatial separation that is comparable to and compatible with the proposed development.

The following image demonstrates the zoning context.

Zoning context

Compatibility of built form:

When viewed from Mooramie Avenue, Barker Street and surrounding properties the development will read as a 2 storey dwelling as shown in photo 1 below.

Although the proposed development does not meet the minimum landscaped area required for dwellings by the RDCP 2013, the development continues to contain suitable trees between the front ramp and the front boundary, additional deep soil areas have been provided such that it will not be discernible from street level. In essence, the proposed development will not affect the discernible spatial separation that currently exists at the front of the site and it will not be inconsistent with the predominant front building line or setbacks along this side of Mooramie Avenue or the secondary street frontage. The proposed ramp which is the reason for the shortfall in landscaping and one of the reasons for refusal of the previous development application before Council is lessened by the provision of additional deep soil, retention of two trees within the front setback of the development and the loss of only one tree to provide disabled access ramp in the front and along the secondary street frontage.

It is noted that the nearby R2 and R3 zoned properties surrounding area allow for a maximum FSR of 0.75:1 and a height limit of 9.5m. Within this context, the proposed development is entirely compatible.

Compatibility of use:

The proposed use of the site, which comprises boarding house with 8 rooms and a maximum of 9 lodgers (reduced from the 11 initially proposed), constitutes a permissible form of development one that is envisaged by the SEPPARH 2009. Effective measures in relation to operation and management of the boarding house have been employed in a Plan of Management. These measures are recommended for enforcement by way of an appropriate condition of consent and will ensure that the development results in sustainable amenity impacts to adjoining residents. The proposed development will provide affordable housing to the community in a location within close proximity to the University of NSW, public transport, and commercial centres integrating effectively into the evolving character of the locality.

Consistency with the objectives of the Residential R2 zone;

The proposal is clearly consistent with the objectives of the zone, detailed as follows:

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

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

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

· To protect the amenity of residents.

· To encourage housing affordability.

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

The physical impacts on surrounding properties are negligible and the RDCP section of this report is assessed as acceptable subject to appropriate conditions of consent. Furthermore the appearance of the proposed development will not markedly be changed and will remain be in harmony with the existing nature of the streetscape.

The local character test is satisfied on this occasion.

5.4 Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012

The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density under Randwick LEP 2012. The proposal development is classified as a boarding house and is permissible in the zone. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the zone and satisfies the key provisions under Clause 4.3 relating to building heights, Clause 4.4 relating to Floor space ratio and Clause 5.9 Preservation of Trees. In relation to trees which were a key issue of the previous application (DA/560/2014), the subject application now retains two of the three trees previously sought to be removed from the front yard.

5.5 Randwick Development Control Plan (RDCP) 2013

A detailed assessment of the proposed development against the relevant provisions of the Randwick Development Control Plan (RDCP) 2013 is included in the attachment to this report.

The key provisions of the relevant sections of the RDCP are addressed in this report.

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

5.5.1 Part C4: Boarding Houses

Under Clause 1: Boarding rooms of this part of the RDCP the following are identified as key measures to be considered in the assessment of the application for the boarding house/facility:

· Sunlight access

A key consideration of boarding room amenity is if they are orientated to receive the maximum amount of sunlight;

The proposal provides a northern aspect to only 3 of the 7 rooms with four rooms BR2, BR3 and BR6 & BR8 facing south and therefore do not have direct access to sunlight.

Despite this it is considered that the amenity and light provided within these rooms is considered suitable for the following reasons:

o The development is an adaptive reuse of an existing dwelling for the purposes of a boarding house and requiring all rooms to have a northern aspect is considered onerous in the context of the sites orientation

o The south facing rooms have much greater capacity for obtaining natural light with generally unobstructed outlook from their windows due to the fact that they do not have any neighbouring dwellings opposite and will thus allow for substantial natural light.

o The development includes three four areas of open space that are capable of receiving direct solar access

o The development also includes a communal living room that also retains more than minimum levels of direct solar access

Overall it is considered that arrangement of rooms for the purposes of sunlight is acceptable given the circumstances of the site.

· Safety and Crime Prevention

Another key consideration of boarding house design relates to whether there are suitable safety and crime prevention measures designed within the development. A key control is that building entry points and internal entries to living areas are located where they are clearly visible from common spaces.

The development seeks to locate the building entry point to the southern side elevation away from the front western elevation facing Mooramie Avenue (where it currently exists). This does not satisfy the control under Part C1 of the RDCP for low density residential development which requires that entries be located at the front elevation for the purposes of adequate casual surveillance.

Despite this it is considered that the casual surveillance of the street and the site is reasonable for the purposes of safety and crime prevention for the following reasons:

o The site currently has a high fence which already restricts sightlines to the street and the front entry through small openings within the existing fence. In order to not restrict this further a condition is included requiring only low-lying shrubs that do not interfere with sight lines nor provide opportunities for concealment or entrapment.

o Habitable boarding room at the front allows for casual surveillance to and from the front along Mooramie Avenue

o The southern side which is elevated above secondary street level footpath allowing for casual surveillance to the entry gate, and from communal open spaces at the rear

o The development locates habitable living areas (such as lounge room, kitchen, dining or bedroom) to allow general observation of the street and communal open space within the site itself;

Overall, the proposed adaptive reuse of the existing dwelling for the purposes of a boarding house will generally incorporate adequate safety and crime prevention:

· Visual and Acoustic Amenity and Privacy

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

The key controls under the SEPPARH are:

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

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

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

· Bedrooms are generally located above each other except for bedroom 5 (1st floor), which is located above the communal room.

The key objectives under the RDCP for are:

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

An assessment of the visual and acoustic privacy of the boarding facilities in relation to the above SEPPARH and RDCP objectives is carried out as follows:

o Window privacy on neighbouring properties

The window that may have an adverse visual privacy impact on the neighbouring property is the TV room window and the common room window. These have an outlook across to the neighbour’s habitable room window (in the middle of their southern elevation). A suitable condition is included requiring these windows to be suitably treated ensuring no downward direct overlooking.

o Balcony privacy on neighbouring properties

The proposed development contains suitable 1.8m high screening to parts of balconies which may have a direct and obtrusive view into the neighbouring properties. These screens are conditioned to be designed to ensure reasonable levels of visual privacy to neighbouring properties

o Acoustic Amenity within the boarding facility

The assessment of the previous application for a boarding house considered that in certain areas of the facility, the internal layout resulted in poor acoustic/noise amenity for the occupants of the premises. The subject application has substantially addressed these issues and an assessment of the areas considered in the previous application is also considered in the current application which has substantially reduced the number of lodgers using the premises. The internal acoustic amenity of the premises is assessed for the facility’s areas as follows:

Ground level:

- Ground level boarding room (BR1) had a window and common wall to the proposed communal area; the bedroom window is now filled in and whilst the wall is still adjacent to the private open space it is not considered that any adverse acoustic amenity will result.

- Ground level boarding room (BR2 - previously BR4) had a common wall to the shared entry foyer/communal area and kitchen; the communal area has been relocated away from this foyer entry area and suitable management ensures that the occupants of BR2 will not be unreasonably impacted its location adjacent to the entry and kitchen. It is noted that there are only three boarding rooms at this level and it is not anticipated that the location of the BR2 would be unduly impacted in terms of its amenity. Further the room is for a single lodger and it is anticipated that alternative arrangement of the bed is possible within the room to provide better amenity.

- Ground level boarding room (BR3) is located between the common kitchen and rear verandah, BR3 remains located in this position between the kitchen and rear verandah; the occupant’s amenity can be reasonably protected by the management of these areas of the site during the late night periods.

- Ground level boarding room (BR2) was located between common laundry kitchen and en-suite bathroom of boarding room BR1; this boarding room is now replaced with an internal communal room.

First floor level:

- First floor boarding room (BR5 – previously BR7) is located between an en-suite and the laundry. This matter has been raised in a submission. It is not considered that this is a significant concern in so far as the laundry elements are located on the far wall away from the bedroom and the en-suite suite is located adjacent to the en-suite for another boarding room (BR4). Suitable amenity will be retained within this room. Whilst BR5 remains adjacent to the laundry and opposite the kitchen it is considered that there is sufficient separation from the kitchen. As well this room which was previously a double lodger room is now single lodger room readily allowing for bed placement away from the adjacent laundry. Further still, appropriate management of the facility will minimise adverse acoustic amenity impacts.

- First floor boarding room (BR6) is located between the kitchen and cleaners room. As is the case with BR2 on the ground level there are no major concerns with the amenity within this room as it is likely that the cleaner’s room would not be used during late night periods and further there is ample area within the room to configure the bed for least impact.

Outbuilding

- Outbuilding boarding rooms BR5 and BR11 were inappropriately located adjacent to communal kitchen and share a common wall with parking areas. Boarding room BR5 is now removed from within the outbuilding and the subject application relabels BR11 now as BR9 with a reconfigured internal layout for the outbuilding contains a communal kitchen and laundry. The internal layout of the outbuilding relative to boarding room BR9 is considered to contain very poor amenity and conditioned to be deleted for the following reasons:

o This room is directly opposite the kitchen with no appreciable separation,

o It’s only window is directly opposite the communal area of open space in the rear yard

o It’s in a direct pathway to and from the parking area which cannot be appropriately managed to minimise impacts

A condition is therefore included requiring the deletion of boarding room BR9 from the development and replaced with a store room only.

Overall, subject to a condition requiring the deletion of boarding room BR9, the internal amenity of boarding rooms is considered adequate.

o Acoustic amenity of neighbouring properties

The SEPPARH requires that the acoustic amenity of neighbouring properties is reasonably protected. The RDCP also requires the same and requires that an acoustic report prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant must be submitted for new development or conversions/intensifications with an increase in resident numbers.

The application includes a noise impact assessment report which has been reviewed by Councils Senior Environmental Health Officer. Councils Health officer raises no objection to the proposed development on the grounds of acoustic amenity of neighbouring properties subject to the inclusion of conditions to suitably ameliorate acoustic impacts. These conditions include but are not limited to the requirement for an updated acoustic report following operation to ensure compliance with the applicable noise criteria, certain restrictions on the use of communal open space areas. In this respect, the application is also supported by a Plan of Management that includes restrictions on the use of outdoor spaces by residents to the hours between 7am and 10pm outside of which are most susceptible to result in noise disturbance and restricting the playing of music, parties or visitors after 10.00pm.

Overall, it is considered that the subject application has reasonably considered the visual and acoustic amenity within the subject site and that of the neighbouring property namely that of No. 87 Mooramie Avenue.

5.5.2 Management plan (Part C4 and Part B9 of the RDCP 2013)

The RDCP under Part C4 Boarding houses and Part B9 Management Plans sets out the requirement and contents of a Management Plan to be submitted with all DAs for new and existing boarding houses. Management plans are required to address the general requirements outlined in the Management Plan section in Part B, which includes the following matters:

· Selection of residents with preference for people on low and moderate incomes;

· Furnishings;

· House rules, covering issues such as lodger behaviour, visitor and party policies, activities and noise control, use and operation hours of common areas (e.g. communal open space and living rooms) and policies for regulating smoking and consumption of alcohol and illicit drugs;

· Cleaning and vermin control arrangements for shared facilities and

· Public notice and signs

A plan of management and House Rules accompany the application and it is generally considered to suitably address the requirements under Part C4 and Part B9 of the RDCP 2013. Adherence to the management plan and additional matters will be a conditional requirement and serve to ensure the operation of the boarding house will not result in any significant or unreasonable adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties and the surrounding area.

5.5.3 Part C1 Low Density Residential

As indicated in the previous assessment, landscaping is the subject of a separate specified control under the provisions of SEPPARH to which it is considered to comply. Notwithstanding, reference is made to the landscaping and permeable surfaces section of this part of the RDCP as it contains the objectives that are required to be satisfied for the purposes of low density residential development.

· Landscaping and permeable surfaces

The proposed development has 17.8% of the site provided as deep soil area and would not meet the 30% minimum area required for low density residential development under the RDCP 2013.

The relevant objectives under this section of the RDCP are:

· To ensure landscaped areas are effectively distributed on the site to achieve a visual balance between building structures and open space.

· To provide privacy screening between dwellings.

· To retain and provide for canopy trees and large shrubs to contribute to the establishment of vegetation corridors across the locality.

· To assist with stormwater infiltration and reduction of overland flow.

Despite the deep soil area being less than the 30% minimum it is considered the amount of deep soil area provided on site is suitable for the purposes of the proposed development for the following reasons:

o The existing deep soil area on site is not being altered appreciably by the proposed development with minor reduction at the front for the purposes of a ramp entry to comply with accessibility requirements

o The deep soil area provided on site is strategically located along the boundaries such that it is not anticipated to result in any significant increase in overland flow and will permit stormwater infiltration

o The deep soil retained in the front of the site is generally consistent with the established levels of deep soil areas and compatible with the visual balance of structures within the site and those on the street

o The application now includes the retention of two trees within the site which were previously sought to be removed under DA/560/2014

Overall, the reduction of deep soil is suitable having regard to the amenity within the site, it does not detract from streetscape character and will continue to assist with stormwater infiltration and minimising overland flow.

Relationship to City Plan

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

Outcome 4: Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction 4a: Improved design and sustainability across all development.

Financial impact statement

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

Conclusion

The proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria and where non-compliance occurs with particular provisions there are adequate planning explanations for satisfying the relevant objectives associated with the controls.

The proposed will not result in any adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality subject to conditions being imposed or compliance with the recommended conditions contained in the attached DA compliance report.

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

Recommendation

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/484/2015 to change the use of the existing dual occupancy and outbuilding to a boarding house consisting of 7 rooms (containing 9 lodgers) with associated alterations and additions, including construction of access ramp, bin store area and landscaping, at No. 89-89A Mooramie Avenue, Kensington, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

Non-standard conditions

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

2. The approved plans and documents must be amended in accordance with the following requirements:

a. The privacy screens having a height 1.8m above floor level must be provided to those shown on the referenced plans. The privacy screens must be constructed of metal or timber and the total area of any openings within the privacy screens must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen. Alternatively, the privacy screens may be constructed with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame. Materials selected for the privacy screens must be consistent with the colours and materials colour schedule submitted with the application.

b. The following window must have a minimum sill height of a 1.6m above floor level, or alternatively, the window is to be fixed and be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing below this specified height:

· North facing ground level TV room window

c. An external privacy screen is required to be attached to the north facing common room window. The screen shall have a height of 1600mm above the internal floor level. The external screen shall be fixed at an angle to avoid overlooking into the habitable room window of No. 87 Mooramie Avenue. Details of compliance are to be submitted to and approved by Councils Manager Development Assessment prior to the issue of Construction certificate.

Note: All privacy screens must be installed prior to the issue of any occupation certificate.

d. This consent does not include approval for any internal/external building works carried out prior to the issuing of this consent. This includes the unauthorised works shown on the plans reference in condition 1 including the works carried out to the header of the north facing ground level common room window.

e. All boarding rooms apart from Rooms BR3 and BR8 (which are double lodger rooms) shall only be occupied by a single lodger. The management of the boarding facility shall be responsible for ensuring that this requirement is adhered to by validating relevant personal details before admission. This condition is to ensure that strangers are not sharing the single rooms and potentially altering the approved use of the premises.

f. Boarding room BR9 shall be deleted from the development. This room does not contain suitable amenity as it is located adjacent to both the parking area and the communal open space. This room shall be used for the purposes of storage.

61. The maximum permitted number of lodgers is 9 persons.

Attachment/s:

DA Compliance Report - 89 - 89A Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

Included under separate cover

Planning Committee 12 April 2016

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Development Application Report No. D33/16

Subject: 2 Beach Street, Clovelly (DA/883/2014/A)

Folder No: DA/883/2014/A

Author: Christopher Gorton, Assessment Officer

Proposal: Section 96 modification of approved development by alterations to the ground floor layout, reduction of Unit 1 terrace, addition of external stairs, increase size of planter on northern boundary, new plunge pool in north-west corner of site with landscaping and planting

Ward: North Ward

Applicant: Brenchley Architects

Owner: Mr W C Scott & Mrs P Scott

Summary

Recommendation: Approval


	Subject Site




	Submissions received
	Ù North
	Locality Plan

Development Application Executive summary report

The Section 96 ‘A’ application is referred to the Planning Committee as the original application was determined by Council.

Proposal

The subject Section 96 ‘A’ application seeks to make the following changes to the approved development application:

· Minor changes to the internal layout of the ground floor pantry and adjacent w/c of units 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5;

· Planter boxes have been proposed along the northern side wall for the whole boundary from east to west (as per condition 2h of the development consent);

· The front terrace at ground floor level has been setback 850mm to align with the basement level (as per condition 2g of the development consent);

· Addition of stairs from the front terrace to unit 1 at ground floor level to the landscaped area fronting Beach Street;

· Deletion of condition 2a and installation of a ‘plunge pool’ and associated landscaping in the north-western corner of the site.

Application History

On 14 July 2015, approval was granted at a Planning Committee meeting for the demolition of an existing dwelling house and construction of a multi unit dwelling house development, comprising of 5 x 2 storey townhouses and basement parking, associated site and landscape works.

Site

The subject site is known as 2 Beach Street, Clovelly and formally described as Lot 22 in DP 5397. The site is a regular shaped allotment with a 15.24 frontage to Beach Street and a total site area of 780.8m2.

The land has a fall from west to east of approximately 2m over the depth of the site representing a grade of approximately 4% and a slight cross fall from south to north.

The site is currently occupied by a single storey dwelling house and rear outbuilding which will be demolished.

To the north the site is adjoined by the rear yard areas of dwelling houses fronting Burnie Street and to the south and west multi-dwelling housing developments.

The locality comprises a mix of residential development including detached and semi-detached dwellings, multi-unit developments, and some residential flat buildings.

The subject site is also within close proximity to the following:

· 800m of several educational establishments including Clovelly Public School, St Anthony’s School, University of NSW (Cliffbrook Campus) and St Catherine’s School;

· 120m north of Clovelly Road and 50m east of Arden Street which have regular bus services connecting this area to the CBD and other eastern Sydney suburbs;

· 420m north west of Gordon’s Bay and 580m north west of Clovelly Beach;

· 150m north east of the Clovelly Road shops and Burnie Park 50m to the north.

Figure 1: Subject Site

Section 96 Assessment

Under the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, Council may only agree to a modification of an existing Development Consent if the following criteria has been complied with:-

Substantially the Same Development

Council may only approve an application under Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 if “it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all) under this section”.

The proposed modifications will not result in a change to the essence of the original development, as changes are largely internal and involve ancillary landscape changes..

Submissions

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

5/55-57 Arden Street, Clovelly

Objection	Comment
Concerns regarding the location of the proposed pool and the potential for acoustic and visual privacy impacts to result from the proposed ‘plunge pool’.	The proposed ‘plunge pool’ is located in the north-western corner of the subject site, immediately adjacent to the pool located at the rear of 12 Burnie Street. The pool location is therefore appropriately located. Standard acoustic conditions have been recommended to ensure that the proposed ‘plunge pool’ and associated equipment does not result in adverse acoustic impacts on the adjoining properties. The objector’s property will not be overlooked by the pool area, and will be sufficiently screened by the existing dividing fence. The proposed pool does not require in the removal of any of the large existing trees along the rear boundary (these will remain). It is considered that the proposed pool subject to conditions will not result in any significant adverse impacts on the adjoining properties amenity.

Objection

Comment

Concerns regarding the location of the proposed pool and the potential for acoustic and visual privacy impacts to result from the proposed ‘plunge pool’.

The proposed ‘plunge pool’ is located in the north-western corner of the subject site, immediately adjacent to the pool located at the rear of 12 Burnie Street. The pool location is therefore appropriately located.

Standard acoustic conditions have been recommended to ensure that the proposed ‘plunge pool’ and associated equipment does not result in adverse acoustic impacts on the adjoining properties.

The objector’s property will not be overlooked by the pool area, and will be sufficiently screened by the existing dividing fence. The proposed pool does not require in the removal of any of the large existing trees along the rear boundary (these will remain). It is considered that the proposed pool subject to conditions will not result in any significant adverse impacts on the adjoining properties amenity.

Key Issues

· Deep Soil Landscaping

Section 2.2.2 of the Part C2 of the RDCP 2013 states that the subject site must provide a minimum of 25% of the site area should incorporate deep soil areas sufficient in size and dimensions to accommodate trees and significant planting.

The subject section 96 application seeks to delete condition 2(a) of the original development consent which read:

2(a) The swimming pool at the rear of the westernmost dwelling is deleted

from the consent.

The subject section 96 applications seeks approval for a ‘plunge pool’ in the north-western corner of the subject site, the dimensions of the pool are 1.87m x 3.72m (6.96m²). The ‘plunge pool’ has been reduced in size from what was originally proposed as part of DA/883/2014 and soft landscaping has been provided surrounding the ‘plunge pool’.

It is acknowledged that the proposed pool will still result in a small reduction in deep soil area available on site. It will not however result in the removal of any trees or significant planting and will only replace a small section of approved grassed area in the north-western corner of the site.

The objectives of the RDCP 2013 in regards to landscaped open space and deep soil area are:

· To provide landscaped open space of sufficient size to enable the space to be used for recreational activities, or be capable of growing substantial vegetation.

· To reduce impermeable surface cover including hard paving.

· To improve stormwater quality and reduce quantity.

· To improve the amenity of open space with landscaped design.

The subject site includes the following areas of deep soil in its calculations:

· The site includes permeable pavers over deep soil along the southern boundary in its calculations. This deep soil area has a similar impact as loose gravel, It does not allow for substantial planting but does allow for storm water infiltration and reduced overland flow on site,

· A front and rear garden area which accommodates significant planting and trees.

The proposal results in a deep soil area on site of 29% of which approximately 17% is capable of accommodating significant planting and trees (See figure 2 below).

Figure 2: Deep Soil Area shaded dark grey

It is considered that the section 96 application whilst resulting in a small decrease in deep soil area from what was approved, will still provide sufficient deep soil area capable of growing substantial vegetation on site, allowing for storm water infiltration and reducing overland flow.

The proposal meets the relevant objectives in the RDCP 2013 relating to deep soil permeable surfaces on site and will not result in any adverse impacts on the adjoining properties.

· Acoustic Privacy

The proposed ‘plunge pool’ and associated equipment is located in the north-western corner of the subject site, immediately adjacent to the pool located at the rear of 12 Burnie Street (site to the north). It is considered that the pool is in a suitable location and will not result in any unreasonable acoustic impacts, notwithstanding this, to ensure that the pool and associated equipment does not result in any ‘offensive noise’ adversely affecting the acoustic privacy of the surrounding properties, suitable conditions have been recommended as part of this report.

The proposal subject to conditions recommended will not result in any adverse acoustic impacts on the adjoining properties. The proposed pool location is consistent with pools in the surrounding area and is considered to meet the relevant objectives and controls in the RDCP 2013.

Relationship to City Plan

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

Outcome 4: Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction 4a: Improved design and sustainability across all development.

Financial impact statement

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

Conclusion

Overall, the essence of the application is not changing and it complies with the majority of the RDCP 2013 controls. The proposal modifications, are suitable for the site, they satisfy the relevant assessment criteria and will not result in any significant adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

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

Recommendation

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/883/2014/A for alterations to the ground floor layout, reduction of the unit 1 terrace, addition of external stairs, increase size of planter on northern boundary, new plunge pool in north-west corner of site with landscaping and planting, at No. 2 Beach Street Clovelly, in the following manner:

· Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

*Plan*	*Drawn by*	*Dated*
2014-041-A01 Issue DA-A	Brenchley Architects	May 2015
2014-041-A02 Issue DA-A	Brenchley Architects	May 2015
2014-041-A03 Issue DA-A	Brenchley Architects	May 2015
2014-041-A04 Issue DA-A	Brenchley Architects	May 2015
2014-041-A05 Issue DA-A	Brenchley Architects	May 2015
2014-041-A06 Issue DA-A	Brenchley Architects	May 2015

*BASIX Certificate*	*No.*	*Dated*
	595605M	08 December, 2014

As amended by the Section 96 “A” plans and supporting documentation listed below:

*Plan*	*Drawn by*	*Dated*
2014-041-A06 (Issue S96-1)	Brenchley Architects	August 2015
2014-041-A05 (Issue S96-1)	Brenchley Architects	August 2015
2014-041-A03 (Issue S96-1)	Brenchley Architects	August 2015
2014-041-A01 (Issue S96-1)	Brenchley Architects	August 2015

*BASIX Certificate*	*No.*	*Dated*
	595605M_04	24/09/2015

only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans.

· Delete condition 2 (a).

· Add Condition 89 to read:

Swimming Pool Safety

89. Swimming pools are to be designed and installed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and be provided with childproof fences and self-locking gates, in accordance with the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and the Swimming Pools Regulation 2008.

The swimming pool is to be surrounded by a child-resistant barrier (e.g. fence), that separates the pool from any residential building (as defined in the Swimming Pools Act 1992) that is situated on the premises and from any place (whether public or private) adjoining the premises; and that is designed, constructed and installed in accordance with Australian Standard AS 1926.1 – 2012 (Swimming Pool Safety Part 1 - Safety Barriers for Swimming Pools).

Gates to pool area must be self-closing and latching at all times and, the gate is required to open outwards from the pool area and prevent a small child opening the gate or door when the gate or door is closed.

Temporary pool safety fencing is to be provided pending the completion of all building work and the pool must not be filled until a fencing inspection has been carried out and approved by the principal certifying authority.

A ‘warning notice’ must be erected in a prominent position in the immediate vicinity of the swimming pool, in accordance with the provisions of the Swimming Pools Regulation 2008, detailing pool safety requirements, resuscitation techniques and the importance of the supervision of children at all times.

Note: This development consent does not approve the design and location of swimming pool fencing and other swimming pool safety barriers. Swimming pool fencing and other safety barriers are required to comply with the Swimming Pools Act 1992, Swimming Pools Regulation 2008 and relevant Standards. Details of compliance are required to be incorporated into the plans and specifications for a Construction Certificate, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

· Add Condition 90 to read:

Swimming Pool & Spa Pool Requirements

90. Swimming pools (and spa pools) are to be designed, installed and operated in accordance with the following general requirements:

a) Backwash of the pool filter and other discharge of water is to be drained to the sewer in accordance with the requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation; and

b) All pool overflow water is to be drained away from the building and adjoining premises, so as not to result in a nuisance or damage to premises; and

c) Water recirculation and filtrations systems are required to comply with AS 1926.3 – 2010: Swimming Pool Safety – Water Recirculation and Filtration Systems; and

d) Pool plant and equipment is to be enclosed in a sound absorbing enclosure or installed within a building, to minimise noise emissions and possible nuisance to nearby residents.

· Add Condition 91 to read:

Notification of Swimming Pools & Spa Pools

91. The owner of the premises must ‘register’ the swimming pool on the NSW Swimming Pool Register, in accordance with the Swimming Pools Amendment Act 2012.

The Swimming Pool Register is administered by the NSW Government, Department of Premier & Cabinet, Division of Local Government and registration on the Swimming Pool Register may be made on-line via their website www.swimmingpoolregister.nsw.gov.au.

Registration must be made prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate for the pool and a copy of the NSW Swimming Pool Certificate of Registration must be forwarded to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council accordingly.

· Add Condition 92 to read:

Plant & Equipment

92. The operation of all plant and equipment on the premises shall not give rise to an ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

In this regard, the operation of the plant and equipment shall not give rise to an L_Aeq, _{15 min} sound pressure level at any affected premises that exceeds the background L_A90, _{15 min} noise level, measured in the absence of the noise source/s under consideration by more than 5dB(A) in accordance with relevant NSW Office of Environment & Heritage (EPA) Noise Control Guidelines.

· Add Condition 93 to read:

Swimming/Spa Pools

93. The pool plant and equipment shall not be operated during the following hours if the noise emitted can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises, or, as otherwise specified in relevant Noise Control Regulations:

· before 8.00am or after 8.00pm on any Sunday or public holiday; or

· before 7.00am or after 8.00pm on any other day.

Attachment/s:

Nil

Planning Committee 12 April 2016

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Development Application Report No. D34/16

Subject: 2 Beach Street, Clovelly (DA/883/2014/B)

Folder No: DA/883/2014/B

Author: Christopher Gorton, Assessment Officer

Proposal: Section 96 modification of the approved development by addition of attic level to each dwelling, containing a bedroom and a bathroom, with alterations to the roof design and alterations to driveway gradient

Ward: North Ward

Applicant: Brenchley Architects

Owner: Mr W C Scott & Mrs P Scott

Summary

Recommendation: Refusal


	Subject Site




	Submissions received
	Ù North
	Locality Plan

Development Application Executive summary report

This application is referred to the Planning Committee for consideration as the original application was determined by Council.

1. Details of current approval

There is a section 96 ‘A’ application that has not yet been determined and is subject to consideration at a Planning Committee Meeting on the 12 April, 2016. The Section 96 ‘A’ application sought approval for the following changes:

· Minor changes to the internal layout of the ground floor pantry and adjacent w/c of units 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5;

· Planter boxes have been proposed along the northern side wall for the whole boundary from east to west (as per condition 2h of the development consent);

· The front terrace at ground floor level has been setback 850mm to align with the basement level (as per condition 2g of the development consent);

· Addition of stairs from the front terrace to unit 1 at ground floor level to the landscaped area fronting Beach Street;

· Deletion of condition 2a and installation of a ‘plunge pool’ and associated landscaping in the north-western corner of the site.

2. Proposal

The section 96 ‘B’ application seeks to modify the original consent as follows:

· Minor Changes to the existing driveway in accordance with Condition 2b of the development consent;

· Minor changes to the internal layout of the ground floor pantry and adjacent w/c of units 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5;

· New pop-up dormer windows on the northern elevation; and

· New attic level incorporated within the 5 pop-up dormer windows. Attic level includes 1 bedroom and 1 bathroom with associated storage for each dwelling.

The application is also the subject of a deemed refusal appeal to the Land & Environment Court.