Agenda of Randwick Local Planning Panel

Randwick Local Planning Panel 22 November 2018

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Development Application Report No. D91/18

Subject: 11 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra (DA/9/2018)

Folder No: DA/9/2018

Author: William Jones, Senior Environmental Planning Officer

Proposal: Alterations and additions to the existing building and conversion of the building into an attached dual occupancy including associated site and landscaping works.

Ward: Central Ward

Applicant: Brewster Murray Pty Ltd

Owner: Mr M G Ye

Summary

Recommendation: Approval


	Subject Site




	Submissions received
	Ù North
	Locality Plan

Executive summary

The application is referred to the Randwick Local Planning Panel (RLPP) as the development contravenes the height of buildings development standard pursuant to Clause 4.3 and floor space ratio (FSR) development standard pursuant to Clause 4.4 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP) by more than 10%.

The proposal seeks development consent for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house and conversion of the building into an attached dual occupancy including associated site and landscaping works.

The proposal was notified in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP). Five submissions were received from 2 property addresses raising key concerns with view loss, privacy, non-complaint FSR and building height, and overshadowing.

The proposal includes a reduction in building height by 1.04m through provision of a flat roof and a reduction in gross floor area (GFA) by 130.7m². Despite the reduced building height and FSR, the proposal contravenes the height of buildings standard under Clause 4.3 of the RLEP by 78.94% (measured to the uppermost roof), and contravenes the floor space ratio standard under Clause 4.4 of the RLEP by 49.3%.

The applicant’s written request pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the RLEP has adequately addressed that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. The variations are supported given the proposal seeks to reduce the extent of the existing variations and the proposed development will not result in adverse amenity impacts on adjoining properties (subject to conditions). The proposed development is in accordance with the objectives of Clause 4.3 Height of buildings standard and the objectives of the R2 Medium Density Residential zone pursuant to the RLEP.

The key issues relate to whether the existing approved building can accommodate the proposed dual occupancy use without compromising the amenity of occupants and adversely impacting the amenity of surrounding properties with regards to visual amenity and privacy impacts, overshadowing and view loss. The existing building is capable of accommodating the proposed use whist ensuring a high level of residential amenity is achieved. No adverse amenity impacts will occur to surrounding properties subject to conditions to reduce the extent of the proposed awnings and balconies (to reduce visual bulk and view loss and to reduce the extent of the building height variation), and to provide privacy screening and setbacks to balustrades (to reduce privacy impacts).

The proposal is considered to improve the existing building through a reduction in overall building height and FSR while providing an efficient use of the existing approved building envelope that is in accordance with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone. The proposal is subsequently recommended for approval.

Proposal

· Change of use from a 4 storey dwelling house to a dual occupancy:

- dwelling 1 located on Lower Level 1 comprising 3 bedrooms and terraced POS; and

- dwelling 2 located across Lower Levels 2, 3 and 4 comprising 5 bedrooms, 2 living areas, sitting room, office, media room and balconies on Lower Levels 2 and 3 including a terrace, WC and plant room on the bottommost Lower Level 4, with a garden area set further below at existing ground level.

· Additional external changes to existing balconies:

- squaring the balcony at the ground floor (resulting in the balcony becoming larger at the corners);

- provision of an awning across the balcony of Lower Level 1 (setback 3m from the northern side boundary);

- squaring the balcony at Lower Level 2 (resulting in the balcony becoming larger in the centre) and provision of an awning (setback 3m from the northern side boundary and 2.8m from the southern side boundary);

- reducing the existing GFA (eastern façade) to include a balcony at Lower Level 3 including squaring the balcony (resulting in the balcony becoming larger in the centre and at the northern corner) and provision of a support for the balcony above at the southern corner;

- provision of an external access stair on the eastern side of the Lower Level 3 balcony, towards the southern side boundary; and

- a terrace at Lower Level 4.

· Vehicular access at the ground floor (street level) with internal parking for 4 vehicles (2 tandem spaces per dwelling).

· Provision of a lift that runs from the ground floor to Lower level 3 and a common circulation lobby that runs from the ground floor to Lower Level 2.

· Landscaping at the ground floor (at street level) and existing ground level (below Lower Level 4).

· Replacement of existing windows with new windows to the sides of the dwelling, with all glazing compromising privacy screening or obscured gazing.

· New glazing to the eastern façade fronting the ocean.

· Additional articulation to the western façade (to the street frontage).

· Removal of the pitched roof and replacement with a flat roof (resulting in a 1.04m reduction in building height).

· New 1.8m high side boundary fencing at garden level.

Figure 1. 3D perspective drawing from Mermaid Avenue.

Figure 2. 3D perspective drawing of proposed development as viewed from the east (left) and existing house (right)

Site Description and Locality

The subject site is identified as 11 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra and is legally described as Lot 121 in DP 802704. The site is 1016m², is generally rectangular in shape (aside from the irregularly shaped eastern end) and has a 15.54m frontage to Mermaid Avenue to the west. The site rises by approximately 37m from sea level to Mermaid Avenue (or by approximately 19.21m from the existing lower garden level).

The site comprises an existing 4 storey dwelling house with ground level parking off Mermaid Avenue and a pitched roof approved via DA/270/1983. The site does not contain any trees, is not subject to a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area. The site is subject to the foreshore building line and the foreshore scenic protection area pursuant to the RLEP.

The adjoining property to the north is a 5 storey dwelling house located at 9 Mermaid Avenue comprising a pool at the lower ground level. The adjoining property to the south is a 2 storey dwelling house located at 15 Mermaid Avenue with a pool at the lower ground level. The locality chiefly comprises larger single dwellings that step with the contours of the site, capitalising on ocean views to the east and land and water interface views to the north-east and south-east. Dwellings on the eastern side of Mermaid Avenue present as single storey to the street, with dwellings on the western side of Mermaid Avenue presenting 3 and 4 storeys to the street with podium open space above semi-basement garages.

Relevant history

Pre-lodgement advice – PL/38/2017

Pre-lodgement advice was provided to the applicant on 17 November 2017 raising concerns with privacy impacts, overshadowing, and highlighting the need for justification for any non-compliances with the RLEP and the RDCP. Notably, the applicant was advised that the proposed projections beyond the existing building envelope (awnings, stairs and landing) should be light-weight structures, and that a more skilful design is required to minimise potential view loss to key land and water interface views.

The proposed DA responded to the pre-lodgement advice by pulling back sections of the east-facing balconies in response to key views to the east and south-east, providing “light weight” awning structures and a detailed view loss analysis.

Request for additional information

Following review of the submitted documentation, the applicant was requested to address the following:

· Demonstrate existing and proposed shadow impacts to 15 Mermaid Avenue in elevation drawings.

· Demonstrate the extent of cut and fill proposed as part of the lower garden area that is within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

· Reduce the number of bedrooms (originally 6) proposed as part of the lower dwelling noting that the office and media rooms could also potentially be used as bedrooms.

· Improve the disproportionate size of the 2 living areas as part of the lower dwelling.

· Improve the size of the POS directly accessed off the main living areas as part of the lower dwelling.

Amended drawings were provided that adequately addressed Council’s concerns, with the lower dwelling comprising a total of 5 bedrooms and an increased size of the living areas and POS on Lower Level 2. The enlarged living area was achieved by deleting a bedroom and enlarging the POS by increasing the depth of the balcony into the living space. As a result of the increased POS there was a reduction in GFA by 19.6m² (130.7m²reduction proposed in total) and the applicant has submitted a revised variation request pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the RLEP.

It is noted that there were no changes to living room or kitchen windows and the balcony was not extended outwards, therefore the amended drawings were not re-notified given there were no additional potential impacts to neighbours.

In addition, revised shadow diagrams were provided and photos of the northern elevation of 15 Mermaid Avenue illustrating no windows in the neighbouring dwelling’s façade. The extent of cut and fill was also illustrated on the drawings for assessment purposes.

Figure 3. Original Lower Level 2 living area and POS (left) and amended drawing (right).

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:

· 9 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra

· 15 Mermaid Parade, Maroubra

Issue	Comment
Potentially moderate to severe view loss due to increased bulk associated with the balcony awnings. The balconies should be reduced in size by being set back from the northern boundary and the awning deleted. Additional bulk due to balcony awnings will impact visual amenity.	Noted. Conditions are recommended to reduce the extent of the balcony awnings to Lower Levels 1 and 2, and to exclude the additional proposed balcony areas at the Ground Floor, and Lower Levels 2 and 3 that will help to improve views and reduce visual bulk (refer to Key Issues).
Privacy impacts due to increased size of balconies. The balconies should be setback further from the northern boundary and northern windows should be provided with frosted / obscured glazing or raised window sills.	Noted. Conditions are recommended to ensure balustrades are clear, and are setback 0.9m from the northern edges of the balconies at the Ground Floor level, and Lower Levels 1 and 2. A condition is also recommended so that privacy screening is provided to the northern side of the balcony to Lower Level 3. All side-facing windows are provided with either frosted glazing or privacy screening, and conditions are recommended to enforce this (refer to Key Issues).
Conversion of the pool and recreation areas into habitable living areas and replacement of the shed at Lower Level 4 with an outdoor deck will intensify the use of the building.	The exiting approved pool area is enclosed and already used as a habitable space associated with the existing residential use. The proposed Lower Level 4 terrace is not the principal private open space and is not excessively sized, therefore it is not expected to result in adverse amenity impacts to surrounding properties.
The existing building already exceeds the current FSR and height controls. The substantial upgrade to the building in conjunction with the increased intensity of the residential use should be grounds to reduce bulk.	Only the proposed development is assessed in accordance with Clause 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) and not the existing approved building. The proposal has been assessed in terms of its suitability for the site throughout this report and is supported subject to conditions (refer to Key Issues).
The development is inconsistent with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone in that the amenity of surrounding residents will not be protected.	Subject to conditions to reduce proposed additional bulk, the proposal will protect the amenity of surrounding residents and is considered to be in accordance with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone.
The proposed development does not comply with the maximum permitted building height and FSR standards pursuant to the RLEP and is not in accordance with the objectives of the standards.	The proposed variations are assessed against the requirements of Clause 4.6 of the RLEP and are supported (refer to Detailed Assessment).
Overshadowing, particular to the southern adjoining property. The proposed additions should not increase existing overshadowing particularly considering the size and scale of the existing building. This will also limit the future development of the southern property. The privacy screens on the southern side of the balconies should be setback 2m to improve solar access and provide opportunity for landscaping to help visually soften the development.	Noted. Some additional overshadowing will occur to the POS of the southern adjoining property which is largely a result of the additional balcony awnings. Conditions are recommended to reduce the balcony awnings, and to replace the southern privacy screening with balustrades to the Ground Floor level and Lower Levels 1 and 2 that are setback 0.9m from the southern side of the balconies (refer to Key Issues). This will ensure that direct overlooking of the southern property does not occur and will reduce visual bulk and improve solar access.
The width of the new roof will contribute to bulk and scale at the streetscape. Removal of the existing roof will reduce articulation at the street.	Despite the slight horizontal increase to bulk, the resulting flat roof will reduce overall bulk when viewed from the street with a reduced height of 1.04m, which is generally consistent with the roof height of 9 Mermaid Avenue. As a result of the proposed works, the building will be more in keeping with the established streetscape character.
Enclosing the area at proposed Lower Level 4 will have visual impacts when viewed from Lurline Bay. The treatment of the façade and terrace should be further considered.	Lower Level 4 is not proposed to be enclosed, with an open terrace proposed at this level. Lower Level 3 is currently enclosed, and the proposal seeks to reduce the extent of the enclosed area by introducing a balcony within the existing envelope.
The proposed Banksia Serrata tree in front of the new terrace has the potential to block views and a smaller species should be opted.	Council’s Landscape Officer advises that the selected species is slow-growing, reaching a mature height of 6 to 8 metres after approximately 20 years. The tree is a native coastal species and will benefit the local environment and fauna, have an upright/compact habit, and will achieve similar dimensions to the street trees that already exist along the length of Mermaid Avenue. The proposed tree is therefore supported.
Relocating the stair from the northern side to the southern side will impact views from the southern adjoining property. The stair should be set back further from the southern boundary.	The proposed stair will not impact views from the southern adjoining property (refer to Key Issues section).

Key Issues

Change of use / additional bulk

The submissions raised concerns with the proposed dual occupancy (comprising a total of 8 bedrooms), stating that the proposal is a gross intensification of the existing dwelling house (comprising a total of 6 bedrooms). The submissions suggest that a reduction in the existing non-compliant FSR of the building should be proposed so that compliance with the RLEP is achieved.

Although the RLEP separately defines a dwelling house and a dual occupancy (attached), both of these land uses are defined as a type of residential accommodation. The type of use (residential accommodation) therefore remains the same. The proposed addition of 2 bedrooms compared to the existing use is not considered to be a significant intensification of the residential use of the site noting that the existing dwelling house could be altered to provide additional bedrooms. The proposed dual occupancy is permitted with consent in the R2 Low Density Residential zone, and is therefore an appropriate and efficient use for the subject site and the existing building envelope.

The existing building has been previously assessed and approved via DA/270/1983. The proposed works include a reduction in the GFA of the building and a reduced overall building height, which will reduce the bulk and scale of the building when viewed from the street, surrounding properties and the foreshore. The key consideration is whether the proposal can be accommodated within the existing building envelope without compromising the amenity of occupants, and whether the use in conjunction with the additional works will result in adverse amenity impacts to surrounding properties.

With regards to internal amenity, Council initially had concerns with the number of bedrooms proposed for dwelling 2 (originally 6 bedrooms) and the disproportionate living area and POS. Amended drawings were provided illustrating deletion of a bedroom and increased size of the living area and POS at Lower Level 2. The changes were accommodated within the existing building envelope and will provide good internal residential amenity.

With regards to amenity impacts on adjoining properties, the proposed use and additional works will not result in adverse amenity impacts, namely visual amenity and privacy impacts, overshadowing and view loss (refer to other Key Issues) subject to the below recommended conditions:

· Reduce the extent of the balcony awnings to Lower Levels 1 and 2.

· Delete the additional proposed balcony areas at the Ground Floor, and Lower Levels 2 and 3.

· Provide a 0.9m setback to balustrades from the northern sides of the balconies at the Ground Floor and Lower Levels 1 and 2.

· Provide a privacy screen to the northern side of the balcony at Lower Level 3.

· Provide a privacy screen to the northern side of the terrace at Lower Level 4.

· Replace the privacy screens shown on the southern sides of the balconies at the Ground Floor and Lower Levels 1 and 2 with clear balustrading that is setback 0.9m from the southern sides of the balconies.

· Ensure the privacy screening shown to the southern sides of the balcony at Lower Level 3 and the terrace at Lower Level 4 is appropriately designed.

· New balustrading shall be clear to permit views.

As the existing building already exceeds the maximum permitted FSR and height of buildings standards pursuant to the RLEP, any additional bulk must be carefully considered in terms of additional impacts on the locality. Although a reduction in GFA and the building height of the uppermost roof is proposed, the additional building elements including the awnings and balcony area, as well as the privacy screening all add to additional visual bulk and as discussed throughout this report, the additional building elements will result in view loss, overshadowing, visual amenity impacts and an increased building height (associated with the awnings).

Subject to the recommended conditions, the extent of additional works can be reduced to ensure additional adverse impacts on the locality do not occur whist ensuring that a reasonable level of residential amenity is maintained for occupants whilst also reducing the extent of the building height variation associated with the awning to Lower Level 1.

Building Height

The proposal seeks to vary the height of buildings development standard contained within Clause 4.3 of the RLEP. A Clause 4.6 exception has been submitted to Council. Pursuant to Clause 4.3 of the RLEP, the height of buildings must not be more than 9.5m on the site. A building height of 17m is proposed, measured from the eastern point of the uppermost roof to existing ground level, being the underside of the existing slab to Lower Level 3.

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

Development Standard	9.5m
Existing building height	18.04m measured to the ridge of the existing uppermost roof.
Proposed building height	17m measured to the top of the uppermost roof (being the parapet on the southern and northern sides of the roof at the easternmost points). 16.2m to the top of the proposed awning to the balcony on Lower Level 1. 12.1m to the top of the proposed awning to the balcony on Lower Level 2.
Exceedance of the Development Standard	78.94% (uppermost roof). 70.52% (Lower Level 1 awning). 27.36% (Lower Level 2 awning).

The applicant has submitted a clause 4.6 exception request. The exception has been discussed in the detailed assessment section of this report. In summary, the exception has been considered with respect to the provisions of clause 4.6 and is accepted on the grounds that:

· The applicant’s written request pursuant to clause 4.6 of the RLEP has adequately addressed that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

· A reduction in the maximum building height is proposed by 1.04m that will improve the existing building by reducing visual bulk. Subject to conditions to reduce the extent of the balcony awning to Lower Level 1, the extent of the building height variation will be decreased from 16.2m to 14m for this balcony (NOTE despite the recommended reduced awning depth to Lower Level 2 there will be no change to the building height for this awning, however the reduction will reduce bulk and overshadowing).

· The proposed variation is in accordance with the objectives of Clause 4.3 height of buildings as the proposal will reduce the size and scale of the building and therefore is compatible with the desired future character of the locality and the development will not result in adverse amenity impacts to adjoining properties.

· The proposal is in accordance with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone as the development will provide for the housing needs of the community, recognises the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form through the proposed reduced height of the building, will protect the amenity of residents and encourage housing affordability.

Floor Space Ratio

The proposal seeks to vary the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) development standard contained within the RLEP. A Clause 4.6 exception has been submitted to Council. Pursuant to Clause 4.4 of the RLEP, the FSR must not be more than 0.5:1 on the site. A FSR of 0.827:1 is proposed.

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

Development Standard	0.5:1 (508m²)
Existing FSR	0.875:1 (889.4m²)
Proposed FSR	0.746:1 (758.7m²)
Exceedance of the Development Standard	49.3%

The applicant has submitted an amended clause 4.6 exception request following the amended drawings. The exception has been discussed in the detailed assessment section of this report. In summary, the exception has been considered with respect to the provisions of clause 4.6 and is not accepted on the grounds that:

· A reduction in FSR by 130.7m²is proposed that will reduce bulk at Lower Levels 2 and 3, whist accommodating an additional dwelling that will serve to more efficiently use the existing building envelope, providing for the housing needs of the community and encouraging housing affordability.

· The proposed variation is in accordance with the objectives of Clause 4.4 floor space ratio as the development seeks to reduce the size and scale of the existing building, which will result in the building being more compatible with the desired future character of the locality, and the proposal will not result in adverse amenity impacts to adjoining properties.

· The proposal is in accordance with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone as the development will provide for the housing needs of the community, recognises the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form through the proposed reduced bulk of the building, will protect the amenity of residents and encourage housing affordability.

View Sharing

Clause 5.5 of part C2 of the Randwick DCP requires a reasonable level of view sharing from neighbouring dwellings, streets and public open space areas. View loss was also raised as a concern in both submissions relating to the additional awning structures and potential need for privacy screening on the northern side of the balconies.

It is noted that only the proposed works is assessed in terms of potential impacts to views given the existing building has already been approved.

The objectives of clause 5.5 are as follows:

· To acknowledge the value of views to significant scenic elements, such as ocean, bays, coastlines, watercourses, bushland and parks; as well as recognised icons, such as city skylines, landmark buildings / structures and special natural features.

· To protect and enhance views from the public domain, including streets, parks and reserves.

· To ensure developments are sensitively and skillfully designed to maintain a reasonable amount of views from the development, neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

The applicant submitted a view loss analysis in accordance the four-step assessment of view sharing established by the legal precedent Tenacity Consulting v Warringah (2004) NSWLEC 140. The applicants view loss analysis included photos from 5 Mermaid Avenue only, noting that access was not available to 9 Mermaid Avenue (the most affected adjoining property to the north). The applicant’s view loss analysis concluded that no iconic views will be impacted and that vista and views containing land and water interface will be retained.

Figure 4. Insert from Applicant’s SEE showing view from upper level of 5 Mermaid Avenue and proposed additions.

Assessing officer’s comment: The applicant’s view loss analysis is acknowledged, however the proposal is not considered to have a negligible impact on views. Based on a site inspection of the most affected property (9 Mermaid Avenue) and the view loss assessment below, the proposal will result in a moderate impact to water views and land and water interface views to the south-east. In summary of the below assessment, a reasonable level of view sharing can be maintained subject to conditions requiring the reduction in depth of the awnings to the balconies on Lower Levels 1 and 2 (maximum of 1m extending from the eastern façade) and deletion of the additional balcony areas at the Ground Floor level and Lower Levels 2 and 3.

This view loss assessment is guided by a four step process identified by the Land and Environment Court as a planning principle. In the matter of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah (2004) NSWLEC 140, the Land and Environment Court has established a Planning Principle to assess whether the extent of view loss, which would result from the proposal is reasonable. This provides a four stage method of assessing view loss:

1. Quality of Views:

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

Assessing officer’s comment: The surrounding properties that are likely to have views affected by the proposed development are 5, 7 and 9 Mermaid Avenue (located to the north of the subject site). The southern adjoining property (15 Mermaid Avenue) will maintain views to the north-east, east and south-east. Existing views from 5, 7 and 9 Mermaid Avenue are unobstructed whole views to the ocean with land and water interface views to the east and south-east. There are no iconic views (e.g. Wedding Cake Island) from these properties.

Figure 5. Views from affected properties to the east and south-east (subject site highlighted).

Figure 6. View south-east from Level 5 study/sitting room of 9 Mermaid Avenue.

Figure 7. View south-east from Level 4 living room of 9 Mermaid Avenue.

Figure 8. View north-east from upper floor living area of 15 Mermaid Avenue (no view loss will occur).

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

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

Assessing officer’s comment: Views are obtained from the rear of the affected properties from both a standing and a seated position.

3. An assessment of the extent of the impact.

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

Assessing officer’s comment: Access was obtained to the most affected property (9 Mermaid Avenue) to obtain photos from key rooms. Land and water interface views to the south-east will be affected from the Level 5 study / sitting room due to the proposed balcony awning to proposed Lower Level 1. Water views to the south-east will also be partially affected due to the squaring of the balcony at Ground Level, and therefore the view loss is assessed as moderate noting that the majority of the land and water interface view will be maintained / unobstructed to the east. Some south-eastern water views will also be affected from the Level 4 living room due to the balcony awning to proposed Lower Level 1. Other levels will not be subject to view loss.

Properties further north were not accessed given 7 Mermaid Avenue is a 2 storey dwelling that does not protrude beyond 9 Mermaid Avenue, and therefore views directly east will be unaffected. The applicant’s view loss analysis provided sufficient photos from 5 Mermaid Avenue and the view loss from this property is assessed as moderate, with land and water interface views affected by the proposed awning to Lower Lever 1. 15 Mermaid Avenue was also inspected and its views to the north-east, east and south-east will be unaffected by the proposal.

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

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

Assessing officer’s comment: Although a reduction in the maximum building height is proposed associated with the new flat roof, the additional awning structures across the balconies of Lower Levels 1 and 2 results in an exceedance of the maximum permitted building height (16.2m and 12.1m in height respectably). The awnings are an introduced building element to the already non-compliant building envelope and therefore must be carefully considered in terms of additional amenity impacts.

Based on the assessment above, the balcony awning to proposed Lower Level 1 will result in view loss from 9 Mermaid Avenue. To ensure a reasonable level of view sharing is maintained, a condition is recommended so that the balcony awning for Lower Level 1 is reduced in depth by 5m (i.e. being a maximum depth of 1m as measured from the eastern façade). This will improve views and reduce the extent of the building height variation while maintaining adequate shelter / amenity for occupants. A condition is also recommended to ensure the additional balcony areas at the Ground Floor are deleted and that new balustrading is clear so as to permit views. Although not related to view loss, a reduced awning to Lower Level 2 is also recommended via condition to reduce the visual amenity impacts and overshadowing to the southern adjoining property.

In considering the 4 steps above established by the legal precedent, a reasonable level of views will therefore be maintained in accordance with the RDCP whist ensuring residential amenity for occupants will not be compromised, subject to conditions.

Figure 9. Balcony awning to Lower Level 1 with affected view from 9 Mermaid Avenue depicted by the applicant (dashed).

Solar Access to Neighbouring Development

Clause 5.1 of Part C1 of the RDCP requires neighbouring dwellings to receive solar access in accordance with the following:

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

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

v) Existing solar panels on neighbouring dwellings, which are situated not less than 6m above ground level (existing), must retain a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

Where the neighbouring dwellings do not contain any solar panels, direct sunlight must be retained to the northern, eastern and/or western roof planes of neighbouring dwellings, which are at least 6m above ground level (existing), so that future solar panels capturing not less than 3 hours of sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June may be installed.

vi) Any variation from the above requirements will be subject to a merit assessment having regard to the following factors:

- Degree of meeting the FSR, height, setbacks and site coverage controls.

- Orientation of the subject and adjoining allotments and subdivision pattern of the urban block.

- Topography of the subject and adjoining allotments.

- Location and level of the windows in question.

- Shadows cast by existing buildings on the neighbouring allotments.

Assessing officer’s comment: The most affected property is the southern adjoining property at 15 Mermaid Avenue. This dwelling house is not provided with glazing in the northern façade therefore there will be no decreased solar access to living room windows. Upon review of approved drawings and a site inspection of 15 Mermaid Avenue, the balcony off the living area and kitchen is situated on the southern side of the dwelling on the upper floor and will not be additionally overshadowed. The additional overshadowing to POS occurs to the lower pool level of 15 Mermaid Avenue, which is at a similar level as proposed Lower Level 3.

The proposed development will result in additional overshadowing of the lower POS from approximately 8:00am until 12:00pm on 21 June. It is noted however that >3 hours solar access will be maintained to the POS of 15 Mermaid Avenue that is capable of supporting passive recreation activities. Notwithstanding, given the proposed variations to the FSR and height of buildings development standards pursuant to the RLEP, any additional overshadowing as a result of the additional building elements that result in the non-compliances is carefully considered. To improve solar access to the lower pool level (and to reduce visual bulk) conditions are recommended to reduce the extent of balcony awnings to Lower Levels 1 and 2, and to delete the additional infill balcony areas.

Visual Privacy

Clause 5.3 of Part C1 of the RDCP requires the following for balconies:

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

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

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

- Translucent or obscured glazing - Fixed timber or metal slats mounted horizontally or vertically - Fixed vertical louvres with the individual blades oriented away from the private open space or windows of the adjacent dwellings

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

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

Assessing officer’s comment: Privacy impacts and the requirement for privacy screening must be carefully considered in conjunction with potential impacts on views as well as increased visual bulk. Comments are provided below with regards to each balcony and likely privacy impacts upon adjoining properties.

Ground Floor

A privacy screen is shown to the southern side of the existing balcony with no privacy screening provided on the northern side. The ground floor balcony is provided off a garage, and is therefore not considered to be main POS that will be used frequently. A condition is recommended to replace the privacy screening on the southern side of the balcony with a clear balustrade that is setback 0.9m from both the northern and southern sides of the balcony. This will ensure that direct overlooking into the principal POS of the adjoining properties at the lower levels does not occur, and will minimise visual bulk.

Lower Levels 1 and 2

A privacy screen is shown to the southern side of the existing balconies with no privacy screening provided to the northern sides. These balconies provide the principal POS for dwellings 1 and 2, which have the potential to directly overlook the northern and southern adjoining properties.

Privacy screening to the northern sides of the balconies is not desirable as this has the potential to impact views from the northern property and will increase visual bulk. The privacy screening on the southern sides also adds to visual bulk. Considering there is currently no privacy screening provided to the sides of the balconies, and considering that overlooking between dwellings occurs as a characteristic of the area (a result of the desire to obtain views), privacy screening is not considered necessary for these balconies.

To reduce visual bulk and to ensure that direct overlooking of the POS of adjoining properties does not occur, a condition is recommended so that the privacy screening on the southern sides of the balconies is replaced with clear balustrading, which is setback 0.9m from both the northern and southern sides of the balconies.

It is noted that the POS for dwelling 1 on Lower Level 1 exceeds minimum dimensions (6m x 6m required and 6m x 12m provided), and multiple POS areas are provided for dwelling 2, therefore a slight reduction in the area of POS as a result of the setback to the balustrading is supported.

Figure 10. View from the lower POS of 9 Seaside Parade and potential for direct overlooking from existing balconies.

Lower Level 3

Privacy screening is shown on the southern side of the stairway granting access to Lower Level 4, which is setback approximately 2.4m from the southern property boundary. This privacy screen is supported given it will mitigate privacy impacts from the new stair and the setback will ensure adverse visual amenity impacts does not occur.

The northern side of the balcony does have the potential to directly overlooking the POS of the adjoining property to the north. As the balcony is proposed to occupy what is currently an enclosed floor area (refer to Figure 11 below), privacy screening will not result in additional view loss or visual amenity impacts. Therefore a condition is recommended so that a privacy screen is installed on the northern side of the balcony at Lower Level 3.

Figure 11. View from the lower POS of 9 Seaside Parade to location of proposed Lower Level 3 balcony (that is currently enclosed).

Lower Level 4 and garden

The terrace is located close to the existing ground level, with the 1.8m side boundary fence along the southern boundary preventing direct overlooking. There is potential for the terrace to directly overlook the northern adjoining property, therefore a condition is recommended so that a privacy screen is installed on the northern side of the terrace. This privacy screen will not significantly increase visual bulk and will not result in view loss. The garden area below is provided close to existing ground level therefore the 1.8m fencing will ensure direct overlooking of adjoining properties will not occur.

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

That the application for alterations and additions to the existing building and conversion of the building into an attached dual occupancy including associated site and landscaping works be approved (subject to conditions) for the following reasons:

· The proposal satisfies the matters for consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended.

· The proposal is consistent with the objectives contained within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the relevant requirements of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013.

· The proposal is consistent with the objectives contained within the State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018, State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017, and State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

Detailed Assessment

1. Section 4.15 matters for consideration

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

Section 4.15 ‘Matters for Consideration’	Comments
Section 4.15 (1)(a)(i) – Provisions of any environmental planning instrument	The proposal is in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018, State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017, State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004, and is in accordance with the relevant controls and objectives of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (see assessment below).
Section 4.15(1)(a)(ii) – Provisions of any draft environmental planning instrument	Nil.
Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) – Provisions of any development control plan	The proposal generally satisfies the objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (see assessment below).
Section 4.15(1)(a)(iiia) – Provisions of any Planning Agreement or draft Planning Agreement	Not applicable.
Section 4.15(1)(a)(iv) – Provisions of the regulations	The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.
Section 4.15(1)(b) – The likely impacts of the development, including environmental impacts on the natural and built environment and social and economic impacts in the locality	The environmental impacts of the proposed development on the natural and built environment have been addressed in this report. The proposal will not result in detrimental social or economic impacts on the locality.
Section 4.15(1)(c) – The suitability of the site for the development	The site is located in close proximity to local services and public transport. The existing building is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use and associated structures. Therefore, the site is considered suitable for the proposed development.
Section 4.15(1)(d) – Any submissions made in accordance with the EP&A Act or EP&A Regulation	The issues raised in the submissions have been addressed in this report.
Section 4.15(1)(e) – The public interest	The proposal promotes the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone and is consistent with the objectives of the height of buildings and floor space ratio development standards pursuant to the RLEP. The proposal will not result in any significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be in the public interest.

2. Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

2.1 State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPS)

State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018

The State Environmental Planning Policy (Coastal Management) 2018 (Costal Management SEPP) came into effect in NSW on 3 April 2018.

The aims of the Costal Management SEPP are:

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

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

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

Assessing officer’s comment: In response to Clause 13 of Division 3 and Clause 14 of Division 4 of the SEPP, subject to conditions to reduce the extent of the awnings and to delete the additional infilled area of the balconies, the proposal will not have an adverse impact upon coastal environmental values. Subject to conditions, the proposed works to the existing building envelope and the additional cut and fill at the lowermost existing ground level are minimal and will not result in adverse visual bulk as viewed from public places and surrounding properties. The proposed works will not disrupt the scenic qualities or natural processes of the coast given they are sufficiently setback from the coastline and are largely proposed as part of the existing building envelope.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017

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

The aims of the Vegetation SEPP are:

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

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

Clause 7(1) requires a permit to be granted by the Council for the clearing of vegetation in non-rural areas (such as City of Randwick). Consent for the removal of vegetation within the site is being sought under this DA.

Assessing officer’s comment: Council’s Landscape Officer has assessed the proposal and advises there is minimal vegetation on the site, comprising bamboo and shrubs that hold no landscape value. Therefore there removal is supported with additional landscaping proposed in the frontage and lower level helping to protect biodiversity values.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

A satisfactory BASIX certificate has been submitted in accordance with the requirements of the SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004. A condition is provided to ensure compliance with the BAXIX certificate.

2.2 Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposed dual occupancy (attached) is permissible with Council’s consent.

The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will provide for the housing needs of the community, recognises the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form, will protect the amenity of residents and will encourage housing affordability.

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

Description	Council Standard	Proposed	Compliance
Height of Building (Maximum)	9.5m.	17m measured to the top of the uppermost roof (being the parapet on the southern and northern sides of the roof at the easternmost points) to existing ground level (the underside of the existing slab to Lower Level 3).	Does not comply.
Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)	0.5:1 for a dual occupancy (508m²).	0.746:1 (758.7m²)	Does not comply.
Minimum lot size for dual occupancies (attached)	450m² minimum lot size for a dual occupancy (attached) in the R2 zone.	The subject site is 1016m².	Complies.
Foreshore building line	Ensure development in the foreshore will not impact natural foreshore processes or affect the significance and amenity of the area.	A portion of the proposed terrace at Lower Level 4 and the lower garden area (subject to cut and fill) is within the foreshore building line. The proposed works are minor and will not impact natural foreshore processes or affect the significance and amenity of the area.	Complies (refer to assessment below).
Foreshore scenic protection area	Ensure development protects and enhances environmental and scenic qualities and protects significant public views to and from the coast.	The entire site is within the foreshore scenic protection area. The proposed additions to the existing building are minor and will not impact environmental and scenic qualities or public views to and from the coast.	Complies (refer to assessment below).

Clause 4.6 – Exception to Development Standard – Height of Buildings

The proposal seeks to vary the height of buildings development standard contained within Clause 4.3 of the RLEP. A Clause 4.6 exception has been submitted to Council. Pursuant to Clause 4.3 of the RLEP, the height of buildings must not be more than 9.5m on the site. A building height of 17m is proposed, measured from the northern and southern parapets of the uppermost roof at the easternmost points to existing ground level, being the underside of the existing slab to Lower Level 3.

The additional balcony awnings at Lower Levels 1 and 2 also exceed the maximum permitted building height, being 16.2m and 12.1m respectably (should the height of the proposed additions be measured to original existing ground level based on the original approved drawings, the proposed height would be similar given the finished building slabs directly below these points closely follow the original contours of the site).

Despite the reduced maximum building height of the uppermost roof by 1.04m (due to replacement of the pitched roof with a flat roof), the proposal does not comply with the building height standard and therefore a merits assessment against the requirements of Clause 4.6 of the RLEP is required.

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

Development Standard	9.5m
Existing building height	18.04m measured to the ridge of the existing uppermost roof.
Proposed building height	17m measured to the top of the uppermost roof (being the parapet on the southern and northern sides of the roof at the easternmost points). 16.2m to the top of the proposed awning to the balcony on Lower Level 1. 12.1m to the top of the proposed awning to the balcony on Lower Level 2.
Exceedance of the Development Standard	78.94% (uppermost roof). 70.52% (Lower Level 1 awning). 27.36% (Lower Level 2 awning).

Clause 4.6 RLEP Request to Vary Development Standard

Clause 4.6 of the RLEP provides a mechanism for variation to development standards in certain circumstances.

Assessment Against the Applicant’s Written Justifications for the Contravention of the Development Standard

Pursuant to clause 4.6(3) of the RLEP, development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

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

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

Further, development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

(a) the consent authority is satisfied that:

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

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

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

Assessing officer’s comment: With regards to the concurrence of the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment, pursuant to the notification of assumed concurrence of the Secretary under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 18–003 (dated 21 Feb 2018) the concurrence of the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed in certain cases.

In relation to the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), there are various ways that may be invoked to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary as discussed by Chief Justice Preston of the NSW Land and Environment Court in the case of in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827. Although the Wehbe case was decided in relation to State Environmental Planning Policy No 1—Development Standards (“SEPP 1”) and not clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012, it remains of some assistance in relation to identifying the ways in which an applicant may demonstrate that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, as provided under different headings below.

Has the applicant’s written request adequately addressed that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case and has the applicant’s written request adequately addressed that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard?

Assessing officer’s comment: The applicant’s written justifications for the departure from the standard are as follows:

Assessing officer’s comment: The applicant’s written request above has adequately addressed that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case given the proposed variation will not result in adverse amenity impacts to surrounding properties.

Are there sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard?

Assessing officer’s comment: The applicant’s written request above adequately addresses that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard given the proposed development as a result of the variation will result in a reduced building height that is consistent with the objectives of the height of buildings standard and objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

Will the proposed development be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out?

Assessing officer’s comment: It is considered that the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the height of buildings development standard and the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

Consistency with the objectives of the height of buildings standard:

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

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

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposed works will reduce the maximum height of the building by 1.04m. Therefore, the proposed development will result in the size and scale of the existing building becoming more compatible with the desired future character of the locality.

It is noted that the proposed awnings contribute to the maximum building height. A condition is recommended to reduce the extent of the balcony awning to Lower Level 1, which will reduce the extent of the building height variation to this awning from 16.2m to 14m. Despite the recommended condition to also reduce the depth of the awning to Lower Level 2, there will be no change to the building height for this awning, however the reduction will reduce visual bulk and will improve solar access to the adjoining property to the south.

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

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposal will not adversely impact the amenity of adjoining properties in terms of visual amenity, privacy, overshadowing and views (refer to Key Issues).

Consistency with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone:

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

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

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

· To protect the amenity of residents.

· To encourage housing affordability.

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

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposal will provide for the housing needs of the community within the R2 Low Density Residential zone. The surrounding area comprises established dwellings and is therefore not considered to be a precinct undergoing transition. The proposal seeks to reduce the maximum building height (and GFA) of the existing building and therefore is considered to recognise the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form through a reduction in height and bulk. The proposed dual occupancy has been designed to protect the amenity of residents, and will encourage housing affordability through the introduction of an additional dwelling within the existing envelope.

Does the Council have delegation to exercise the concurrence function of the

Department of Planning and Environment for development that contravenes a development standard? If so:

(a) whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and

(b) the public benefit of maintaining the development standard.

Assessing officer’s comment: The concurrence of the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment must also be obtained for development that contravenes a development standard. However, pursuant to the notification of assumed concurrence of the secretary under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 18–003 (dated 21 Feb 2018) the concurrence of the secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed in certain cases.

Variation from the adherence to the height of buildings standard on this occasion is of benefit to the orderly use of the site given the proposal will result in a reduced overall building height whilst not adversely impact residential amenity, which is compatible with the existing streetscape.

The proposed development and variation from the control does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning.

Clause 4.6 – Exception to Development Standard – Floor Space Ratio

Based on Council’s calculation, the existing approved building (DA/270/1983) has a FSR of 0.87:1 (889.4m²). Based on the current FSR standard a maximum permitted FSR for a dwelling house on a lot > 600m² is 0.6:1. The proposal therefore results in a reduced FSR by 130.7m². Some of the reduction is by virtue of the proposed dual occupancy use, which introduces common vertical circulation and the need for an additional 2 car parking spaces within the existing building envelope, which in accordance with the RLEP can be excluded as GFA. The physical reduction in GFA occurs at Lower Level 2 whereby a 19.6m² reduction is provided due to the enlarged balcony, and at Lower Level 3, whereby a 28m²reduction is provided due to inclusion of a balcony.

Despite the reduced FSR, the proposal does not comply with the FSR standard and therefore a merits assessment against the requirements of Clause 4.6 of the RLEP is required.

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

Development Standard	0.5:1 (508m²)
Existing FSR	0.875:1 (889.4m²)
Proposed FSR	0.746:1 (758.7m²)
Exceedance of the Development Standard	49.3%

Clause 4.6 RLEP Request to Vary Development Standard

Clause 4.6 of the RLEP provides a mechanism for variation to development standards in certain circumstances.

Assessment Against the Applicant’s Written Justifications for the Contravention of the Development Standard

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

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

Further, development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

(d) the consent authority is satisfied that:

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

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

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

Has the applicant’s written request adequately addressed that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

Assessing officer’s comment: The applicant’s written justifications for the departure from the standard are as follows:

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

Assessing officer’s comment: The applicant’s written request above has adequately addressed that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard given the proposed variation will reduce the GFA of the building that is consistent with the objectives of the height of buildings standard and objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

Assessing officer’s comment: It is considered that the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the floor space ratio development standard and the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

Consistency with the objectives of the floor space ratio standard:

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

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

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposed works will reduce the exiting GFA of the building by 130.7m² (physical reduction being 19.6m² at Lower Level 2 and 28m²at Lower Level 3), therefore, the proposed development will result in the size and scale of the existing building becoming more compatible with the desired future character of the locality.

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

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposal will not adversely impact the amenity of adjoining properties in terms of visual amenity, privacy, overshadowing and views (refer to Key Issues).

Consistency with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone:

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

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

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

· To protect the amenity of residents.

· To encourage housing affordability.

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

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposal will provide for the housing needs of the community within the R2 Low Density Residential zone. The surrounding area comprises established dwellings and is therefore not considered to be a precinct undergoing transition. The proposal seeks to reduce the GFA (and maximum building height) of the existing building and therefore is considered to recognise the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form through a reduction in height and bulk. The proposed dual occupancy has been designed to protect the amenity of residents, and will encourage housing affordability through the introduction of an additional dwelling within the existing envelope.

Does the Council have delegation to exercise the concurrence function of the

Department of Planning and Environment for development that contravenes a development standard? If so:

(c) whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and

(d) the public benefit of maintaining the development standard.

Variation from the adherence to the floor space ratio standard on this occasion is of benefit to the orderly use of the site given the proposal will result in a reduced GFA whilst not adversely impact residential amenity and which is compatible with the existing streetscape.

The proposed development and variation from the control does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning.

Foreshore Building Line Assessment

A portion of the proposed terrace at Lower Level 4 and the lower garden area (subject to cut and fill) is within the foreshore building line. It is noted that the applicant’s depiction of the foreshore building line on the submitted drawings is accurate based on Council’s measurement. The proposed development is therefore assessed against Clause 6.6 of the RLEP below.

Figure 12. Insert from the RLEP Foreshore Building Line map with distance shown from the western boundary of the subject site.

(1) The objective of this clause is to ensure that development in the foreshore area will not impact on natural foreshore processes or affect the significance and amenity of the area.

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposed terrace and lawn is significantly elevated above sea level and therefore will not impact natural foreshore processes. The portion of terrace within the foreshore building line is minor and is situated close to existing ground level atop some minor additional fill that will not affect the significance and amenity of the area. The proposed lawn and associated cut and fill is relatively minor, and is designed to step down with the contours of the site with additional landscaping proposed that will enhance the amenity of the area and will improve the foreshore according to Council’s Landscape Officer.

(2) Development consent must not be granted for development on land in the foreshore area except for the following purposes:

(a) the extension, alteration or rebuilding of an existing building wholly or partly in the foreshore area,

(b) the erection of a building in the foreshore area, if the levels, depth or other exceptional features of the site make it appropriate to do so,

(c) boat sheds, sea retaining walls, wharves, slipways, jetties, waterway access stairs, swimming pools, fences, cycleways, walking trails, picnic facilities or other recreation facilities (outdoors).

Assessing officer’s comment: An alteration to an existing building is proposed that is partly within the foreshore area.

(3) Development consent must not be granted under this clause unless the consent authority is satisfied that:

(a) the development will contribute to achieving the objectives for the zone in which the land is located, and

(b) the appearance of any proposed structure, from both the waterway and adjacent foreshore areas, will be compatible with the surrounding area, and

(c) the development will not cause environmental harm such as:

(i) pollution or siltation of the waterway, or

(ii) an adverse effect on surrounding uses, marine habitat, wetland areas, flora or fauna habitats, or

(iii) an adverse effect on drainage patterns, and

(d) the development will not cause congestion or generate conflicts between people using open space areas or the waterway, and

(e) opportunities to provide continuous public access along the foreshore and to the waterway will not be compromised, and

(f) any historic, scientific, cultural, social, archaeological, architectural, natural or aesthetic significance of the land on which the development is to be carried out and of surrounding land will be maintained, and

(g) in the case of development for the alteration or rebuilding of an existing building wholly or partly in the foreshore area, the alteration or rebuilding will not have an adverse impact on the amenity or aesthetic appearance of the foreshore, and

(h) sea level rise or change of flooding patterns as a result of climate change has been considered.

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposed development is in accordance with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone. The works within the foreshore are minor and will not impact the amenity and aesthetic appearance of the foreshore as viewed from public places and as viewed directly from the water. The works will be generally compatible with the surrounding area, which comprises lower level garden areas. The proposed reduced GFA at Lower Level 3 will improve the appearance of the building as viewed from the publically accessible foreshore.

Figure 13. Subject site as viewed from the publically accessible foreshore.

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area Assessment

The subject site is located within the foreshore scenic protection area therefore the proposed development is assessed against Clause 6.7 of the RLEP below.

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

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

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

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

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

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposed development includes a reduction in the maximum building height and a reduction in GFA. The proposal will therefore reduce the visual bulk of the development and will improve the visually prominent scenic protection area. Subject to conditions to reduce the extent of the proposed balconies and awnings, the additional building elements will be a minor contribution to the built form that will not significantly increase visual bulk and will not result in decreased views from public places. Therefore, the proposed development is in accordance with the objectives of Clause 6.7 of the RLEP.

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

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

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

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

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposed development minimises visual impact through a reduction in the maximum building height and a reduction in GFA. The proposal will therefore contribute to the scenic quality of the coastal foreshore (subject to conditions).

3. Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013

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

The relevant provisions of the DCP are addressed below.

DCP Clause	Controls	Proposal	Compliance
	Classification	Zoning = R2
2	Site planning
2.1	Minimum lot size and frontage
	Minimum lot size (RLEP): · R2 = 400sqm	1016m²	Complies.
	Minimum frontage
	i) Min frontage R2 = 12m i) No battle-axe or hatchet in R2 or R3 ii) Minimum frontage for attached dual occupancy in R2 = 15m iii) Minimum frontage for detached dual occupancy in R2 = 18m	Min = 15m Existing =15.54m	Complies.
2.3	Site coverage
	601 sqm or above = 45%	Site = 1016m² Proposed = 37%	Complies.
2.4	Landscaping and permeable surfaces
	i) 601 sqm or above = 35% i) Deep soil minimum width 900mm. ii) Maximise permeable surfaces to front iii) Retain existing or replace mature native trees iv) Minimum 1 canopy tree (8m mature). Smaller (4m mature) If site restrictions apply. v) Locating paved areas, underground services away from root zones.	Site = 1016m² Proposed = 53.4% (374.98m²).	Complies.
2.5	Private open space (POS)
	Dual Occupancies (Attached and Detached) POS
	601sqm or above = 6m x 6m each ii) POS satisfy the following criteria: · Situated at ground level (except for duplex · No open space on podiums or roofs · Adjacent to the living room · Oriented to maximise solar access · Located to the rear behind dwelling · Has minimal change in gradient	Site = 1016m² Dwelling 1 (Lower Level 1) = 6m x 12m. Dwelling 2 (Lower Levels 2, 3 and 4) = 4.5m x 7.4m (Lower Level 2), 3.2m x 6.8m (Lower Level 3), and 5.4m x 7.2m (Lower Level 4). Although dwelling 2 does not have a 6 x 6m POS area adjacent to the main living area at Lower Level 2, the area of POS provided is 42m² and is sufficient. Further, additional POS is provided off the secondary living area at Lower Level 3, with further POS provided at Lower Level 4 that will ensure a range of passive recreational activities can occur. Therefore the minor variation is supported.	Dwelling 1 complies. Minor variation supported for dwelling 2.
3	Building envelope
3.1	Floor space ratio LEP 2012 = 0.5:1	Site area = 1016m² Proposed FSR = 0.746:1	Does not comply. Refer to Detailed Assessment.
3.2	Building height
	Maximum overall height LEP 2012 = 9.5m	Proposed = 17m	Does not comply. Refer to Detailed Assessment.
	i) Maximum external wall height = 7m (Minimum floor to ceiling height = 2.7m) ii) Sloping sites = 8m iii) Merit assessment if exceeded	No changes to the existing wall height is proposed.	N/A
3.3	Setbacks
3.3.1	Front setbacks i) Average setbacks of adjoining (if none then no less than 6m) Transition area then merit assessment. ii) Corner allotments: Secondary street frontage: - 900mm for allotments with primary frontage width of less than 7m - 1500mm for all other sites iii) do not locate swimming pools, above-ground rainwater tanks and outbuildings in front	The front setback is proposed to increase (nil front setback increasing to 0.6m to entry portico, which is generally consistent with adjoining properties.	Complies.
3.3.2	Side setbacks: Dwellings: · Frontage less than 9m = 900mm · Frontage b/w 9m and 12m = 900mm (Gnd & 1^st floor) 1500mm above · Frontage over 12m = 1200mm (Gnd & 1^st floor), 1800mm above. Refer to 6.3 and 7.4 for parking facilities and outbuildings	The existing balconies are excluded from the side setback control given they are unroofed. The proposal includes roofs to the balconies, which are therefore now subject to minimum setbacks. New minor additions at the ground floor associated with the common stairway and garage, and minor additions at Lower Level 1 associated with squaring of the living area and common stairway are also assessed. Due to the building configuration a typical floor arrangement is not provided, therefore a conservative approach is taken whereby a minimum 1.8m side boundary setback applies to all balconies. Minimum = 1.8m Proposed = 1.2m setback to northern side boundary and 2m setback to southern side boundary, increasing to 2.8m setback to southern boundary at Lower Levels 2 and 3. The Lower Level 4 terrace is also partially covered and is setback 3m from the northern side boundary and 2.5m from the southern side boundary. The setbacks are appropriate given there will be no adverse increased bulk that will result in adverse amenity impacts, subject to conditions. The balcony awnings and squaring of the balconies however are considered to contribute to view loss and a condition is recommended for the extent of the awnings to be reduced and the balcony additions to be deleted (refer to Key Issues).	Minor variation supported subject to conditions.
3.3.3	Rear setbacks i) Minimum 25% of allotment depth or 8m, whichever lesser. Note: control does not apply to corner allotments. ii) Provide greater than aforementioned or demonstrate not required, having regard to: - Existing predominant rear setback line - reasonable view sharing (public and private) - protect the privacy and solar access	Minimum = 8m Proposed = 25m	Complies.
4	Building design
4.1	General
	Respond specifically to the site characteristics and the surrounding natural and built context - · articulated to enhance streetscape · stepping building on sloping site, · no side elevation greater than 12m · encourage innovative design	The building generally complies with the building design controls in the DCP. The proposed flat roof will help reduce visual bulk and will be in accordance with the established streetscape character.	Complies.
4.3	Additional Provisions for Attached Dual Occupancies
	Should present a similar bulk as single dwellings i) Garage for each dwelling shall have a single car width only ii) Articulate and soften garage entry iii) Minimise driveway width iv) Maximum 2m setback of front entry from front façade v) Maximise landscape planting at front	4 car parking spaces are provided at the ground floor level. Although a double width garage is proposed, the allocated parking spaces are tandem and therefore are single width for each dwelling. The driveway width is minimised and landscaping is proposed in the front setback. The garage entry is setback 3.6m from the front façade, however the minor variation is supported given the setback is existing and follows the splayed front boundary, and will help to articulate the building when viewed from the street.	Minor variation supported.
4.4	Roof Design and Features
	Rooftop terraces i) on stepped buildings only (not on uppermost or main roof) ii) above garages on sloping sites (where garage is on low side) Dormers iii) Dormer windows don’t dominate iv) Maximum 1500mm height, top is below roof ridge; 500mm setback from side of roof, face behind side elevation, above gutter of roof. v) Multiple dormers consistent vi) Suitable for existing Celestial windows and skylights vii) Sympathetic to design of dwelling Mechanical equipment viii) Contained within roof form and not visible from street and surrounding properties.	No rooftop terraces or dormer windows are proposed.	N/A
4.5	Colours, Materials and Finishes
	i) Schedule of materials and finishes ii) Finishing is durable and non-reflective. iii) Minimise expanses of rendered masonry at street frontages (except due to heritage consideration) iv) Articulate and create visual interest by using combination of materials and finishes. v) Suitable for the local climate to withstand natural weathering, ageing and deterioration. vi) recycle and re-use sandstone (See also section 8.3 foreshore area.)	The nominated colours and finishes are satisfactory.	Complies.
4.6	Earthworks
	i) excavation and backfilling limited to 1m, unless gradient too steep ii) minimum 900mm side and rear setback iii) Step retaining walls. iv) If site conditions require setbacks < 900mm, retaining walls must be stepped with each stepping not exceeding a maximum height of 2200mm. v) sloping sites down to street level must minimise blank retaining walls (use combination of materials, and landscaping) vi) cut and fill for POS is terraced where site has significant slope: vii) adopt a split-level design viii) Minimise height and extent of any exposed under-croft areas.	Earthworks is limited to the cut and fill associated with the Lower Level 4 garden. The proposed cut is 2.7m, however this is due to the steep gradient and does not extend for a significant length or depth.	Complies.
5	Amenity
5.1	Solar access and overshadowing
	Solar access to proposed development:
	i) Portion of north-facing living room windows must receive a minimum of 3 hrs direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June ii) POS (passive recreational activities) receive a minimum of 3 hrs of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.	The north facing living rooms and POS will receive compliant solar access.	Complies.
	Solar access to neighbouring development:
	i) Portion of the north-facing living room windows must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. iv) POS (passive recreational activities) receive a minimum of 3 hrs of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. v) solar panels on neighbouring dwellings, which are situated not less than 6m above ground level (existing), must retain a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. If no panels, direct sunlight must be retained to the northern, eastern and/or western roof planes (not <6m above ground) of neighbouring dwellings. vi) Variations may be acceptable subject to a merits assessment with regard to: · Degree of meeting the FSR, height, setbacks and site coverage controls. · Orientation of the subject and adjoining allotments and subdivision pattern of the urban block. · Topography of the subject and adjoining allotments. · Location and level of the windows in question. · Shadows cast by existing buildings on the neighbouring allotments.	There will be no additional overshadowing of the northern adjoining property. Some additional overshadowing will occur to the southern adjoining property.	Refer to Key Issues.
5.2	Energy Efficiency and Natural Ventilation
	i) Provide day light to internalised areas within the dwelling (for example, hallway, stairwell, walk-in-wardrobe and the like) and any poorly lit habitable rooms via measures such as: · Skylights (ventilated) · Clerestory windows · Fanlights above doorways · Highlight windows in internal partition walls i) Where possible, provide natural lighting and ventilation to any internalised toilets, bathrooms and laundries ii) living rooms contain windows and doors opening to outdoor areas Note: The sole reliance on skylight or clerestory window for natural lighting and ventilation is not acceptable	The design of the dwellings allows for light and ventilation throughout all levels.	Complies.
5.3	Visual Privacy
	Windows
	i) proposed habitable room windows must be located to minimise any direct viewing of existing habitable room windows in adjacent dwellings by one or more of the following measures: - windows are offset or staggered - minimum 1600mm window sills - Install fixed and translucent glazing up to 1600mm minimum. - Install fixed privacy screens to windows. - Creating a recessed courtyard (minimum 3m x 2m). ii) orientate living and dining windows away from adjacent dwellings (that is orient to front or rear or side courtyard)	Privacy screens and obscured glazing is shown to all side-facing windows. A condition is recommended to ensure privacy screening is appropriately designed.	Complies.
	Balcony
	iii) Upper floor balconies to street or rear yard of the site (wrap around balcony to have a narrow width at side) iii) minimise overlooking of POS via privacy screens (fixed, minimum of 1600mm high and achieve minimum of 70% opaqueness (glass, timber or metal slats and louvers) iv) Supplementary privacy devices: Screen planting and planter boxes (Not sole privacy protection measure) v) For sloping sites, step down any ground floor terraces and avoid large areas of elevated outdoor recreation space.	The proposal rear-facing balconies have the potential to overlook adjoining properties.	Refer to Key Issues.
5.5	Safety and Security
	i) dwellings main entry on front elevation (unless narrow site) ii) Street numbering at front near entry. iii) 1 habitable room window (glazed area min 2 square metres) overlooking the street or a public place. iv) Front fences, parking facilities and landscaping does not to obstruct casual surveillance (maintain safe access)	The entry to each dwelling is to the street. Due to the topography of the site, it is not possible for any habitable room windows to be provided. Notwithstanding, the inclusion of an additional dwelling will ensure there is more activity then presently provided as part of the common entrance, and therefore passive street surveillance will be improved.	Complies.
6	Car Parking and Access
6.1	Location of Parking Facilities:
	i) Maximum 1 vehicular access ii) Locate off rear lanes, or secondary street frontages where available. iii) Locate behind front façade, within the dwelling or positioned to the side of the dwelling. Note: See 6.2 for circumstances when parking facilities forward of the front façade alignment may be considered. iv) Single width garage/carport if frontage <12m; Double width if: - Frontage >12m, - Consistent with pattern in the street; - Landscaping provided in the front yard. v) Minimise excavation for basement garages vi) Avoid long driveways (impermeable surfaces)	1 vehicle access is provided, with the parking facility located behind the front façade. A double width garage is proposed and the site frontage is >12m.	Complies.
6.3	Setbacks of Parking Facilities
	i) Garages and carports comply with Sub-Section 3.3 Setbacks. ii) 1m rear lane setback iii) Nil side setback where: - nil side setback on adjoining property; - streetscape compatibility; - safe for drivers and pedestrians; and - Amalgamated driveway crossing	The garage complies with the minimum setback requirements.	Complies.
6.4	Driveway Configuration
	Maximum driveway width: - Single driveway – 3m - Double driveway – 5m Must taper driveway width at street boundary and at property boundary	A 6m wide driveway is proposed, however this is considered appropriate given it serves 2 dwellings with > 2 bedrooms each and sufficient landscaping is provided in the frontage that will help soften the appearance of the driveway.	Minot variation is supported.
6.5	Garage Configuration
	i) recessed behind front of dwelling ii) The maximum garage width (door and piers or columns): - Single garage – 3m - Double garage – 6m iii) 5.4m minimum length of a garage iv) 2.6m max wall height of detached garages v) recess garage door 200mm to 300mm behind walls (articulation) vi) 600mm max. parapet wall or bulkhead vii) minimum clearance 2.2m AS2890.1	The garage doors are recessed behind the façade and the internal dimensions are satisfactory.	Complies.
7	Fencing and Ancillary Development
7.6	Air conditioning equipment
	i) Minimise visibility from street. ii) Avoid locating on the street or laneway elevation of buildings. iii) Screen roof mounted A/C from view by parapet walls, or within the roof form. iv) Locate to minimise noise impacts on bedroom areas of adjoining dwellings.	A condition is recommended to ensure compliance.	Complies.
7.8	Clothes Drying Facilities
	i) Located behind the front alignment and not be prominently visible from the street	There is ample area on site to provide for clothes drying facilities behind the front alignment as part of POS.	Complies.

4. Referral Comments

4.1 Development Engineer and Landscape Officer

An application has been received for alterations and additions to the existing building and conversion of the building into an attached dual occupancy including associated site and landscaping works (variation to building height and floor space ratio controls).at the above site.

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

· Architectural Plans by Brewster Murray dated Dec 2017;

· Landscape Plans by Site Design Studios, dwg’s L01-02, rev C, dated 15/12/17;

· Statement of Environmental Effects by Kim Samuel dated December 2017;

· Detail & Level Survey by Rygate Surveyors dated 3^rd Feb 2017.

General Comments

There are no objections to the proposal subject to the comments and conditions provided in this report.

Parking Comments

Under Part B7 of Council’s DCP 2013 the proposed 3 bedroom & 5 bedroom residences are each required to provide a minimum of 2 off-street car spaces. The submitted plans demonstrate compliance with this requirement with 4 spaces (2 x 2 tandem spaces) provided in the proposed garage. It is also noted that additional parking would be available on the internal driveway as grades are less than 1 in 14 (7.14%).

The proposed garage and internal driveway appears to comply with the minimum requirements of Australian Standard 2890.1:2004 in regards to size, grades, and overhead clearances.

No objections are raised on the parking provision and configuration

Drainage Comments

Stormwater detention is not generally required for this development. Stormwater runoff from the site shall be likely required with any future development consent for the subject proposal to be discharged either:

a. To the kerb and gutter along the site frontage by gravity; OR

b. To Lurline Bay at the rear of the property via a suitably designed and discreet outlet (with scour protection).

NOTE:

All stormwater must pass through a sediment silt arrestor prior to discharging to Lurline Bay or Council’s stormwater system.

Undergrounding of power lines to site

At the ordinary Council meeting on the 27^th May 2014 it was resolved that;

Should a mains power distribution pole be located on the same side of the street and within 15m of the development site, the applicant must meet the full cost for Ausgrid to relocate the existing overhead power feed from the distribution pole in the street to the development site via an underground UGOH connection.

The subject is located within 15m of a mains power distribution pole on the same side of the street hence the above clause is applicable. A suitable condition has been included in this report.

Geotechnical Comments

The development proposes significant excavation on the site and it is likely ground/seepage water will be encountered at the soil rock interface. The development will be required to comply with the following requirements to ensure the adequate management of any site seepage and sub-soil drainage:

a) Sub-soil drainage must not be connected or discharged directly or indirectly to Council’s street gutter.

b) Adequate provision is to be made for the ground water to drain around the basement levels (to ensure the basement will not dam or slow the movement of the ground water through the development site).

c) Any sub-soil drainage systems must be restricted from entering the basement areas of the building and the stormwater drainage system, by tanking/waterproofing the basement areas of the building.

d) Subsoil drainage may discharge to Lurline Bay

Landscape Comments

There is minimal vegetation at this site, comprising established Bamboo in the northern side setback, at the lower ground floor level, around the northeast corner of the existing dwelling, which is an undesirable, exempt species in Council’s DCP, along with a variety of lower growing shrubs in the rear setback, of which, none are significant in anyway, so will not pose a constraint to the works and new landscape scheme as shown, with conditions allowing their removal where necessary.

Due to the steep fall of this site down to the east, and the difficulties associated with access and maintenance, the rear setback has been largely overrun with invasive weeds (as is the case with most other sites nearby), with the plans showing that a 7m wide area, below the Level 4 terrace, will be turfed and landscaped at existing grades, and will be this sites main/only area of private open space, with access stairs to be provided along the southern boundary to link these different levels.

Planting in this area will comprise evergreen boundary screening, with a mature height of between 1.5 – 3m, one native coastal Banksia tree, three deciduous Frangipani’s, as well as a variety of other lower growing grasses and decorative mass planting.

The remaining area, further to the east, is shown as remaining untouched, with conditions requiring that these two areas be formally separated so as to prevent the invasion of weed species from the lower, untouched area, into the new area of private open space, with erosion/sediment control measures also needing to be implemented to prevent runoff entering Lurline Bay during works, in the time between when existing vegetation is removed and all of the new planting is being established.

The submitted Landscape Plans shows that the amount of plant material will be substantially increased at this site, including feature planting at street level, on either side of the vehicle entry, to assist with integration of the development into the streetscape; as well as at the rear, off the Lower Level (4) terrace, as described above, all of which will be an improvement compared to the current situation, using a combination of native and exotic species, so conditions require its full implementation as part of any approval.

As this site is within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Zone, the provisions of SEPP 71 – Coastal Protection apply, with Council required to ensure that the development is designed in such a manner that it will not detract from the natural settings of the area, with the plans showing that the new building will be terraced down the steeply sloping block, in the same manner as can be seen with all other adjoining properties in this area, so is seen to be consistent with established standards, and importantly, will be contained behind the Foreshore Scenic Protection Building Line, with the exception of planting in the lowest, eastern end of the site.

Recommendation

A. That the RLPP is satisfied that the matters required to be addressed under clause 4.6(4) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 have been demonstrated and that consent may be granted to the development application, which contravenes the height of buildings development standard in Clause 4.3 and floor space ratio standard in Clause 4.4 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The concurrence of the Director of the Department of Planning & Environment may be assumed.

B. That the RLPP grants development consent under Sections 4.16 and 4.17 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 9/2018 for Alterations and additions to the existing building and conversion of the building into an attached dual occupancy including associated site and landscaping works, at No. 11 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra, subject to the development consent conditions attached to this report.

Attachment/s:

1.⇩

RLPP Development consent - DA/9/2018 - 11 Mermaid Avenue, MAROUBRA NSW 2035

Randwick Local Planning Panel 22 November 2018

Development Application Report No. D92/18

Subject: 162 Arden Street, Coogee (DA/63/2018)

Folder No: DA/63/2018

Author: James Arnold, Environmental Planning Officer

Proposal: Demolition of existing structures and construction of a four storey residential flat building comprising seven apartments.

Ward: East Ward

Applicant: Robert Stevenson

Owner: Robert Stevenson

Recommendation: Approval

Note. A total of 8 submissions were received. The known addresses are indicated by a red dot.
	Subject Site




	Submissions received
	Ù North
	Locality Plan

Executive Summary

The application is referred to the Randwick Local Planning Panel (RLPP) as State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development applies to the proposal.

The proposed development is for demolition of existing structures and construction of a four storey residential flat building comprising seven apartments, at 162 Arden Street, Coogee.

The proposal is generally consistent with the relevant planning instruments including SEPP 65, the Apartment Design Guide, Randwick LEP 2012 and Randwick DCP 2013. The development is permissible in the R3 zone and complies with the height and floor space ratio development standards. The proposal responds well to the constraints of the small site and minimises impacts on adjoining properties as far as practical for a new infill apartment development. The proposed apartments will have high levels of amenity with each having three frontages enabling good solar access and cross ventilation.

Given the above, the proposal is recommended for approval.

Proposal Description

The proposed development is for demolition of existing structures, construction of a four storey residential flat building comprising seven apartments and associated works.

Details of the proposed development are as follows:

· Demolition of the existing single storey rendered brick and weatherboard dwelling house;

· Removal of all existing vegetation and trees at the rear of the site;

· Construction of a four storey residential flat building containing seven apartments (6 x studios and 1 x two-bedroom); and,

· The development utilises a ‘flip-flop’ plan with each of the first three levels comprising a studio at the front and a studio at the rear around a central circulation core and the top level comprising a two-bedroom penthouse apartment.

Amendments

The proposal was amended during the assessment process in response to issues raised by Council. The key amendments are summarised as follows:

· FSR reduced from 0.95:1 to 0.897:1 to comply with the maximum 0.9:1. This was achieve through the reduction in the size of the studio apartments and opening up the central core to create a genuine breezeway;

· Building height lowered to comply with the 12m height limit;

· Provision of a genuine breezeway for the central core;

· Reduction in the size of the studios to represent genuine studios and not 1 bedroom apartments;

· Increased upper level side setbacks to make the building read as a three storeys plus loft building rather than a solid four storeys;

· Provision of additional secured bicycle parking spaces;

· Deletion of balcony planter boxes and replacement of side blade walls with open screening to improve view sharing;

· Size of rear courtyard reduced and replaced with additional landscaped areas; and,

· Boundary walls reduced in height to a maximum of 1.8m.

Figure 1. Streetscape Elevation (as amended)

(Source: ESS, 2018)

Figure 2. Northern side perspective (as amended)

(Source: ESS, 2018)

Site and Locality Description

The subject site is located on the western side of Arden Street approximately 300m north of Coogee Beach. The site is rectangular with a 10.06m frontage, length of 40.26m and an area of 404.7m².

Improvements on the site comprise a one storey dwelling house of brick construction with a gabled tiled roof. The site falls 3m to the rear and 1m to the southern side. The majority of the fall occurs in the rear half of the site. In terms of vegetation, the existing front yard of the site comprises lawn and the rear yard is overgrown and includes eight mature trees.

The site is located within a residential area comprised of a mixture of existing one and two storey dwelling houses with pitched roofs, mid-century brick 3 to 5 storey flat buildings, and contemporary 3 to 5 storey flat buildings. The built form in the area is typically original with brick construction materials and pitched tiled roofs. Recent developments in the area have flat roofs with render and cladding. The site is adjacent to a heritage listed sandstone retaining wall which extends along either side of Arden Street. Due to this retaining wall, the site does not have any vehicular access.

The site is adjoined on either side (160 and 164 Arden Street) and to the rear (15 Arcadia Street) by properties which contain one and two storey dwelling houses. 164 Arden Street has an approval for alterations and additions to convert to a two storey dual occupancy development which is yet to be completed.

Figure 3. Front of subject site (middle) from Arden Street opposite side of Arden Street.

(Source: James Arnold, 2018)

Figure 4. Rear of subject site.

(Source: James Arnold, 2018)

Relevant History / Application History

8 February 2018	Lodgement – The subject development application was lodged with Council.
12 March 2018	Design Review Panel – The proposal was considered by the design review panel who were generally supportive of the application subject to amendments. Refer to SEPP 65 section of this report for details.
April 2018	Additional Information Request 1 – The DRP comments were provided to the applicant to address.
14 June 2018	Amended plans and additional information – Amended plans and documents were submitted to Council which partly resolved the issues of the DRP. The key amendments were the provision of a genuine breezeway for the central core, lowering of the building height within the height limit, revised landscaping, new clothesline, blade walls replaced with open screening to allow view sharing, and additional information provided in relation to solar access and Arborist Report.
11 July 2018	Additional Information Request 2 – Further information was requested with regards to the reduction of the size of the nominated ‘studios’ to genuine studios and not 1 bedroom apartments, upper floor setbacks to be increased, reduction of bulk around balconies for view sharing, side window privacy measures, greater opening to breezeway, reduced courtyard at rear for more landscaping, details of ongoing waste management arrangements, details of construction, and other more minor issues.
23 August 2018	Amended plans and additional information – Amended plans and documents were submitted to Council which generally resolved the issues. The key amendments were the reduction in the size of the studios, increased upper level setback, deletion of balcony planters to open up views, more open breezeways, reduced rear courtyard and more landscaping, and additional details on waste management and construction.
4 October 2018	Additional Information Request 3 – Further information was requested by Council’s Development Engineer and Traffic Engineer regarding the details of the Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP).
16 October 2018	Additional information – An amended CTMP was submitted which generally resolved the concerns of Council’s Engineers subject to conditions.

Submissions

The owners of adjoining and likely affected properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. In response, eight submissions were received, all of which contained objections to the proposal.

Amended plans were submitted in June and August 2018 to address the various issues raised by Council. The amended plans were not re-notified as the amendments were considered relatively minor and resulted in reduced impacts on adjoining properties.

The known addresses of the submitters are as follows:

· Unknown number on Arcadia Street, Coogee

· 11 Arcadia Street, Coogee

· 15 Arcadia Street, Coogee

· 4/19 Arcadia Street, Coogee

· 158 Arden Street, Coogee

· 160 Arden Street, Coogee

· 13/166-172 Arden Street, Coogee

Issue	Assessment
Lack of on-site car parking	Having consideration for a range of factors, the car parking non-compliance is supported. A comprehensive discussion on car parking is contained in the Key Issues section.
Bulk and scale out of character	The development achieves compliance with the key planning provisions which control bulk and scale such as floor space ratio, height, and setbacks. Further, the design of the proposal reduces perceived bulk through variation in materials, upper level setback and distinction of materials, and a semi-open core to break-up the length of the development into two pavilions. The development is consistent with the existing and emerging character of the area.
Height and FSR variation	The proposal has been amended to comply with height and FSR.
Impacts of building height, privacy, solar access to 11 and 15 Arcadia Street	15 Arcadia Street adjoins the rear of the subject site and 11 Arcadia Street is one property further along to the west. The development is setback 7.5-9m at the rear which exceeds the 6m DCP and ADG requirements and will provide an adequate level of privacy. Further, a deep soil planting area is proposed for a large portion of the rear setback which will provide landscape screening. This rear setback area has been conditioned to include additional landscaped areas to replace part of the proposed rear terrace which will further improve privacy to the rear. In regards to height and overshadowing, the building complies with the height limit and will not cast any shadows on 11 or 15 Arcadia Street.
Overlooking to 160 Arden Street	The proposal has generally been designed to provide privacy for the units and adjacent properties through positioning and orientation of the main living spaces to the front and rear, privacy treatments including angled louvres to the sides of the balconies, and privacy screened side windows. Conditions have been imposed regarding the details of the privacy treatments which will ensure overlooking potential is minimised.
Future redevelopment of 15 Arcadia views blocked	The adjoining development to the rear at 15 Arcadia Street does not currently have any views across the subject site, as the subject site slopes up to Arden Street which blocks views towards Coogee Bay. Any impact on views from a future taller redevelopment of that site are considered acceptable as the proposed building envelope is compliant with height and setbacks and provides a greater rear setback than required, which will allow for view sharing.
Insufficient landscaping	The proposal complies with the landscaping requirements under Council’s DCP and the ADG. Further landscaping will also be required to be provided replacing some of the proposed rear terrace.
View impacts	View impacts are considered minor and acceptable. Refer to Key Issues section for full discussion.
Wall height non-compliance	The wall height non-compliance is considered acceptable. Refer to Key Issues section for full discussion.
Waste bin collection location – existing only 2 bins at the corner, however 11 bins will be a hazard and eye-sore	A detailed Waste Management Plan has been submitted with the amended application. Given the heritage retaining wall fronting the site and that there is no road verge space available on Arden Street for bin collection, bins are proposed to be transported to the nearest corner with Arcadia Street for collection. Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed this proposal and considers it an acceptable arrangement given the constraints of the site and area.
Insufficient front setback	The proposal complies with the front setback control.
Tree removals	The proposal includes the removal of eight existing trees located at the rear of the site. These trees include some medium and large trees including a mature pine tree which has been identified as having visual and landscape significance. The trees to be removed are located within the proposed building footprint. The footprint provides front, side and rear setbacks which are consistent with the planning controls and in some areas, such as at the rear, well in excess of requirements. The design of the proposal in relation to the tree locations has been reviewed and there are no reasonable amendments which could be made to accommodate the trees which are located well into the middle of the site. Council’s Landscape Technician has reviewed the proposed tree removals and raised no objection. In particular, it was noted that the existing major Norfolk Island Pine is located within 2m of the existing dwelling and can therefore be removed without Council consent.
Studios attract short term rentals	There is no evidence to suggest that the proposed studios would result in any unreasonable adverse social or economic impact on the area.
Construction access to site	Construction access was raised as an issue by Council. The amended proposal included a Construction Management Plan which has been reviewed by Council’s Development Engineer and no objections were raised subject to conditions.
Overshadowing to south	The adjoining properties to the south have been assessed as achieving compliance with solar access provisions. A detailed assessment is provided under the RDCP section of this report.
Construction noise	Standard conditions of consent have been imposed that include measures to minimise the impact of construction noise.

Key Issues

Communal open space

ADG Part 3D–1 1. Communal open space has a minimum area equal to 25% of the site.

The ADG requires 25% of the site area to be provided as communal open space. The proposal does not provide any communal open space which does not comply. This is considered acceptable for the following reasons:

· The objective of this control relates to enhancing residential amenity and providing opportunities for landscaping. The development is considered to achieve these objectives as detailed in the following points;

· The proposal achieves a high level of residential amenity and opportunities for landscaping by utilising the ground open space areas for oversized private terraces and private landscaped areas. The provision of private landscaping at the rear is preferable to communal open space as communal space in this area would result in a significant loss of landscaping as access paths and communal facilities would be necessary (Figure 5). Landscaping and trees on this site are paramount as the proposal will result in the loss of an existing substantial canopy of trees and the proposed compensatory plantings are crucial for the amenity of surrounding properties;

· Residential amenity is provided to the upper level apartments through oversized balconies. The balconies for the studios are 19m2 where only 4m2 is required under the ADG and 16m2 for the 2 bedroom penthouse apartment where 10m2 is required. These oversized balconies will compensate for the lack of communal open space on site; and,

· The site is within close proximity of a wide variety of public open space areas including Coogee Oval (200m), Coogee Beach (300m), Bardon Park (300m), and Dunningham Reserve (300m) – an aerial image showing these areas is shown in Figure 6.

Figure 5. Landscaping diagram indicating the proposed rear private landscaped areas which is considered a preferable outcome for the site than provision of COS.

(Source: SOD, 2018 / Marked: J Arnold)

Figure 6. Aerial image showing the range of public open spaces within a short walking distance of the site.

(Source: google.com.au/maps)

Side setbacks and separations

RDCP Section C3 3.4.2 – Comply with the minimum side setback requirements stated below for residential flat buildings and multi dwelling housing: Site frontage width <12 – merit.

ADG Part 3F – 1. Separation between windows and balconies is provided to ensure visual privacy is achieved. Minimum required separation distances from buildings to the side and rear boundaries are as follows: 6m habitable areas / balconies, 3m non-habitable.

The proposed development has 1.7m side setbacks which is considered to comply with the DCP merit based provisions, however does not comply with the 6m ADG requirement. The setbacks/separations are considered acceptable for the following reasons:

· The objectives of the ADG separation requirements relate to providing a reasonable level of visual privacy between sites. The proposal as originally lodged included large side windows extending across the living and bedroom of the studios. These were considered excessive in size and would impact adjoining visual privacy given the high use nature of these rooms and the close proximity to the boundary. The proposal has been amended to split these large windows into smaller windows with privacy screening. To ensure there are no opportunities for direct overlooking to the sides, a condition has been imposed for these privacy screens to be fixed angled louvres to direct views to the front and rear of the site only;

· The site is less than 12m in width (10.06m) which the DCP stipulates a merit assessment for side setbacks. When considering the side setback requirement for site widths 12-14m is 2m, the provision of 1.7m side setbacks would seem proportionally consistent. These setbacks are also greater than the existing developments either side of the site, albeit those sites contain only one and two storey dwellings. Importantly, amendments were made to the top level to further setback from the sides to 2.7m which will ensure the development will be comfortably spaced in the streetscape and bulk and scale is minimised with the upper floor reading as a recessive component (Figure 7);

· The facades of the development will not be overly bulky for adjoining properties as they are well resolved with a stepped building design, upper level setbacks, prominent windows, central breezeway articulation, and textured cladding.

Figure 7. Streetscape elevation diagram showing the side setbacks and upper setback relative to adjoining developments.

(Source: ESS, 2018 / Marked: J Arnold)

Wall height

RDCP C2 3.2 i) The maximum external wall height is 10.5m.

The proposed development has a maximum external wall height of 11.77m which does not comply with the maximum 10.5m control (Figure 8). The wall height is considered acceptable for the following reasons:

· The development provides a contemporary design with a flat roof within the overall building height limit of 12m. A development achieving the 12m overall height would have to include a pitched roof design to comply with the 10.5m wall height control which is measured to the underside of the eaves. The proposed flat roof design provides an upper level setback (as amended) of 1m (2.7m setback from the southern side boundary) at the front and 0.5m at the rear to achieve a similar outcome to a compliant pitched roof form;

· The solar perspectives indicate that the proposal will provide more than compliant solar access to the adjoining property to the south, 164 Arden Steet. 164 Arden Street contains a front living room which will receive 2 hours sunlight from 8-10am and a rear living room that will receive 4 hours from 11am-3pm. The rear courtyard will receive 5 hours sunlight to over 50% of the space between 10am-3pm. Further, the approved dual occupancy conversion of 164 Arden Street has also been reviewed and would receive the same levels of sunlight as the existing dwelling given the living areas and POS are located in the same areas;

· The upper level setback of 1m from the building edge and 2.7m from the side boundary will ensure the main portion of the walls extend only 3 storeys up to a maximum of 10m. The visual impact of the wall height is offset with increased upper level setbacks which will result in an architecturally separate upper building element clearly distinguished from the lower portion; and,

Figure 8. Southern side elevation showing the portion over the wall height limit.

(Source: ESS, 2018 / Marked: J Arnold)

Views

The views available across the subject site have been taken into consideration in the assessment process. Views that will be potentially affected by the proposal have been identified from two key locations being the first floor living room and front balcony of the dwelling house at 158 Arden Street (two properties north) and the front porch of the dwelling house at 160 Arden Street (adjoining to north). The views are to the Coogee bay and valley area to the south/south-east of the site and are shown in Figure 9-14.

The view sharing provisions in the DCP are based on the planning principle within the Land and Environment Court judgement of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004]. In Tenacity, the Court determined a 4-step process to determine whether the loss or sharing of views is reasonable. The four step process has been followed as detailed below and the view impacts are considered to be satisfactory.

· Step 1. Assess the views to be affected - water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views.

Assessment: 158 Arden Street – The views are from the first floor living and balcony to the Coogee bay and valley area. The South Coogee headland and Wedding Cake Island are visible. These views are partial views, with much of Coogee Bay obstructed by buildings on the eastern side of Arden Street and large trees.

160 Arden Street – The views are from the ground level front porch to the Coogee Bay area. Part of the South Coogee headland is visible, however Wedding Cake Island is not. These views are partial views obtained across the front corner of the site, with most of the view obstructed by the buildings on the eastern side of Arden Street.

· Step 2. Assess what part of the property the views are obtained from. Is the view from the side, front or rear boundaries? Is the view enjoyed from a standing or sitting position? Is the expectation to retain the view realistic?

Assessment: 158 Arden Street – The views are obtained from the first floor living area and front balcony across the front and side boundary of the site. The views are available from standing and seated positions, however are far less obstructed from standing. The views angle across the front setback areas of adjacent properties to the south (including the subject site) and are realistic to be retained. The views directly south across the side boundary towards the Coogee shops are more difficult to retain.

160 Arden Street – The views are obtained from the front porch of the dwelling across the side boundary of the site. The views are available from standing and seated positions, however are highly obstructed from both positions. The views across the front setback area of the subject site are realistic to be retained.

· Step 3. Assess the extent of the impact having regard to the whole of the property, not just for the view that is affected. Views from living areas are more significant than from bedrooms etc. A qualitative assessment is usually more useful (i.e. the view loss is negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating) than comparing percentages.

Assessment: 158 Arden Street – The proposed building will result in a loss of the western-most portion of the view to the Coogee valley area. There will be no impact on the views to the water and headland. Overall the impact is considered minor. See Figure 11 & 13.

160 Arden Street – The proposed building will be further setback than the existing dwelling and as such it is likely the view will be slightly improved.

· Step 4. Assess the reasonableness of the proposal causing the impact. Is the application compliant (and therefore more reasonable) or involve variations to development standards?

Assessment: The impact on the view from 158 Arden Street is considered reasonable as the impact is minor and has been reduced as far as practical. In response to concerns raised by Council, the proposal was amended to reduce the bulk of the front balconies to improve view lines. The original proposal had large solid balustrades including planter boxes and side blade walls which have been replaced with part solid, part clear balustrades, and half-length open style privacy louvres. The design measures along with the compliant front setback of the building ensures the view impact is minimal and aligned with expectations from the planning controls.

Given the above, the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of its impact of views.

Figure 9. Existing views available across site towards Coogee bay and valley area to the south and south-east of site. (Source: google.com.au/maps / Marked: J Arnold, 2018)

Figure 10. 160 Arden Street approximate views from the front porch towards Coogee Bay.

(Source: J Arnold, 2018)

Figure 11. 158 Arden Street standing view from first floor front balcony towards Coogee Bay with the proposed building envelope superimposed.

(Source: ESS & J Arnold, 2018)

Figure 12. 158 Arden Street seated view from first floor front balcony towards Coogee Bay.

(Source: J Arnold, 2018)

Figure 13. 158 Arden Street view from far eastern first floor living towards Coogee Bay with the proposed building envelope superimposed.

(Source: ESS & J Arnold, 2018)

Figure 14. 158 Arden Street view from first floor living towards Coogee Bay.

(Source: J Arnold, 2018)

Car parking

RDCP B7 3.2 i) Development must comply with the vehicle parking rates as detailed in Table 1 Vehicle Parking Rates. Residential flat buildings: 1 space per 2 studios, 1.2 spaces per 2 bedroom apartment.

The proposed development generates a DCP car parking requirement of 5.2 spaces (4.2 spaces residents and 1 visitors). No car parking is proposed which does not comply with the requirement. The lack of car parking provision is considered acceptable for the following reasons:

· The site is landlocked by the heritage sandstone retaining wall along the frontage to Arden Street which restricts vehicular access to the site. Tunneling through this wall would significantly detract from the heritage item and streetscape presentation. Council’s Heritage Officer has previously commented on similar DAs on the opposite side of Arden Street that tunneling through the wall would not be supported and the Design Excellence Panel for the subject DA were also not supportive of such an approach. Accordingly, there is no opportunity to provide car parking on the site;

· The proposal has been amended to provide more genuine studio apartments to ensure the parking demands of the development are minimised. The originally submitted plans were for studios however they were of the size and layout of one bedroom apartments. The amendments have reduced the size of the studio apartments to 45m2 (ie. below the minimum one-bedroom ADG unit size – 50m2) which will serve to reduce the potential number of residents and subsequent parking demands;

· The site has relatively good public transport links with major bus terminus at the bottom of Arden Street at Coogee Beach, just 250m walk from the site. A range of high frequency buses service this terminus providing access regionally to the CBD and locally to Bondi Junction, Randwick Junction, and The Spot. These locations are a short bus trip from the site and contain a wide range of services and facilities;

· The site is located within 400-600m walking distance of the main Coogee Beach shopping strip along Coogee Bay Road. This strip contains some key services and facilities such as a full sized supermarket, gyms, pubs, and a wide range of cafes and restaurants. Further, also within a short walk of the site are a range of public open spaces and recreational facilities including Coogee Oval, tennis courts, dog parks, and Coogee Beach;

· The amended proposal has incorporated one bicycle parking space for each apartment within a secured room in a highly convenient location at the ground floor; and,

· A condition has been imposed that requires the applicant to provide seven car share memberships (one for each apartment) for a period of 10 years.

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

That the proposed development for demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a four storey residential flat building, be approved (subject to conditions) for the reasons below.

· The proposed development satisfies the matters for consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended;

· The proposal is consistent with the objectives and controls of the RLEP 2012 and the RDCP 2013;

· The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the R3 zone in that the proposed activity and built form will provide for the housing needs of the community whilst enhancing the aesthetic character and protecting the amenity of the local residents;

· The scale and design of the proposal is considered to be suitable for the location and is compatible with the desired future character of the locality; and,

· The environmental impacts are acceptable.

Detailed Assessment

1.0 Matters for Consideration

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

Section 4.15 ‘Matters for Consideration’	Assessment of Proposal
Section 4.15 (1)(a)(i) – Provisions of any environmental planning instrument	See below.
Section 4.15(1)(a)(ii) – Provisions of any draft environmental planning instrument	Nil.
Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) – Provisions of any development control plan	The proposal generally satisfies the objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. See table below.
Section 4.15(1)(a)(iiia) – Provisions of any Planning Agreement or draft Planning Agreement	Not applicable.
Section 4.15(1)(a)(iv) – Provisions of the regulations	The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.
Section 4.15(1)(b) – The likely impacts of the development, including environmental impacts on the natural and built environment and social and economic impacts in the locality	The environmental impacts of the proposed development on the natural and built environment have been addressed in this report. The proposed development is consistent with the prevailing residential character in the locality. The proposal will not result in detrimental social or economic impacts on the locality.
Section 4.15(1)(c) – The suitability of the site for the development	The proposed development continues the residential use which is permissible in the zone and there are no salient site or contextual features which would make the site unsuitable for the development.
Section 4.15(1)(d) – Any submissions made in accordance with the EP&A Act or EP&A Regulation	Submissions were received which are addressed in this report.
Section 4.15(1)(e) – The public interest	The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the zone and will not result in any significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be in the public interest.

2.0 Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments and Development Control Plans

2.1 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

The provisions of SEPP 55 have been considered in the assessment of the application. The site and adjoining properties are currently used for residential purposes. There is no evidence to suggest any potentially contaminating activities have taken place on or near the site. Accordingly, the site is considered suitable for the proposed ongoing residential use and satisfies the provisions of the SEPP.

2.2 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

The proposed development includes BASIX affected buildings. A compliant BASIX certificate has been submitted and in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 the environmentally sustainable commitments within the certificate are required to be fulfilled as a prescribed condition of consent. Accordingly, the proposal satisfies the provisions of the SEPP.

2.3 State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007

The site has a frontage and is adjacent to a classified road being Arden Street and therefore the Infrastructure SEPP has been considered.

· Clause 101 Development with a frontage to a classified road – No vehicular access is currently available to Arden Street and no new access is proposed. As such, the proposal will not have any impacts on the function of the road.

· Clause 102 Impact of road noise or vibration on non-road development – This clause is not applicable as Arden Street fronting the site does not have an annual average daily traffic volume of more than 40,000 vehicles.

· Clause 104 Traffic-generating development – This clause is not applicable as the proposal has does not meet the size or capacity requirements in the SEPP.

Given the above, the proposal satisfies the Infrastructure SEPP.

2.4 State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation in Non-Rural Areas) 2017

The Vegetation SEPP provides approval pathways for the removal of vegetation in non-rural areas and matters for consideration in the assessment of applications to remove vegetation.

The proposal includes the removal of the eight existing trees located at the rear of the site. These trees includes some medium and large trees include a mature pine tree which has been identified as having visual and landscape significance.

The trees to be removed are located within the proposed building footprint. The footprint provides front, side and rear setbacks which are consistent with the planning controls and in some areas, such as at the rear, well in excess of requirements. The design of the proposal in relation to the tree locations has been reviewed and there are no reasonable amendments which could be made to accommodate the trees which are located well into the middle of the site.

Council’s Landscape Technician has reviewed the proposal tree removals and raised no objection. In particular, it was noted that the existing major Norfolk Island Pine is located within 2m of the existing dwelling and can therefore be removed without Council consent.

Given the above context and that a range of replacement plantings are proposed, the tree removals are considered acceptable and satisfy the provisions of the Vegetation SEPP.

2.5 State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality Residential Flat Buildings

SEPP 65 applies to the proposed development as it contains three or more storeys and contains four or more dwellings.

Clause 28(2) stipulates that the consent authority is to take into consideration the advice of the design review panel, the design quality principles, and the Apartment Design Guide (ADG).

The proposal has been assessed against the Design Quality Principles and the ADG. A summary of the assessment against the ADG is provided in the compliance table below and areas of non-compliance have been discussed within the table and in the key issues section of this report. Overall, the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the ADG.

Design Review Panel and the Design Quality Principles

The Randwick Design Review Panel considered the subject proposal. The panel was generally supportive of the application and provided the below advice. The Assessing Officer’s comments on the DRPs advice is also provided.

Principle 1: Context and Neighbourhood Character

The subject site is located on Arden Street on the heights above Coogee Beach. In this immediate area, Arden Street slopes down towards the valley of Coogee Beach steeply; the footpath sits on a retaining wall separate from the street, running on a gentler slope. The sandstone retaining wall is a heritage item, and a major feature in the area. It restricts access from the street and therefore there is no opportunity to provide on-site parking.

The subject site is neighboured by one and two storey residential buildings, some of which are in the process of being replaced by larger multi-unit developments. It was noted by the applicants that the site immediately to the north, at 160 Arden Street, currently has approval for a new development. The site is within close proximity to the major retail and hospitality precinct of Coogee Beach, and is well served by public transport. The Coogee bus terminal is within 200 meters of the site.

Comment: The proposal is consistent with this principle as per the DRPs comments.

Principle 2: Scale and Built Form

The proposal exceeds height, FSR and wall height, though marginally in parts. The stair and associated circulation are not designed as an open breezeway, and therefore should also be counted as FSR. Despite claims in the proposal that the scheme is a 3 story development with a secondary roof from, the overall building reads very clearly as a four-story block, especially when seen from the sides. The proposal also requests removal of all the mature trees at the rear of the site.

The panel feels that the entire building should be shifted to the east, towards the street – this would make the form less dominant over the contiguous open spaces of the adjoining back yards, and should allow retention of some of the existing trees. The overall form should be refined more, to bring the massing within the controls, and express the top floor more clearly as a recessed secondary roof form, and not part of a four-story block.

The applicant should illustrate clearly the impacts of overshadowing on the indoor and outdoor living spaces of the adjoining property at 164 Arden. Similarly, the drawings should indicate the extent of the approved development at 160 Arden, so the performance objectives (light, ventilation) for this proposal can be future-proofed.

Comment: To resolve the DRPs issues regarding the building envelope and siting, the proposal has been amended to comply with the height and FSR. The wall height remains non-compliant however, consistent with the DRPs advice, the upper level has been further setback from the sides to ensure the building truly reads as three storeys with a recessed fourth storey. The building siting remains unchanged, however additional landscaping is now provided at the rear through the reduction in paved areas. A condition has been imposed to further reduce hard paving at the rear so that substantial plantings are provided to screen the rear of the built form.

Comprehensive ‘view from sun’ solar perspectives have been submitted which accurately demonstrate the overshadowing impacts of the development on the adjoining property. These impacts comply with the relevant provisions.

The amended proposal is considered to be consistent with this principle.

Principle 3: Density

The long, narrow site necessarily results in a proposal with a most of its massing directly adjacent to neighbouring properties. The resulting continuous side walls should be modulated to offer some relief – expressing (via a recess) the breezeway and circulation space would improve the north elevation, while the entry opposite offers a similar opportunity on the south elevation.

Comment: Consistent with the DRP’s advice, the proposal has been amended to provide genuine breezeways across the core of the building which assists in breaking up the continuous mass of the side elevations. Further, the top floor has been further setback from the sides which ensures the bulk of the side elevations is minimised. The amended proposal is considered to be consistent with this principle.

Principle 4: Sustainability

The natural ventilation solution for the units appears to rely on small windows or doors opening out to an external mechanical area – this configuration, and the location of AC units, should be reconsidered. Establishing the stair and circulation zone as a genuine breezeway would assist. Solar studies suggest north facing windows as primary source of natural light, but these windows are screened – the application should include details of the screens, to ensure requisite light to the units’ living spaces. Rainwater and stormwater should be collected, stored and re-used, in gardens and WC’s and laundries. The extensive flat roof should incorporate PV solar panels and solar hot water units.

Comment: Consistent with the DRPs advice, the proposal has been amended to provide a genuine breezeway which will assist cross ventilation of the units. Whilst the side windows of the units will be privacy screened, each has a large eastern or western frontage to the living area and private open space which will receive compliant levels of sunlight. The development incorporates the sustainability measures as required by the BASIX Certificate. Any additional sustainability measures are not considered warranted in this instance. The amended proposal is considered to be consistent with this principle.

Principle 5: Landscape

The site currently contains a stand of large established trees in the rear (west) backyard – these contribute significantly to the site and surrounding properties. The arborist’s report seems to misidentify some of these items, including the major Norfolk Pine on the adjoining property – these details should be reviewed and corrected where necessary. Changes to the building footprint and potential massing should aim to allow for the retention of some of these mature specimens.

In the event of removal of mature trees, the replacement trees specified in the landscape plan should offer (over time) a similar degree of canopy and amenity, with as large as possible specimens planted. The planters on the terraces and in the entry lobby seem too small to sustain the size density of planting suggested in the drawings and landscape plans – these should be detailed to allow successful plant growth and longevity.

Comment: The proposal has been reviewed by Council’s Landscape Technician who raised no objections subject to conditions. In relation to the significant trees at the rear of the site, the Landscape officer noted that the major Norfolk Island Pine (Tree 8 in Arborist Report) is located within 2m of the existing building and can therefore be removed without consent. The remaining trees are considered to be too far into the site to reasonably accommodate within a new development. The neighbouring tree near the northern boundary at the rear will be retained and protected. A condition has been imposed to reduce the rear courtyard to increase compensatory landscaping on site. Having regards to the location of the existing site vegetation and the compensatory plantings proposed, the proposal is considered to consistent this principle.

Principle 6: Amenity

The waste storage area opening directly onto the entry lobby is not ideal, though the panel accepts that options are limited. Ensuring the entry space is genuinely an open breezeway could alleviate some of the potential impacts. The entire entry experience from the street could be enhanced, through planting, material details or building elements. There is no communal open space in the development, nor an outdoor drying area. Suggested changes noted above to building alignment may offer some possibilities to address these issues.

Comment: The central core has been amended to be a genuine breezeway and a door has been provided immediately adjacent to the bin room which will ensure bin transfer will be directly out of the building and not through the main part of the entrance lobby. The proposal has been amended to reduce the rear courtyard to provide additional landscaping. There is further scope for the courtyard to be pulled back which has been imposed as a condition. The lack of communal open space is supported for this small scale development as the private open spaces are oversized and have high levels of amenity and there are public recreation areas within a short walk of the site. The amended proposal is considered to be consistent with this principle.

Principle 7: Safety

There are no safety issues raised.

Comment: The proposal is consistent with this principle as per the DRPs comments.

Principle 8: Housing Diversity and Social Interaction

The proposal for studio apartments in a high-quality development is a positive addition to the area.

Comment: The proposal is consistent with this principle as per the DRPs comments.

Principle 9: Aesthetics

The mainly blank 4-story side walls need more development, especially when considering their impacts on the neighbouring properties immediately adjacent. Blade walls to the northeast corner of the front (east) balconies should be designed to not obstruct ocean views from neighbouring properties, while also providing privacy to residents and neighbours. Drainage solutions from planters and balconies should be considered, and details provided, to ensure rainwater appliances to not become obtrusive elements in the minimalist design.

Comment: Consistent with the DRP’s advice, the proposal has been amended to provide genuine breezeways across the core of the building which assists in breaking up the continuous mass of the side elevations. Further, the top floor has been further setback from the sides which ensures the bulk of the side elevations is minimised. The originally proposed balcony blade walls have been replaced with open style privacy louvres and reduced in width to minimise view impacts. The amended proposal is considered to be consistent with this principle.

Summary and Recommendations

The panel supports the overall approach to the project, but would like the opportunity to review the proposal with its amendments again.

Comment: The proposal as amended is considered to resolve the issues raised by the DRP and as such further review of the DRP was not considered warranted.

Apartment Design Guide

Provision

Assessment of Proposal

Complies?

Part 3 – Siting the development

3D Communal and Public Open Space

Design Criteria

1. Communal open space has a minimum area equal to 25% of the site (see figure 3D.3)).

Communal Open Space: Nil

No – Acceptable Refer to Key Issues

2. Developments achieve a minimum of 50% direct sunlight to the principal usable part of the communal open space for a minimum of 2 hours between 9am and 3pm on 21 June (mid-winter).

No communal open space provided.

N/A

3E Deep soil zones

Design Criteria

Deep soil zones are to meet the following minimum requirements.

Site Area	Min dimensions	Deep soil zone (% of site)
Less than 650m2	-	7%
650-1500m2	3m
Greater than 1500m2	6m
Greater than 1500m2 with existing tree cover	6m

Deep Soil Area: 31% (126m2)

Yes

3F Visual privacy

Design criteria

1. Separation between windows and balconies is provided to ensure visual privacy is achieved. Minimum required separation distances from buildings to the side and rear boundaries are as follows:

Height	Habitable rooms and balconies	Non-habitable rooms
Up to 12m (4 storeys)	6m	3m
Up to 25m (5-8 storeys)	9m	4.5m
Over 25m (9+ storeys)	12m	6m

The following separations are proposed:

Southern side boundary (habitable)

Minimum: 1.7m (6m required, does not comply)

Northern side boundary (habitable)

Minimum: 1.7m (6m required, does not comply)

No – Acceptable Refer to Key Issues

Note: Separation distances between buildings on the same site should combine required building separations depending on the type of room (see figure 3F.2).

Gallery access circulation should be treated as habitable space when measuring privacy separation distances between neighbouring properties.

Only a single building proposed. Internal separations not applicable.

N/A

3G Pedestrian access and entries

Objective 3G-1

Building entries and pedestrian access connects to and addresses the public domain.

The entries are clearly identifiable from the public domain and clearly distinguishable from private areas.

Yes

3H Vehicle access

Objective 3H-1

Vehicle access points are designed and located to achieve safety, minimise conﬂicts between pedestrians and vehicles and create high quality streetscapes.

No vehicular access.

N/A

3J Bicycle and car parking

Design Criteria

1. For development in the following locations:

• on sites that are within 800 metres of a railway station or light rail stop in the Sydney Metropolitan Area; or

• on land zoned, and sites within 400 metres of land zoned, B3 Commercial Core, B4 Mixed Use or equivalent in a nominated regional centre the minimum car parking requirement for residents and visitors is set out in the Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, or the car parking requirement prescribed by the relevant council, whichever is less.

The car parking needs for a development must be provided off street.

The site is not within 800m of a railway station or light rail stop. Car parking provisions from the DCP are applicable.

N/A

Objective 3J-2

Parking and facilities are provided for other modes of transport.

Bicycle spaces: 9 within a secured and covered location at ground floor.

Yes

Part 4 – Designing the building

4A Solar and daylight access

Design Criteria

1. Living rooms and private open spaces of at least 70% of apartments in a building receive a minimum of 2 hours direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm at mid - winter in the Sydney Metropolitan Area and in the Newcastle and Wollongong local government areas.

Solar access: 100% of apartments will receive more than the required 2 hours solar access to living areas and private open space areas.

Yes

2. In all other areas, living rooms and private open spaces of at least 70% of apartments in a building receive a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm at mid-winter.

The proposed development is within the Sydney Metropolitan Area and as such this is not applicable.

N/A

3. A maximum of 15% of apartments in a building receive no direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm at mid-winter.

No apartments will receive no direct sunlight in mid-winter.

Yes

4B Natural ventilation

Design criteria

1. At least 60% of apartments are naturally cross ventilated in the first nine storeys of the building. Apartments at ten storeys or greater are deemed to be cross ventilated only if any enclosure of the balconies at these levels allows adequate natural ventilation and cannot be fully enclosed.

Cross ventilation: 100% of the apartments

Yes

2. Overall depth of a cross-over or cross-through apartment does not exceed 18m, measured glass line to glass line.

No cross-over and cross-through apartments.

N/A

4C Ceiling heights

Design criteria

1. Measured from finished floor level to finished ceiling level, minimum ceiling heights are:

· Habitable rooms 2.7m

· Non habitable 2.4m

· 2 storey apartments 2.7m for main living area floor, 2.4m for second floor

· Attic 1.8m at edge with 30 degree minimum ceiling slope

· Mixed use area 3.3m ground and first floor

These minimums do not preclude higher ceilings if desired.

Ceiling heights: 2.7m

Yes

4D Apartment size and layout

Design criteria

Apartments are required to have the following minimum internal areas:

· Studio – 35m²

· 1B – 50m²

· 2B – 70m²

· 3B+ - 90m²

The minimum internal areas include only one bathroom. Additional bathrooms increase the minimum internal area by 5m² each.

A fourth bedroom and further additional bedrooms increase the minimum internal area by 12m² each.

Studios: 45m2

2 bedroom apartment: 86m2

Yes

Every habitable room must have a window in an external wall with a total minimum glass area of not less than 10% of the floor area of the room. Daylight and air may not be borrowed from other rooms.

All habitable rooms have windows to an external wall with a total glass area not less than 10% of the floor area of the room.

Yes

Habitable room depths are limited to a maximum of 2.5 x the ceiling height.

Yes

In open plan layouts (where the living, dining and kitchen are combined) the maximum habitable room depth is 8m from a window.

All apartments have open plan layouts. The maximum depth does not exceed 8m from the external windows / glazed balcony doors.

Yes

4D Apartment size and layout

Design Criteria

Master bedrooms have a minimum area of 10m2 and other bedrooms 9m2 (excluding wardrobe space).

Minimum bedroom areas have been achieved.

Yes

Bedrooms have a minimum dimension of 3m (excluding wardrobe space).

Bedrooms have a minimum dimension of 3m excluding wardrobe space.

Yes

Living rooms or combined living/dining rooms have a minimum width of:

· 3.6m for studio and 1 bedroom apartments

· 4m for 2 and 3 bedroom apartments

All living rooms have a minimum dimension of 4.1m for the studios and 4m for 2 bedroom apartments.

Yes

The width of cross-over or cross-through apartments are at least 4m internally to avoid deep narrow apartment layouts.

No cross over or cross through apartments proposed.

N/A

4E Private open space and balconies

Design Criteria

All apartments are required to have primary balconies as follows:

· Studio – Area 4m² / Depth none

· 1B – Area 8m² / Depth 2m

· 2B – Area 10m² / Depth 2m

· 3B+ - Area 12m³ / Depth 2.4m

The minimum balcony depth to be counted as contributing to the balcony area is 1m.

All balconies meet the balcony size and depth requirements.

Yes

For apartments at ground level or on a podium or similar structure, a private open space is provided instead of a balcony. It must have a minimum area of 15m2 and a minimum depth of 3m.

The ground floor apartments have been provided with a courtyard which meet the size and depth requirements.

Yes

4F Common circulation and spaces

Design Criteria

The maximum number of apartments off a circulation core on a single level is eight.

Two apartments per floor.

Yes

For buildings of 10 storeys and over, the maximum number of apartments sharing a single lift is 40.

N/A – Not 10 storeys and over.

N/A

4G Storage

Design criteria

In addition to storage in kitchens, bathrooms and bedrooms, the following storage is provided:

· Studio – 4m³

· 1B – 6m³

· 2B – 8m³

· 3B+ - 10m³

At least 50% of the required storage is to be located within the apartment.

Internal storage provided at 6m³ for the studios and 9.8m³ for the 2 bedroom apartment.

Yes

4K Apartment mix

Objective 4K-1

A range of apartment types and sizes is provided to cater for different household types now and into the future.

The proposed development includes a mixture of studios and 2 bedroom apartments which is an appropriate mix for a development with only seven apartments.

Yes

4L Ground floor apartments

Objective 4L-1

Street frontage activity is maximised where ground floor apartments are located.

Street frontage activity is maximised as it is a narrow street frontage with a clearly defined front entrance path provided.

Yes

2.6 Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The proposal is characterised as a ‘residential flat building’ as it contains 3 or more dwellings and is not an attached dwelling or multi dwelling housing (ie. each unit is not access from ground level).

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the R3 zone as it will replace an ageing single dwelling house with modern apartments with high levels of amenity.

The relevant provisions of the RLEP 2012 are addressed in the table below:

Provision	Assessment of Proposal	Complies?
Floor Space Ratio 0.9:1	FSR: 0.897:1 · GFA 363.1m2 · Site Area 404.7m2 Note. GFA has been calculated by the Assessment Officer in accordance with the LEP definition. The lobby area and bicycle parking room have been excluded on the basis of being sufficiently open on both sides to constitute a ‘breezeway’ and therefore are outside the external walls of the building and not counted as GFA.	Yes
Height of Building Max 12m	Height (Lift overrun): 11.62m · Lift overrun: RL 44.85 · EGL below: RL 33.23 Height (Front pavilion): 11.81m · Front pavilion: RL 44.55 · EGL below: RL 32.74 Height (Rear pavilion): 12.00m · Rear pavilion: RL 43.40 · EGL below: RL 31.40 Note. The heights have been assessed by the Assessment Officer in accordance with the LEP definition and utilising the levels on the survey plan. The maximum building height occurs at the rearmost point of the building at 12m which complies.	Yes
Heritage Various requirements for protecting heritage	The site is adjacent to heritage item L44 of local significance which is a sandstone retaining wall along Arden Street fronting the site. The proposal does not include any works to the wall and as such will not have any impact on the heritage significance of the wall.	Yes

2.7 Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013

The relevant provisions of the DCP are addressed below.

Section C2: Medium Density Residential

Cl.	Control	Assessment of Proposal	Complies?
3. Building Envelope
3.4	Setbacks
3.4.1	Front setback
	(i) The front setback on the primary and secondary property frontages must be consistent with the prevailing setback line along the street. Notwithstanding the above, the front setback generally must be no less than 3m in all circumstances to allow for suitable landscaped areas to building entries. (ii) Where a development is proposed in an area identified as being under transition in the site analysis, the front setback will be determined on a merit basis.	Prevailing front setback: Front setback of properties fronting to Arden Street within the urban block of the site are typically 4m including both of the adjoining properties. Proposed front setback: · GF: 5.777m · Above: 4.777m The proposed front setback exceeds the prevailing setback in street. It is noted that pushing the building forward to allow for a greater rear setback is not considered an improved planning outcome due to the significant view impacts this would have on the properties north of the site.	Yes
3.4.2	Side setback
	Residential flat building Comply with the minimum side setback requirements stated below: · <12m – merit · 12m-14m – 2m	Side setbacks: · Southern 1.7m · Northern 1.7m	Yes – on merit, refer to Key Issues
3.4.3	Rear setback
	For residential flat buildings, provide a minimum rear setback of 15% of allotment depth or 5m, whichever is the greater.	15% of allotment depth 6.04m which is the applicable control. Rear setback: · GF: 9.025m · Above: 7.58m	Yes
4. Building Design
4.1	Building façade
	(i) Buildings must be designed to address all street and laneway frontages. (ii) Buildings must be oriented so that the front wall alignments are parallel with the street property boundary or the street layout. (iii) Articulate facades to reflect the function of the building, present a human scale, and contribute to the proportions and visual character of the street.	Facades are well resolved broken up with a central breezeway, screening, cladding and large windows. The design is contemporary with a flat roof which is compatible with the highly varied style of original properties in the area and consistent with recent developments and approvals.	Yes
4.2	Roof design
	(i) Design the roof form, in terms of massing, pitch, profile and silhouette to relate to the three dimensional form (size and scale) and façade composition of the building. (ii) Design the roof form to respond to the orientation of the site, such as eaves and skillion roofs to respond to sun access. (iii) Use a similar roof pitch to adjacent buildings, particularly if there is consistency of roof forms across the streetscape. (vii) Terraces, decks or trafficable outdoor spaces on the roof may be considered only if: - There are no direct sightlines to the habitable room windows and private and communal open space of the adjoining residences. - The size and location of terrace or deck will not result in unreasonable noise impacts on the adjoining residences. - Any stairway and associated roof do not detract from the architectural character of the building, and are positioned to minimise direct and oblique views from the street. - Any shading devices, privacy screens and planters do not adversely increase the visual bulk of the building.	Flat roof form proposed which is consistent with new developments in the area and will be compatible with traditional pitched roofs in the area.	Yes
4.3	Habitable roof space
	Habitable roof space may be considered, provided it meets the following: - Optimises dwelling mix and layout, and assists to achieve dual aspect or cross over units with good natural ventilation. - Has a maximum floor space of 65% of the storey immediately below. - Wholly contain habitable areas within the roof space. - When viewed from the surrounding public and private domain, the roof form has the appearance of a roof. A continuous flat roof with habitable space within it will not satisfy this requirement. - Design windows to habitable roof space as an integrated element of the roof. - Submit computer generated perspectives or photomontages showing the front and rear elevations of the development.	N/A – No habitable roof space proposed.	N/A
4.4	External wall height and ceiling height
	(ii) Where the site is subject to a 12m building height limit under the LEP, a maximum external wall height of 10.5m applies.	External wall height: 11.77m · Front pavilion southern wall edge: RL 44.55 · EGL below: RL 32.78	No – Acceptable refer to Key Issues
	(iii) The minimum ceiling height is to be 2.7m for all habitable rooms.	Ceiling heights: 2.7m	Yes
4.9	Colours, materials and finishes
	(i) Provide a schedule detailing the materials and finishes in the development application documentation and plans. (ii) The selection of colour and material palette must complement the character and style of the building.	Materials and finishes schedule submitted. Facades are primarily metal cladding with rectilinear metal framed windows. This is consistent with the highly varied character of the area.	Yes
4.12	Earthworks Excavation and backfilling
	(i) Any excavation and backfilling within the building footprints must be limited to 1m at any point on the allotment, unless it is demonstrated that the site gradient is too steep to reasonably construct a building within this extent of site modification. (ii) Any cut and fill outside the building footprints must take the form of terracing following the natural landform, in order to minimise the height or depth of earthworks at any point on the site. (iii) For sites with a significant slope, adopt a split-level design for buildings to minimise excavation and backfilling.	Excavation up to approximately 1.5m proposed within the building footprint. This is acceptable as a stepped design is proposed which works with the fall of the land and limits excavation. The majority of the building footprint will require less than 1m excavation.	No – Acceptable
	Retaining walls (iv) Setback the outer edge of any excavation, piling or sub-surface walls a minimum of 900mm from the side and rear boundaries. (v) Step retaining walls in response to the natural landform to avoid creating monolithic structures visible from the neighbouring properties and the public domain. (vi) Where it is necessary to construct retaining walls at less than 900mm from the side or rear boundary due to site conditions, retaining walls must be stepped with each section not exceeding a maximum height of 2200mm, as measured from the ground level (existing).	Boundary wall shown on plan extending most of the length of the side and rear boundaries. The maximum height of the wall relative to adjoining properties has been reduced in the amended plans to a maximum of approximately 1.8m. This is acceptable as the boundary wall is only partially a retaining wall, with most of the height provided to act as a boundary fence. The portion of the wall acting as a retaining wall is mostly less than 900mm for cut within the site.	No – Acceptable
5. Amenity
5.1	Solar access and overshadowing
	Solar access for surrounding development
	(i) Living areas of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours sunlight to a part of a window between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. (ii) At least 50% of the landscaped areas of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours sunlight to a part of a window between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. (iii) Where existing development currently receives less sunlight than this requirement, the new development is not to reduce this further.	‘View from sun’ solar perspectives hourly from 8am to 4pm on 21 June were submitted in response to a request for additional information. The development will primarily overshadow the adjoining property to the south, No 164 Arden Street, with negligible overshadowing of other properties. This property has living rooms at the front and rear and a private open space courtyard at the rear. Further, there is an approval for alterations and additions to convert to a dual occupancy which also has living rooms at the front and rear and POS at the rear. Solar perspectives indicate that the front living room will receive 2 hours sunlight from 8-10am and the rear living room will receive 4 hours from 11am-3pm. The rear courtyard will receive 5 hours sunlight to over 50% of the space between 10am-3pm. The future dual occupancy conversion would receive the same levels of sunlight given the living areas and POS are located in the same areas. Given the above, the proposal complies with solar access.	Yes
5.3	Visual privacy
	(i) Locate windows and balconies of habitable rooms to minimise overlooking of windows or glassed doors in adjoining dwellings. (ii) Orient balconies to front and rear boundaries or courtyards as much as possible. Avoid orienting balconies to any habitable room windows on the side elevations of the adjoining residences. (v) Incorporate materials and design of privacy screens including: - Translucent glazing - Fixed timber or metal slats - Fixed vertical louvres with the individual blades oriented away from the private open space or windows of the adjacent dwellings - Screen planting and planter boxes as a supplementary device for reinforcing privacy protection	The proposal has generally been designed to provide privacy for the units and adjacent properties through positioning and orientation of the main living spaces to the front and rear and privacy treatments including angled louvres to the sides of balconies, and privacy screened side windows. To ensure that the privacy measures to the side boundaries are adequate, conditions have been imposed to specify the details of the screens so that they angle views to the front and rear, to completely block any side views. This is discussed in the Key Issues under setbacks and separations.	Yes – Subject to condition
5.4	Acoustic privacy
	Design the building and layout to minimise transmission of noise between buildings and dwellings.	Active areas within the development are appropriately separated from noise sensitive spaces.	Yes
5.5	View sharing
	The location and design of buildings must reasonably maintain existing view corridors and vistas to significant elements from the streets, public open spaces and neighbouring dwellings.	The development allows for view sharing.	Yes – Refer to Key Issues
5.6	Safety and security
	Design buildings and spaces for safe and secure access to and within the development.	The access is considered safe as it is near the street, is clearly identifiable, and the common stairs and lobby is clear with no opportunities for concealment or entrapment.	Yes
6. Car parking and access
DCP Section B7 – Car Parking Rates
	MDH and RFB: · 1 space per 2 studio · 1 space per 1B apartment (over 40m2) · 1.2 space per 2B apartment · 1.5 space per +3B apartment · 1 visitor space per 4 dwelling · Motorbike 5% of car parking requirement	Requirement: 4.2 residents / 1 visitors spaces Proposed: Nil	No – Acceptable refer to Key Issues
6.1	Location
	(i) Car parking facilities must be accessed off rear lanes or secondary street frontages where available.	No car parking or vehicular access proposed to site.	N/A
	(iii) Setback driveways a minimum of 1m from the side boundary. Provide landscape planting within the setback areas.	As above.	N/A
	(iv) Entry to parking facilities off the rear lane must be setback a minimum of 1m from the lane boundary.	As above.	N/A
	(v) For residential flat buildings, comply with the following: (a) Car parking must be provided underground in a basement or semi-basement for new development. (b) On grade car park may be considered for sites potentially affected by flooding. In this scenario, the car park must be located on the side or rear of the allotment away from the primary street frontage. (c) Where rear lane or secondary street access is not available, the car park entry must be recessed behind the front façade alignment. In addition, the entry and driveway must be located towards the side and not centrally positioned across the street frontage.	As above.	N/A
6.2	Configuration
	(i) With the exception of hardstand car spaces and garages, all car parks must be designed to allow vehicles to enter and exit in a forward direction.	As above.	N/A
	(ii) For residential flat buildings, the maximum width of driveway is 6m. In addition, the width of driveway must be tapered towards the street boundary as much as possible.	As above.	N/A
7. Fencing and Ancillary Development
7.2	Front Fencing
	(ii) The maximum height of front fencing is limited to 1200mm, as measured from the footpath level, with the solid portion not exceeding 600mm, except for piers. The maximum height of front fencing may be increased to 1800mm, provided the upper two-thirds are partially open, except for piers.	Front fencing height: 1.4m Solid 1.4m front fence proposed. This is a minor variation of 200mm over the 1.2m permitted. This is acceptable as it is common in this street for high front fences and this is a main road where public private transition in the front setback is not so important. The slightly higher front fence also allows for additional privacy for the POS area of the ground floor unit within the front setback.	No – Acceptable
	(iv) Solid front fence of up to 1800mm in height may be permitted in the following scenarios: - Front fence for sites facing arterial roads. - Fence on the secondary street frontage of corner allotments, which is behind the alignment of the primary street façade. Such solid fences must be articulated through a combination of materials, finishes and details, and/or incorporate landscaping, so as to avoid continuous blank walls.	As above.	As above.
7.7	Laundry facilities
	(i) Provide a retractable or demountable clothes line in the courtyard of each dwelling unit.	Large POS and balconies proposed which have sufficient space for drying.	Yes
	(ii) Provide internal laundry for each dwelling unit.	Each apartment includes laundry facilities.	Yes

3.0 Referral Comments

Referral Officer	Comment
Randwick Design Review Panel	Generally supportive, subject to amendments. Refer to SEPP 65 section for further details.
Development Engineer	No objections were raised to the proposal as amended with the exception of the car parking non-compliance. The car parking non-compliance is supported for the reasons discussed under the Key issues section of this report. The following comments were provided: GENERAL COMMENTS The application is not supported on parking grounds however as the assessing officer has requested conditions this report has been prepared on the basis the application will be approved. To address the parking shortfall, additional bicycle parking spaces above DCP requirements have been provided and a previously adopted condition requested car share memberships has been included. The additional information requested on waste management has been received and is satisfactory, subject to conditions. Additional information has been received on Construction Traffic Management however a further revision to the CTMP is required. Conditions of consent have been included in this report. PARKING COMMENTS Parking Requirements for the proposed development have been assessed as per the following applicable parking rates specified in Part B7 of Randwick Council’s Development Control Plan 2013. · 1 space per 2 studio units · 1.2 spaces per 2 bedroom unit · 1 visitor space per 4 units (but none where development is less than 4 dwellings) The proposal is for 7 residential apartments comprising of 6 x studio and 1 x 2 bedroom units. Parking required under DCP = (6 x 0.5) + (1 X 1.2) + 7/4 (visitor) = 3 + 1.2 + 1.75 = 5.95 = say 6 spaces Parking proposed = 0 spaces Parking Shortfall = 6 spaces (100%) Motorbike Parking Motorbike Parking is to be provided at 5% of the vehicle parking requirement. Motorbike Parking Required = 0.05 x 6 = 0.3 (not required <0.5) Motorbike Parking proposed = 0 spaces (complies) Bicycle Parking For Flats/multi dwelling bicycle parking to be provided at 1 space per 2 units plus 1 visitor space per 10 units. Bicycle Parking Required = 7/2 + 7/10 = 3.5 + 0.7 = 4.2 = say 4 spaces Bicycle Parking proposed = 6 spaces (complies) Discussion on parking shortfall Development Engineering acknowledges that the site is located close to amenities in Coogee and good public transport as highlighted in the traffic report by Traffix with regular and frequent bus services from Coogee Beach. There are also a number of car share pods operated by GoGet carshare within close proximity to the site. Notwithstanding, a parking deficiency that represents 100% of Council’s DCP requirements is considered excessive and is generally not supported by Development Engineering. The site is located within an area that is also experiencing high parking pressures for on street parking with most surrounding streets parked at capacity during many parts of the day. The situation is worse during summer months due to the sites proximity to Coogee Beach. At the time of site inspection being approx. 2:15pm on Wednesday 4^th July 2018 it was not possible to find on-street parking within 100m of the site. It should also be noted that the DCP parking rate for studio units being 1 space per 2 studio units already acknowledges that 50% of residents will not have a motor vehicle. A 100% parking deficiency based predominantly on this rate is therefore considered to be excessive. The provision of additional bicycle parking is acknowledged however this is unlikely to provide little benefit. The immediate vicinity of the subject site does not lend itself to bicycle transport due to the narrow width of Arden Street and steepness of the surrounding streets. There is also no recognised cycleway in close proximity of the site. Due to site constraints it is acknowledged that on-site parking will be difficult to achieve on the subject site with any proposed development likely to have a parking shortfall unless negotiations with neighbouring residents to the north results in a Right of Way being proposed from Arcadia St or there is a site consolidation with these properties. The application in its present form may set an undesirable precedent in the locality potentially creating large and unacceptable impacts on kerbside parking. If the assessing officer intends to approve the application then conditions requiring no-on-street parking permits to be granted to occupiers of this development have been recommended in this report. In addition a previously adopted condition requested car share memberships has also been included. CONSTRUCTION SITE ACCESS COMMENTS The site is highly elevated above the adjacent Arden Street roadway and there is no on-street parking available immediately in front of the site adjacent to the heritage stone retaining wall. Only one trafficable lane is available northbound adjacent to the site frontage which must be maintained as it is a major trafficable route northbound out of Coogee (RMS regional road No.7340) It was therefore considered that site access for construction equipment and maintaining traffic flow and pedestrian safety/access will be a critical component of this proposal and should be considered prior to determination of the application. Accordingly additional information in the form of a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) was requested by the Development Engineer and subsequently prepared and submitted by “Safeway Consulting” in consultation with Council’s Department of Integrated Transport. Council’s Development Engineers and Coordinator of Integrated Transport reviewed the submitted Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) by Safeway Traffic Management solutions dated 13.08.2018 (Version 1.6) and advised the applicant that it is not supported in its present form. The following issues were identified with the submitted CTMP prepared by Safeway Traffic Management solutions; · The proposed use of the high level footpath for medium-large delivery trucks and especially concrete mixer trucks or pumps is not supported due to the likely unacceptable structural loading on the adjacent heritage retaining wall fronting Arden Street. Concrete pouring will likely need to undertaken from Arden or Acadia Street via pump. · Only small rigid vehicles will be considered to access the Arden Street verge subject to measures ensuring no structural loading of the heritage retaining wall. It is advised that a structural engineer be consulted to determine how this will be achieved. It is Council’s preference that all loading unloading be undertaken in Arcadia St with materials transported to and from the site via forklift subject to suitable grades and access requirements. · The measures to protect the large Telstra Pit at the corner of Arcadia St and Arden St will need to be supported in principle by Telstra to ensure they are capable of meeting their standards and requirements while also ensuring that suitable grades and access requirements will be able to be provided for construction vehicles across the verge at the Arcadia/Arden St intersection. · Key loading/unloading/pouring/craning operations should be conducted outside of peak times as much as possible. This should be further elaborated upon and enshrined in the CTMP. · Sweeping paths for buses are to be included on Arden Street to demonstrate bus access can be maintained. Bus Route 353 currently uses this portion of Arden St · Likely swept paths including & reversing movements for vehicles accessing the Council Arden St verge shall be provided. The applicant was also advised that careful consideration will have to be given on the structural design and construction methods of this development when considering the unusual constraints of this site. Aspects such as the length of concrete pours for example may be particularly critical when considering the restrictions on traffic management. In response to the above comments the applicant provided a revised CTMP (still dated 13.08.2018 however Version 1.9). This CTMP has now been assessed and the following comments have been received by Council’s Department of Integrated Transport: 1. Concerns are still raised about the suitability/legal liability of accessing the site via the elevated footpath. 2. The CTMP provides insufficient information to assess under what conditions trucks will reverse back along the elevated footpath. 3. The document still refers to 8.8m trucks, which we deemed to be too big to drive along the elevated footpath. 4. Specific measures to ensure the safe and unimpeded pedestrian access to adjacent properties need to be put in place. 5. The engineer’s report submitted with the CTMP appears to have been prepared in isolation from the CTMP. The recommendations of the report (e.g. all vehicles to remain a minimum 2.0 metres from the face of the heritage sandstone retaining wall) are not referenced elsewhere in the CTMP 6. Swept Paths for delivery / service vehicles and for construction vehicles have not been provided. On 16/10/18 a further amended CTMP (Version 2.0) was provided with swept paths. The Version 2.0 CTMP is still deficient however areas of concern have been addressed and the subject CTMP was prepared in consultation with one of Council’s Transport Engineers. Rather than asking for further CTMP’s to be provided it is considered preferable that a final CTMP be prepared in full consultation with Council and all necessary road authorities. This CTMP will need to be prepared and approved by Council prior to the issuing of any Construction Certificate. This CTMP will use Version 2.0 as the base document. The CTMP must include an amended engineer’s report relating to protection of the heritage sandstone retaining wall in Arden Street, fronting the development site. DRAINAGE COMMENTS On site stormwater detention may be required for this development depending on discharge rates to Arden Street for design storm events. The Planning Officer is advised that the submitted drainage plans should not be approved in conjunction with the DA, rather, the Development Engineer has included a number of conditions in this memo that relate to drainage design requirements. The applicant is required to submit detailed drainage plans to the certifying authority for approval prior to the issuing of a construction certificate. The stormwater must be discharged (by gravity) either: i. Directly to the gutter in front of the subject site in Arden Street ii. To a suitably designed infiltration area. GEOTECHNICAL COMMENTS As there is no basement carpark a maximum excavation of about 1.2m will only be required to accommodate the ground floor. The geotechnical investigation indicates that excavation will generally be in sand and any footings will need to extend a minimum 3.2m (as recommended in report) to achieve suitable base. No bedrock was encountered within the depths investigated and groundwater was not encountered in any of the investigative boreholes. It is therefore considered conditions relating to the management of groundwater will not be required in this instance. UNDERGROUNDING OF POWER COMMENTS At the ordinary Council meeting on the 27^th May 2014 it was resolved that; Should a mains power distribution pole be located on the same side of the street and within 15m of the development site, the applicant must meet the full cost for Ausgrid to relocate the existing overhead power feed from the distribution pole in the street to the development site via an underground UGOH connection. The subject is not located within 15m of a power pole on the same side of the street hence the above clause is not applicable WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMENTS The Waste Management Plan initially submitted to Council was not acceptable as they proposed waste collection on Arden Street which has a narrow and busy roadway. Due to the restricted access the applicant was required to resubmit a fully detailed WMP to Council and have approved by Council’s Waste Management Coordinator They have provided the following response in email dated 18^th September Comments on the number of Waste Bins Appendix 3 in Part B6 of Council’s DCP specifies a waste bin requirement rate for residential flat buildings houses of 1 x 240L bin per 2 rooms for normal garbage and 1 x 240L bin per 2 rooms for recycling. i.e. Garbage/recycling Bins Required = 7/2 = 3.5 = 4 (rounded up to nearest whole number)) There are no specific requirements for green waste in Part B6 of the DCP however as some landscape areas are proposed it is recommended that a minimum of 2 x 240L bins also be provided for green waste. Total Number of BINS required = 4 (normal) + 4(recycling) + 2 (green waste) = 10 x 240L BINS Bins Provided = 10 x 240 bins (satisfactory)
Landscape Officer	No objections raised, subject to conditions. The following comments were provided: The inspection of 15 May 2018 confirmed that all vegetation is restricted wholly to the rear setback of the subject site and adjoining properties, comprising firstly, a mature Araucaria bidwillii (Bunya Pine, T1 in the Arborist Report) of 14m x 8m, which was measured on-site to be a distance of 4150mm from the southwest corner of the existing dwelling, off the outside edge of its trunk, 1m above ground level. It is a relatively rare, non-endemic native species that is covered by the DCP, and while in fair health, is in poor condition due to a combination of its co-dominant/included leaders at about 6m above ground level (as a result of past damage/topping), as well as competition from adjoining trees, with the plans showing that all aspects of the new footprint will occupy this same area of the site, in direct conflict with the tree, so has been shown for removal, as well as in the Arborist Report. Its TPZ radius has been calculated as 6m, and its SRZ at 2.8m, and given both its size and location, even if a re-design was undertaken, it would still sustain a major impact that would affect its future status within the site, even with a heavily reduced footprint/scope of works. Their large/heavy seed cones (10kg) are also well known as presenting a safety hazard for both person and property when falling from a great height, so are generally regarded as unsuitable in such confined environments. Due to the exclusion zones required both above and below ground to allow for its successful retention, any re-design would be major, and affect the layout of the whole development, with the tree then to remain in isolation, and likely be ‘boxed-in’, on most, if not all sides, and for these reasons, its removal is justified in this case, with the relevant consent for this provided. Immediately to its west, there is a similarly sized Pinus pinaster (Maritime Pine, T2) which is an exotic species that while covered by the DCP, offers no meaningful benefit to native fauna or the local environment. It is also only in fair health and condition due to competition from other trees nearby (supressed), as well as the past poor heavy lopping of major structural limbs, and as this genus is unable to generate new growth from cuts after pruning, means that there is no way the tree can self-remedy this over time, and as it is also in direct conflict with all aspects of the works, no objections are raised to its removal, as has been shown. On lower ground to the northwest of those described above, on the northern boundary, towards the northwest site corner, there is a semi-mature, 5m tall Livistona australis (Cabbage Palm, T3), which is a desirable, endemic coastal species of this LGA, that appears in good health and condition, and is also covered by Council’s DCP. The amended, rev C Ground Floor plan shows that the footprint has been reduced to now be setback further away to the east of T3, rather than being in direct conflict as was originally shown, to provide a clearance of about 1m. So while the Arborists Report recommends its removal, its retention as an existing site feature now appears feasible, especially as the fiborous root system of this genus has a high tolerance to disturbance, and as this is the preferred outcome for Council, conditions formally require that it be incorporated into the landscape scheme. Re-designing the northwest corner of the Ground Floor will not be required in this case, as the 2m clause in Council’s DCP only applies to dwellings, not an unroofed, ground level terrace as shown. Beyond the northern site boundary, located wholly in the rear yard of the adjoining private property at no.160, close to the common boundary, there is a mature, 10m x 10m Quercus robur (English Oak, T4), which is an exotic, deciduous species, that provides amenity to the neighbours/tree owners, and overhangs partially into the subject site. It is covered by the DCP, with Council having a common law responsibility to ensure it is not affected in anyway by this development. The original design occupied its entire southern aspect, extending past/to the west of its trunk, which was calculated as resulting in a 9.2% encroachment of its TPZ, which is categorized as minor in AS4970-2009. However, the footprint has now been reduced by these rev C plans, to finish further away to the east, at a greater distance from this tree, so the amount of this incursion will be even less, which this tree can sustain, with relevant protection conditions to ensure its preservation included, along with those that permit selective clearance pruning where needed. Back within the subject site, along the northern boundary, around the northwest corner of the existing dwelling, there is a row of three, 6-8m tall Olea europaea subsp. ‘Africanna’ (Wild Olives, T5-6 & 9), which are exempt from Council’s DCP due to being an undesirable, invasive weed species, and so as to eliminate this weed source form the local environment, and also given their direct conflict with the new footprint, can all be removed as shown and recommended, along with the dead tree (T7) in this same area. Located centrally in this group is this sites most established specimen, being a mature, 15m tall Araucaria heterohylla (Norfolk Island Pine, T8) of good health and condition, which is a common, non-endemic native coastal species, and while appearing to be located on the neighbouring property at no.160, due to its position on the northern side of the informal, dilapidated dividing fence, the submitted survey confirms that it is actually located wholly within the subject site. Its tapered crown can be seen from the street as well as surrounding properties, so is identified as having a presence in the local area; however, measurements taken on-site revealed that it is setback only 1100mm from the northwest corner of the existing dwelling, making it exempt from Council’s DCP, under Part B, Section B5, sub-clause 2, Exceptions, point iii. This clause was adopted by Council in order to protect person and property from trees that are growing inappropriately close to habitable dwellings, and means that in this situation, it could already be removed by the owners; at anytime; irrespective of these works; and without needing to obtain any form of consent from Council. On this basis, it is not legally possible for Council to require its retention as part of this application, and given its direct conflict with all aspects of the works in this part of the site, conditions reluctantly allow its removal. Whilst not shown on any of the plans or in the Arborists Report, immediately to the southwest of T8, there is a 4-5m tall Howea fosteriana (Kentia Palm) which is also exempt from the DCP, as it was measured on-site to be only 1900mm from the northwest corner of the existing dwelling, also making it exempt from the DCP, so can also be removed.

Recommendation

That the RLPP grants development consent under Sections 4.16 and 4.17 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 63/2018 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a four storey residential flat building comprising seven apartments, at No. 162 Arden Street, Coogee, subject to the development consent conditions attached to this report.

Attachment/s:

1.⇩

RLPP Conditions - DA.63.2018 - 162 Arden Street, Coogee (James Arnold)

Randwick Local Planning Panel 22 November 2018

Development Application Report No. D93/18

Subject: 5/19 Melrose Parade, Clovelly (DA/141/2018)

Folder No: DA/141/2018

Author: James Arnold, Environmental Planning Officer

Proposal: Construction of a rooftop addition to the existing residential flat building to create an additional floor for Unit 5.

Ward: North Ward

Applicant: Gelder Architects

Owner: The Owners Corporation SP

Summary

Recommendation: Refusal

Note. No submissions were received.
	Subject Site




	Submissions received
	Ù North
	Locality Plan

Executive Summary

The application is referred to the Randwick Local Planning Panel (RLPP) as the development contravenes the building height development standard for by more than 10% and the State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65) is applicable.

The proposal development is for a rooftop addition to the existing residential flat building to create an additional floor for Unit 5, at 19 Melrose Parade, Clovelly.

The proposal contravenes the height and FSR development standards of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012 by 17.9% and 7.8%, respectively. These variations are not supported as the proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the standards being incompatibile with the existing and desired future character of the area and because the proposal would adversely impact the amenity of surrounding properties by way of overshadowing, visual bulk, loss of privacy, and views loss. Further, the design quality of the proposal is considered poor and inconsistent with the Design Quality Principles of SEPP 65.

Given the above, the proposal is recommended for refusal.

Proposal Description

The proposed development is for a rooftop addition to the existing residential flat building to create an additional floor for Unit 5.

Details of the proposed development are as follows:

· Removal of the rear portion of the existing pitched roof and construction of a loft addition for Unit 5 comprising a bedroom with walk-in-robe, study, bathroom, rear terrace, and stairs to the existing floor level of Unit 5 below. The loft is contemporary in style with timber cladding and a skillion metal roof; and,

· Internal alterations to the existing floor level of Unit 5 including enclosing the balcony, and removal of internal walls to create an open plan living, kitchen and dining area.

Amendments

The proposal was amended during the assessment process in response to issues raised by Council. The key amendments are summarised as follows:

· Loft floor plan rearranged to setback from the building edge resulting in the removal of the side portions of the terrace, and narrowing of the floor plate;

· Addition of pitched metal roof around the base of the addition; and,

· Flat roof converted to skillion roof.

Figure 1. Perspective view from north west.

Source: Gelder Architects, 2018

Figure 2. Site Plan.

Source: Gelder Architects, 2018

Figure 3. Western elevation.

Source: Gelder Architects, 2018

Site and Locality Description

The subject site is addressed as 19 Melrose Parade, Clovelly and comprises one allotment legally described as SP 3411. The site is located on the southern side of Melrose Parade, one block from the northern edge of Gordons Bay. The site is rectangular in shape with a 13.1m frontage to Melrose Parade, length of 37.6m, and an area of 489.93m².

Existing development on the site consists of a part three, part four storey c.1970 rendered brick flat building. The building is three storeys at the street and four storeys at the rear as the site falls away. The front door and pedestrian access is located along the eastern side of the building. Vehicular access is provided within a driveway along the western side accessing lower ground level garages towards the rear. The site has a fall of approximately 2.5m from the street to the rear. The only landscaping on site is in the front garden containing open grass, boundary hedges and a small shrub.

The locality is a highly mixed residential area comprising 2-4 storey flat buildings of various ages and styles including art deco brick flats, c1970 brick flats with pitched tiled roofs, and contemporary rendered apartments with flat roofs. The flats are interspersed with older one and two storey dwelling houses and semis. There are also some large coastal dwellings to the rear fronting to Gordons Bay.

The adjoining properties are as follows:

· Western side, 17 Melrose Parade – Four storey contemporary apartments incorporating brick, render and cladding with a flat roof;

· Eastern side, 21A Melrose Parade – Single storey brick dwelling house with a gabled tile roof;

· Rear – Row of large coastal dwelling houses facing Gordons Bay.

Figure 4. Front of site from Melrose Parade.

Source: James Arnold, 2018

Figure 5. Western side rear portion of the building where the roof addition is proposed.

Source: James Arnold, 2018

Relevant History

21 March 2018	Lodgement – The subject development application was lodged with Council.
9 April 2018	Design excellence panel – The DEP did not support the proposal for a range of issues relating to scale, density, and aesthetics. Significant amendments and clear evidence was recommended to be provided to demonstrate the proposal would not impact adjoining properties. The DEP comments were provided to the applicant to address.
27 June 2018	Amended plans – Amended plans and documents were submitted to Council which were referred back to the DEP.
6 August 2018	Design excellence panel – The DEP did not support the amended proposal for the same reasons as the original proposal. In particular, no justifications were given for the exceedance of the height, wall height, and FSR, nor the specific benefits that would be provided to the public. The amended design was considered worse than the original as the mass was made larger with a larger downturned roof extending out from the walls. Inadequate shadow diagrams and view loss assessment were provided to accurately determine impacts on surrounding properties.

Submissions

The owners of adjoining and likely affected properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. In response, no submissions were received.

Key Issues

Height

The maximum height of buildings on the site is 12m. The proposal has been assessed to have a maximum height of 14.15m which represents a 17.9% variation to the RLEP development standard. A full assessment of the proposed variation is provided in the detailed assessment section of this report. The variation is not supported and a brief summary of the reasons are as follows:

· The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the height standard as the size and scale is incompatible with the existing and desired future character of the area;

· The proposed additional height at the rear of the site is in conflict with the rear sloping coastal topography. The proposal would result in the building stepping up from three storeys at the street to five storeys at the rear. This is in direct conflict with the fall of the land and would be inharmonious with the newly constructed RFB to the western side which appropriately steps down with the land being four storeys at the street and four storeys at the rear;

· The design of the proposed roof top addition is unsympathetic to the existing c1970 brick flat building presenting as a bulky rooftop addition with a large downturned roof form. The proposal is unexceptional in terms of materials and architectonic expression. Given its prominent position, more consideration would be required to ensure the proposal reads as a genuinely positive addition to the building and to the coastal neighbourhood; and,

· The roof top addition will adversely affect the amenity of the local area by way of additional overshadowing, visual bulk, loss of privacy, and views loss.

FSR

The maximum floor space ratio on the site is 0.9:1. The proposal has been assessed to have an FSR of 0.97:1 which represents a 7.8% variation to the RLEP development standard. A full assessment of the proposed variation is provided in the detailed assessment section of this report. The variation is not supported and a brief summary of the reasons are as follows:

· The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the FSR standard as the size and scale is incompatible with the existing and desired future character of the area;

· The proposed additional bulk on the roof at the rear of the site is in conflict with the rear sloping coastal topography. The proposal would result in the building stepping up from three storeys at the street to five storeys at the rear. This is in direct conflict with the fall of the land and would be inharmonious with the newly constructed RFB to the western side which appropriately steps down with the land being four storeys at the street and four storeys at the rear;

· The roof top addition will adversely affect the amenity of the local area by way of additional overshadowing, visual bulk, loss of privacy, and views loss.

Design Quality

The design quality of the proposed rooftop addition is considered poor and inconsistent with the Design Quality Principles of SEPP 65. The Randwick Design Excellence Panel reviewed the proposal on three occassions at pre-DA stage, the DA lodgement stage, and a third and final time for the latest set of amended plans the subject of this report. The panel were not supportive of any of the iterations of the proposal, with the latest amendments being considered inferior to the DA lodgement plans. A full assessment of the proposal against the Design Quality Principles is provided in the detailed assessment section of this report. The design is not supported and a brief summary of the issues are as follows:

· The proposed large downturned skillion roof that extends out from all sides exacerbates the bulk of the structure. Further, the redundant roof around the base of the addition adds unneccessary mass to the building;

· The proposal involves a significant change to the roof of the building which provides a important opportunity to install rainwater tanks and provide solar panels to improve the environmental performance of the building. The proposal does not include any of these sustainability measures; and,

· The proposal is unexceptional in terms of materials and architectonic expression. The expression is unresolved and lacks an architectural approach to fenestration, articulation and the relationship with the existing building. Given its prominent position, more consideration is required so that it reads as a genuinely positive addition to the building and to the coastal neighbourhood.

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

That the application for a rooftop addition to the existing residential flat building to create an additional floor for Unit 5 be refused for the following reasons:

· The clause 4.6 requests relating to the variations to the Height of Buildings and Floor Space Ratio development standards of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 are not supported as the proposal is inconsistent with the objectives standards and there are not sufficient environmental planning grounds to support the variations;

· The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of clause 6.7 Foreshore Scenic Protection Area of the RLEP 2012 as it will result in a visually jarring and prominent addition to the foreshore area;

· The design of the proposal is poor and is inconsistent with the Design Quality Principles of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65;

· The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives and design criteria of the Apartment Design Guide in relation to visual privacy;

· The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 in relation to building facades, roof design, external wall height, ceiling height, solar access, visual privacy, view sharing and car parking;

· The proposal will adversely impact the amenity of surrounding properties in terms of visual bulk, overshadowing, loss of privacy, and views loss; and,

· The proposal would set an undesirable precedent for roof top additions to existing residential flat buildings over the height and FSR controls.

Detailed Assessment

1.0 Matters for Consideration

The application has been assessed under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended.

Section 4.15 ‘Matters for Consideration’	Assessment of Proposal
Section 4.15 (1)(a)(i) – Provisions of any environmental planning instrument	See below.
Section 4.15(1)(a)(ii) – Provisions of any draft environmental planning instrument	Nil.
Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) – Provisions of any development control plan	The proposal does not satisfy the objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. See table below.
Section 4.15(1)(a)(iiia) – Provisions of any Planning Agreement or draft Planning Agreement	Not applicable.
Section 4.15(1)(a)(iv) – Provisions of the regulations	The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.
Section 4.15(1)(b) – The likely impacts of the development, including environmental impacts on the natural and built environment and social and economic impacts in the locality	The environmental impacts on the natural and built environment have been assessed throughout the EPI and DCP assessment within this report. The proposal will not result in detrimental social or economic impacts on the locality.
Section 4.15(1)(c) – The suitability of the site for the development	The proposal continues the residential use which is permissible in the zone and there are no salient site or contextual features which would make the site unsuitable for the development.
Section 4.15(1)(d) – Any submissions made in accordance with the EP&A Act or EP&A Regulation	No submissions were received.
Section 4.15(1)(e) – The public interest	The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the height and FSR development standards and is therefore not in the public interest.

2.0 Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments and Development Control Plans

2.1 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

The provisions of SEPP 55 have been considered in the assessment of the application. The site and adjoining properties are currently used for residential purposes. There is no evidence to suggest any potentially contaminating activities have taken place on or near the site. The proposal does not involve any excavation or soil disturbance. Accordingly, the site is considered suitable for the proposed ongoing residential use and satisfies the provisions of the SEPP.

2.2 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

The proposed development is a BASIX affected building. A compliant BASIX certificate has been submitted and in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 the environmentally sustainable commitments within the certificate are required to be fulfilled as a prescribed condition of consent. Accordingly, the proposal satisfies the provisions of the SEPP.

2.3 State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality Residential Flat Buildings

SEPP 65 applies to the proposed development as the building is a residential flat building that is three or more storeys and contains four or more dwellings, and the proposal constitutes a substantial redevelopment the building,

Clause 28(2) stipulates that the consent authority is to take into consideration the advice of a Design Review Panel, the Design Quality Principles, and the Apartment Design Guide (ADG).

The Randwick Design Excellence Panel’s advice has been taken into consideration and the proposal has been assessed against the Design Quality Principles and the ADG. A summary of the assessment against the ADG is provided in the compliance table below and areas of non-compliance have been discussed within the table and in the key issues section of this report.

Design Excellence Panel and the Design Quality Principles

The Design Excellence Panel considered the original and amended proposals. The panel was not supportive of either version and the below comments were provided on the latest amendments. The assessing officer’s comments on the DEPs advice is also provided.

Principle 1: Context and Neighbourhood Context

DEP comment: This site is located in a dense residential neighbourhood on the coast, overlooking Gordons Bay. The area is a mix of old and new detached houses, and 3-5 storey apartment blocks. Given the topography of the coastal setting and surrounding bay, many properties enjoy direct views of the Bay and the ocean. The site is located within a short walking distance from local shops and nearby beaches. The area is serviced by local bus routes to local centres, Bondi Junction and the CBD.

Comment: The proposal will not positively contribute to the local area as it exceeds the maximum FSR and height provisions and results in additional overshadowing, loss of privacy, visual bulk, and view loss of surrounding properties. The design is also considered unresolved and incompatible with the existing c1970 brick flat building. Accordingly, the proposal is inconsistent with this principle.

Principle 2: Scale and Built Form

DEP comment: The proposal still exceeds the height, wall height and FSR controls for the site. No justifications are given for these contraventions of the controls in the current submission, nor the specific benefits that would be provided to the public or the community outlined.

The Panel had previously offered that the proposal might possibly be considered, if the walls were brought in from the building edge, in line with the bedroom space alignment. While such a proposal would not satisfy the overall height control, it would address the wall height issue and perhaps bring the FSR outcome closer to the control. This change would also allow the rooftop addition to be more effectively designed as a “roof” element, legible and distinct from the main body of the building, both tectonically and materially.

The re-design of the proposal has instead made the mass larger, by capping the volume with a larger, downturned roof form, which extends out from the wall alignment on all sides. The addition of a secondary, redundant roof around the base of the proposed addition also adds unnecessary mass to the building.

Two considerations were requested previously by the Panel; that the applicant clearly illustrate the shadow impacts on surrounding properties, especially the windows and backyards to the neighbouring properties directly adjacent to the east and west, and those properties to the south on Cliffbrook Parade. The shadow diagrams provided indicate significant increase in shadow envelopes – both plans and building elevations should be provided to allow assessment of proposed overshadowing versus that existing.

The second critical consideration is potential view loss. The topographical conditions and the images provided by the applicant suggest that there may be view impacts to a number of properties, on both sides of Melrose Parade. The applicant has provided a single view, from across Melrose Parade, but none that consider of any other potentially impacted properties.

The Panel had previously stated that any contraventions to height and FSR controls would only be countenanced if it could be illustrated that the overshadowing and view impacts to neighbouring properties are non-existent or negligible. This has not been illustrated by the applicant.

Comment: The proposal is inconsistent with this principle as per the DEPs comments.

Principle 3: Density

DEP comment: Provided the proposal remains simply a single additional bedroom, the density proposed for the area is acceptable. Any further increase would introduce additional parking requirements to the site, which would be difficult to realise. The area suffers from a considerable deficit of on-street parking, where the introduction of additional density without satisfying the parking requirement would only exacerbate this, to the detriment of the entire neighbourhood.

Comment: The proposal is inconsistent with this principle as per the DEPs comments.

Principle 4: Sustainability

DEP comment: Changes to roofscape and rainwater hardware represent a significant opportunity to install rainwater tanks to improve the environmental performance of the entire building. The new roof also provides an opportunity for solar panels to be installed, provided they do not obstruct neighbouring views. The applicant has chosen not to pursue these options.

Comment: The proposal is inconsistent with this principle as per the DEPs comments.

Principle 5: Landscape

DEP comment: Landscape details are acceptable.

Comment: The proposal is consistent with this principle as per the DEPs comments.

Principle 6: Amenity

DEP comment: The applicant has not addressed potential privacy impacts to neighbouring properties.

Comment: The proposal does not comply with the ADG separation provisions and will overlook adjoining properties which will unreasonably impact the privacy of adjoining properties. Further, the roof top addition will result in additional overshadowing, visual bulk and view loss. Accordingly, the proposal is inconsistent with this principle.

Principle 7: Safety

DEP comment: No safety issues.

Comment: The proposal is consistent with this principle as per the DEPs comments.

Principle 8: Housing Diversity and Social Interaction

DEP comment: As noted, the provision of a two-bedroom unit in this location would contribute to housing stock on offer – provided it does not do so to the detriment of surrounding neighbours.

Comment: The proposal is consistent with this principle as it would improve the amenity of Unit 5 and contribute to housing diversity in the area.

Principle 9: Aesthetics

DEP comment: The revised proposal remains unexceptional in terms of materials and architectonic expression. The expression is unresolved and lacks an architectural approach to fenestration, articulation and the relationship with the existing building. Given its prominent position, the Panel feels that much more consideration could still be given to its conception and craft, so that it reads as a genuinely positive addition to the building and to the coastal neighbourhood.

Comment: The proposal is inconsistent with this principle as per the DEPs comments.

Summary and Recommendations

DEP comment: The Panel feels that the applicant needs to genuinely consider both Council’s pre-DA comments, as well as those contained in the previous report, and make significant amendments to the proposal. Concurrently, the applicant must provide clear and consistent evidence that the proposal will not negatively impact any of the properties surrounding it. The Panel requests review of this proposal again on re-submission.

Apartment Design Guide

Provision

Assessment of Proposal

Complies?

Part 3 – Siting the development

3D Communal and Public Open Space

Design Criteria

1. Communal open space has a minimum area equal to 25% of the site (see figure 3D.3)).

Communal Open Space: No change

Proposal is for a loft to Unit 5 only and will have no impact on existing communal areas.

N/A

2. Developments achieve a minimum of 50% direct sunlight to the principal usable part of the communal open space for a minimum of 2 hours between 9am and 3pm on 21 June (mid-winter).

As above.

N/A

3E Deep soil zones

Design Criteria

Deep soil zones are to meet the following minimum requirements.

Site Area	Min dimensions	Deep soil zone (% of site)
Less than 650m2	-	7%
650-1500m2	3m
Greater than 1500m2	6m
Greater than 1500m2 with existing tree cover	6m

Deep Soil Area: No change

Proposal is for a loft to Unit 5 only and will have no impact on existing deep soil areas.

N/A

3F Visual privacy

Design criteria

1. Separation between windows and balconies is provided to ensure visual privacy is achieved. Minimum required separation distances from buildings to the side and rear boundaries are as follows:

Height	Habitable rooms and balconies	Non-habitable rooms
Up to 12m (4 storeys)	6m	3m
Up to 25m (5-8 storeys)	9m	4.5m
Over 25m (9+ storeys)	12m	6m

Loft is at the 5^th storey and is over 12m high therefore 9m habitable and 4.5m non-habitable separations are required. Below are the loft separations:

Western side boundary

4.4m bathroom (non-habitable 4.5m required) – Does not comply

3.7m stairs (non-habitable 4.5m required) – Does not comply

Eastern side boundary

3.5m bedroom and study (habitable 9m required) – Does not comply

Southern rear boundary

7.5m terrace (habitable 9m required) – Does not comply

The proposed loft separations do not comply on all sides. Whilst this would not be a reason for refusal in its own right, in the context of the highly non-compliant development the privacy and visual impacts associated with these separations are not supported.

The separations at the existing floor of Unit 5 are existing and no changes are proposed.

Note: Separation distances between buildings on the same site should combine required building separations depending on the type of room (see figure 3F.2).

Gallery access circulation should be treated as habitable space when measuring privacy separation distances between neighbouring properties.

Only a single building. Internal separations not applicable.

N/A

3G Pedestrian access and entries

Objective 3G-1

Building entries and pedestrian access connects to and addresses the public domain.

Proposal is for a loft to Unit 5 only and will have no impact on existing building entries.

N/A

3H Vehicle access

Objective 3H-1

Vehicle access points are designed and located to achieve safety, minimise conﬂicts between pedestrians and vehicles and create high quality streetscapes.

Proposal is for a loft to Unit 5 only and will have no impact on existing vehicle access.

N/A

3J Bicycle and car parking

Design Criteria

1. For development in the following locations:

• on sites that are within 800 metres of a railway station or light rail stop in the Sydney Metropolitan Area; or

The car parking needs for a development must be provided off street.

The site is not within 800m of a railway station or light rail stop. Car parking provisions from the DCP are applicable.

N/A

Objective 3J-2

Parking and facilities are provided for other modes of transport.

Proposal is for a loft to Unit 5 only and will have no impact on parking.

N/A

Part 4 – Designing the building

4A Solar and daylight access

Design Criteria

Proposal is for a loft to Unit 5 only and will have no impact on solar access to the living area and POS within the development.

The proposed altered Unit 5 will receive compliant solar access to the living and POS.

Yes

2. In all other areas, living rooms and private open spaces of at least 70% of apartments in a building receive a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm at mid winter.

The proposed development is within the Sydney Metropolitan Area and as such this is not applicable.

N/A

3. A maximum of 15% of apartments in a building receive no direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm at mid winter.

No apartments will receive no direct sunlight in mid-winter.

Yes

4B Natural ventilation

Design criteria

Cross ventilation: No change

Proposal is for a loft to Unit 5 only and will have no impact on solar access to cross ventilation within the apartments.

The proposed altered Unit 5 will cross ventilate.

Yes

2. Overall depth of a cross-over or cross-through apartment does not exceed 18m, measured glass line to glass line.

No cross-over and cross-through apartments.

N/A

4C Ceiling heights

Design criteria

1. Measured from finished floor level to finished ceiling level, minimum ceiling heights are:

· Habitable rooms 2.7m

· Non habitable 2.4m

· 2 storey apartments 2.7m for main living area floor, 2.4m for second floor

· Attic 1.8m at edge with 30 degree minimum ceiling slope

· Mixed use area 3.3m ground and first floor

These minimums do not preclude higher ceilings if desired.

Ceiling heights (Unit 5):

· GF 2.6m

· Loft 2.4m

Yes

4D Apartment size and layout

Design criteria

Apartments are required to have the following minimum internal areas:

· Studio – 35m²

· 1B – 50m²

· 2B – 70m²

· 3B+ - 90m²

The minimum internal areas include only one bathroom. Additional bathrooms increase the minimum internal area by 5m² each.

A fourth bedroom and further additional bedrooms increase the minimum internal area by 12m² each.

The proposal is for alterations to Unit 5 to create a 2-bedroom apartment of 118.7m2 which complies.

Yes

Every habitable room must have a window in an external wall with a total minimum glass area of not less than 10% of the floor area of the room. Daylight and air may not be borrowed from other rooms.

All habitable rooms have windows to an external wall with a total glass area not less than 10% of the floor area of the room.

Yes

Habitable room depths are limited to a maximum of 2.5 x the ceiling height.

Yes

In open plan layouts (where the living, dining and kitchen are combined) the maximum habitable room depth is 8m from a window.

Unit 5 has open plan layout. The maximum depth does not exceed 8m from the external windows / glazed balcony doors.

Yes

4D Apartment size and layout

Design Criteria

Master bedrooms have a minimum area of 10m2 and other bedrooms 9m2 (excluding wardrobe space).

Minimum bedroom areas have been achieved.

Yes

Bedrooms have a minimum dimension of 3m (excluding wardrobe space).

Bedrooms have a minimum dimension of 3m excluding wardrobe space.

Yes

Living rooms or combined living/dining rooms have a minimum width of:

· 3.6m for studio and 1 bedroom apartments

· 4m for 2 and 3 bedroom apartments

Living room has a minimum dimension of at least 4m for the proposed 2 bedroom apartment.

Yes

The width of cross-over or cross-through apartments are at least 4m internally to avoid deep narrow apartment layouts.

No cross over or cross through apartments proposed.

N/A

4E Private open space and balconies

Design Criteria

All apartments are required to have primary balconies as follows:

· Studio – Area 4m² / Depth none

· 1B – Area 8m² / Depth 2m

· 2B – Area 10m² / Depth 2m

· 3B+ - Area 12m³ / Depth 2.4m

The minimum balcony depth to be counted as contributing to the balcony area is 1m.

Proposed balcony is 10m2 with 2m depth.

Yes

For apartments at ground level or on a podium or similar structure, a private open space is provided instead of a balcony. It must have a minimum area of 15m2 and a minimum depth of 3m.

No change to ground floor apartments.

N/A

4F Common circulation and spaces

Design Criteria

The maximum number of apartments off a circulation core on a single level is eight.

No change.

N/A

For buildings of 10 storeys and over, the maximum number of apartments sharing a single lift is 40.

Not 10 storeys and over.

N/A

4G Storage

Design criteria

In addition to storage in kitchens, bathrooms and bedrooms, the following storage is provided:

· Studio – 4m³

· 1B – 6m³

· 2B – 8m³

· 3B+ - 10m³

At least 50% of the required storage is to be located within the apartment.

Internal storage areas are not shown on the plans. Sufficient excess internal area to provide compliant storage.

Yes

4K Apartment mix

Objective 4K-1

A range of apartment types and sizes is provided to cater for different household types now and into the future.

Proposal would contribute to housing diversity.

Yes

4L Ground floor apartments

Objective 4L-1

Street frontage activity is maximised where ground floor apartments are located.

No change at ground level.

N/A

2.4 Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The proposal is characterised as alterations and additions to an existing ‘residential flat building’ which is permitted with consent.

The proposal is inconsistent with the following objectives of the R3 zone:

· 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.

Comment: The proposal does not contribute to the desired future character of the area as it significantly exceeds the maximum FSR and height limits which will detract from the appearance of the existing flat building and will create a bulky out of character roof top element.

· To protect the amenity of residents.

Comment: The proposal will result in additional built form above the permitted FSR and height provisions that will adversely impact the amenity of adjoining properties by way of overshadowing, overlooking, visual bulk, and view loss.

The relevant provisions of the RLEP 2012 are addressed in the table below:

Provision	Proposal	Complies?
Floor space ratio Max 0.9:1	FSR: 0.97:1 · Loft 42.96m² · Second 149.47m² · First 143.62m² · Ground 140.27m² · Additional GFA 47.76m² · Total GFA 476.32m² · Site Area 489.93m² Note. Council’s assessment officer has calculated the FSR at 0.97:1. In calculating the GFA, only the Level 3 floor plan was submitted with the application. As clearly visible from the exterior of the building, the floor plate of the ground floor and first floor is the same as the third floor and as such the GFA of those floors has been approximated on that basis. The discrepancy between the applicant’s calculations and the assessing officer calculations is primarily due to the proposed stair case within Unit 5 which should be included in GFA. It appears that these stairs have been excluded by the applicant which accounts for the majority of the discrepancy. These stairs are for the exclusive use of Unit 5 and are therefore not ‘common’ stairs and must be included in GFA.	No – 7.8% variation
Height of buildings Max 12m	Height (roof skillion): 14.15m · Roof ridge RL 49.57m (approx.) · EGL RL 35.42m (nearest spot level within the western side setback on driveway) Note. The survey plan submitted with the application is for the adjoining property to the west, 17 Melrose Parade. Only the western half of the subject site is shown on the survey plan and thus the existing ground levels from the western side setback area have been utilised to determine the maximum building height. Given the cross fall of the land to the eastern side, it is likely that the extrapolated existing ground level under the building would be lower than the spot level utilised above and as such the calculated height could possibly be higher than the above calculation. Regardless, the height as calculated is not supported and as such obtaining a full survey of the site is not necessary.	No – 18% variation
Heritage Various requirements for protecting heritage	The site does not contain a heritage item, is not within a conservation area, and is not within the visual catchment of nearby heritage items.	N/A
Foreshore scenic protection area	The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of this clause it would result in a visually incompatible building element within the scenic protection area that would be prominent along the coastal foreshore.	No

Height of Buildings – Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards

The proposal has been assessed as non-compliant with the height of buildings development standard pursuant to clause 4.3 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The clause stipulates that the maximum height of buildings on the site is 12m. The proposed development has been calculated to have a maximum height of 14.15m which represents a 17.9% variation to the development standard.

Development Standard	Assessment of Proposal	Variation
Height of Building Max 12m	Height (roof skillion): 14.15m · Roof ridge RL 49.57m (approx.) · EGL below RL 35.42m	17.9%

Development Standard

Assessment of Proposal

Variation

Height of Building

Max 12m

Height (roof skillion): 14.15m

· Roof ridge RL 49.57m (approx.)

· EGL below RL 35.42m

17.9%

Clause 4.6 provides a mechanism for development consent to be granted where a development contravenes a development standard. The clause stipulates that the consent authority must consider and be satisfied that a written request from the applicant justifies the contravention by demonstrating that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case and that there are sufficient environmental grounds to justify the contravention. Furthermore, the consent authority must be satisfied that the development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the standard and the zone.

In accordance with the requirements of clause 4.6, the applicant has submitted a written request to vary the development standard. The request been considered against the requirements of clause 4.6 as detailed below. Clause 4.6 is considered to be satisfied and the variation to the development standard is supported.

Consideration of the Applicant’s written request to vary a development standard

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

· that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

Further, development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

· the consent authority is satisfied that:

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

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

· the concurrence of the Secretary has been obtained.

With regards to the concurrence of the Secretary, pursuant to the notification of assumed concurrence under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 18–003 (dated 21 Feb 2018) the concurrence of the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed in certain cases.

In relation to the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3) there are various ways that may be invoked to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary as discussed in the case of in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827. Although the Wehbe case was decided in relation to State Environmental Planning Policy No 1—Development Standards (“SEPP 1”) and not clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012, it remains of some assistance in relation to identifying the ways in which an applicant may demonstrate that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. In the Wehbe case, Justice Preston said the most commonly invoked way to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary is to demonstrate that the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard.

Has the applicant’s request adequately demonstrated that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary and that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard?

The applicant’s written request to vary the development standard is as follows:

The applicant’s written request has not satisfactorily demonstrated that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary nor has it demonstrated there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the variation, for the following reasons:

· The applicant’s written request has incorrectly identified the maximum building height at 13.5m. The maximum height occurs at the top of the proposed skillion roof which has a level of approximately RL49.57m. Utilising the survey plan provided with the application which only shows the western half of the subject site, the lowest existing ground spot level within the vicinity of the area under the top of the roof is RL35.42m – this spot level is located on the driveway on the western side of the building – refer to Figure 6 below. This results in a maximum height of 14.15m or a 17.9% variation;

· The size and scale of the development is incompatible with the desired future character of the area. The desired future character of the area is dictated by the planning controls which allows for residential flat buildings up to 12m in height with a maximum FSR of 0.9:1. The proposal results in a significant exceedance of the height and FSR provisions. The height non-compliance would result in a five storey building in an area designed for four storey buildings which is already evident as the proposal is a full storey higher at the rear than the newly constructed RFB adjacent – refer to Figure 7 & 8. This extra height would be clearly evident from the street and surrounding properties;

· The proposed additional height at the rear of the site is in conflict with the rear sloping coastal topography of the area. The proposal would result in the building stepping up from three storeys at the street to five storeys at the rear. This is in direct conflict with the lie of the land and would be inharmonious with the newly constructed RFB to the western side which appropriately steps down, being four storeys at the street and four at the rear – refer to Figure 7 & 8;

· The roof top addition is located on the southern end of the building which will result in additional overshadowing of the dwelling houses to the rear which are already significantly overshadowed by the existing RFB due to the height and the slope of the land down to these coastal edge properties;

· The roof top addition will be visually bulky for adjoining properties being the only five storey building element in the area and being a full storey higher at the rear than the newly constructed RFB to the western side;

· The roof top addition includes new habitable windows and a rear balcony that have non-compliant separations from the boundaries and will overlook the adjoining RFB to the west and the dwelling houses to the rear and eastern side;

· Insufficient information has been provided to determine the impact of the development on views, however it is likely that the roof top addition would obstruct some significant coastal views from the adjoining RFB to the west and the RFBs on the northern side of Melrose Parade; and,

· The development is inconsistent with the objectives of the development standard.

Figure 6. Marked site plan showing the proposed ridge level and the nearest existing ground spot level utilised for the height calculation.

Source: Gelder Archtects, 2018; Marked: James Arnold

Figure 7. Approved eastern elevation of the newly constructed RFB to the west of the site. The development appropriately steps down the site and presents as four storeys at the rear.

Source: Gelder Architects, 2013

Figure 8. Rear elevation of the proposal marked up showing the proposal at a full storey higher than the rear portion of the newly constructed RFB to the west.

Source: Gelder Architects, 2018; Marked: James Arnold, 2018

It is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the development standard and the objectives of the zone, and therefore is not in the public interest.

Objective	Assessment of Proposal
Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings
(a) to ensure that the size and scale of development is compatible with the desired future character of the locality,	The size and scale of the development is incompatible with the desired future character of the area. The desired future character of the area is dictated by the planning controls which allows for residential flat buildings up to 12m in height with a maximum FSR of 0.9:1. The proposal results in a significant exceedance of the height and FSR provisions. The height non-compliance would result in a five storey building in an area designed for no more than four storeys which is already evident as the proposal is a full storey higher at the rear than the newly constructed RFB adjacent. This extra height would be clearly evident from the street and surrounding properties
(b) to ensure that development is compatible with the scale and character of contributory buildings in a conservation area or near a heritage item,	The proposed development will have no impact on heritage as it is not within the visual catchment of heritage items or heritage conservation areas.
(c) to ensure that development does not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views.	The proposed development will adversely impact the amenity of the surrounding area by way of significant additional overshadowing, overlooking with non-compliant separations, and will be a visually bulky component as it would be the only five storey building in the area. Insufficient information has been provided to determine the impact of the development on views, however it is likely that the roof top addition would obstruct some significant coastal views from the adjoining RFB to the west and those RFBs on the northern side of Melrose Parade.
Zone R3 Medium Density Residential
· To provide for the housing needs of the community within a medium density residential environment.	The proposal will maintain the medium density residential nature of the existing building.
· To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment.	The proposal will provide for a variety of housing types.
· To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.	The proposal will not inhibit the ability of the zone to provide for 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.	The proposal is incompatible with the existing and desired future streetscape and built form.
· To protect the amenity of residents.	The proposal will adversely affect the amenity of surrounding properties.
· To encourage housing affordability.	The proposal is not antipathetic to housing affordability.
· To enable small-scale business uses in existing commercial buildings.	The proposal will not inhibit the ability of the zone to accommodate small scale businesses.

Does the Council have delegation to exercise the concurrence function of the Department of Planning and Environment for development that contravenes a development standard? If so:

· whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and

· the public benefit of maintaining the development standard.

The concurrence of the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment must also be obtained for development that contravenes a development standard. However, pursuant to the notification of assumed concurrence of the secretary under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 18–003 (dated 21 Feb 2018) the concurrence of the secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed in certain cases.

The proposed development and variation from the control does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning.

Floor Space Ratio – Clause 4.6. Exceptions to Development Standards

The proposal has been assessed as non-compliant with the Floor Space Ratio development standard pursuant to clause 4.4 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The clause stipulates that the maximum floor space ratio for a building on the site is 0.9:1. The proposed development has been calculated to have an FSR of 0.973:1 which represents a 7.8% variation.

Development Standard	Assessment of Proposal	Variation
Floor Space Ratio Max 0.9:1	FSR: 0.97:1	7.8%

Development Standard

Assessment of Proposal

Variation

Floor Space Ratio

Max 0.9:1

FSR: 0.97:1

7.8%

Clause 4.6 provides a mechanism for development consent to be granted where a development contravenes a development standard. The clause stipulates that the consent authority must consider and be satisfied that a written request from the applicant justifies the contravention by demonstrating that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case and that there are sufficient environmental grounds to justify the contravention. Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that the development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the standard and the zone.

In accordance with the requirements of clause 4.6, the applicant has submitted a written request to vary the development standard. The request been considered against the requirements of clause 4.6 as detailed below. Clause 4.6 is not considered to be satisfied and therefore consent must not be granted.

Consideration of the Applicant’s written request to vary a development standard

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

· that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

Further, development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

· the consent authority is satisfied that:

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

· the concurrence of the Secretary has been obtained.

The applicant’s written request to vary the development standard is as follows:

· The applicant’s written request has incorrectly identified the FSR at 0.93:1. Council’s assessment officer has calculated the FSR at 0.97:1. In calculating the GFA, only the Level 3 floor plan was submitted with the application. As clearly visible from the exterior of the building, the floor plate of the ground floor and first floor is the same as the third floor and as such the GFA of those floors has been approximated on that basis. The discrepancy between the applicant’s calculations and the assessing officer calculations is primarily due to the proposed stair case within Unit 5 which should be included in GFA. It appears that these stairs have been excluded by the applicant which accounts for the majority of the discrepancy. These stairs are for the exclusive use of Unit 5 and are therefore not ‘common’ stairs and must be included in GFA. Accordingly, the variation is 7.8% and not 3.3% as stated in the applicant’s variation request;

· The size and scale of the development is incompatible with the desired future character of the area. The desired future character of the area is dictated by the planning controls which allows for residential flat buildings up to 12m in height with a maximum FSR of 0.9:1. The proposal results in a significant exceedance of the height and FSR provisions. The FSR non-compliance would result in a five storey building in an area designed for no more than four storeys which is already evident as the proposal is a full storey higher at the rear than the newly constructed RFB adjacent. This extra height and bulk would be clearly evident from the street and surrounding properties;

· The proposed additional height and bulk at the rear of the site is in conflict with the rear sloping topography of the land. The proposal would result in the building stepping up from three storeys at the street to five storeys at the rear. This is in direct conflict with the fall of the land and the newly constructed RFB to the western side which appropriately steps down, being four storeys at the street and four at the rear;

· The design of the proposed roof top addition is unsympathetic to the existing c1970 brick flat building presenting as a bulky rooftop addition with a large downturned roof form. The proposal is unexceptional in terms of materials and architectonic expression. Given its prominent position, more consideration is required so that it reads as a genuinely positive addition to the building and to the coastal neighbourhood;

· The development is inconsistent with the objectives of the development standard.

It is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the development standard and the objectives of the zone, and therefore is not in the public interest.

Objective	Assessment of Proposal
Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio
(a) to ensure that the size and scale of development is compatible with the desired future character of the locality,	The size and scale of the development is incompatible with the desired future character of the area. The desired future character of the area is dictated by the planning controls which allows for residential flat buildings up to 12m in height with a maximum FSR of 0.9:1. The proposal results in a significant exceedance of the height and FSR provisions. The FSR non-compliance would result in a five storey building in an area designed for no more than four storeys which is already evident as the proposal is a full storey higher at the rear than the newly constructed RFB adjacent. This extra height and bulk would be clearly evident from the street and surrounding properties.
(b) to ensure that buildings are well articulated and respond to environmental and energy needs,	The development will ensure the building is well articulated and responds to environmental and energy needs as a compliant BASIX certificate was submitted.
(c) to ensure that development is compatible with the scale and character of contributory buildings in a conservation area or near a heritage item,	The proposed development will have no impact on heritage as it is not within the visual catchment of heritage items or heritage conservation areas.
(d) to ensure that development does not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views.	The proposed development will adversely impact the amenity of the surrounding area by way of significant additional overshadowing, overlooking with non-compliant separations, and will be a visually bulky component as it would be the only five storey building in the area. Insufficient information has been provided to determine the impact of the development on views, however it is likely that the roof top addition would obstruct some significant coastal views from the adjoining RFB to the west and those RFBs on the northern side of Melrose Parade.
Zone R3 Medium Density Residential
· To provide for the housing needs of the community within a medium density residential environment.	The proposal will maintain the medium density residential nature of the existing building.
· To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment.	The proposal will provide for a variety of housing types.
· To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.	The proposal will not inhibit the ability of the zone to provide for 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.	The proposal is incompatible with the existing and desired future streetscape and built form.
· To protect the amenity of residents.	The proposal will adversely affect the amenity of surrounding properties.
· To encourage housing affordability.	The proposal is not antipathetic to housing affordability.
· To enable small-scale business uses in existing commercial buildings.	The proposal will not inhibit the ability of the zone to accommodate small scale businesses.

Does the Council have delegation to exercise the concurrence function of the Department of Planning and Environment for development that contravenes a development standard? If so:

· whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and

· the public benefit of maintaining the development standard.

The proposed development and variation from the control does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning.

2.5 Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013

The relevant provisions of the DCP are addressed below.

Section C2: Medium Density Residential

Cl.	Control	Assessment of Proposal	Complies?
3. Building Envelope
3.4	Setbacks
3.4.1	Front setback
	(i) The front setback on the primary and secondary property frontages must be consistent with the prevailing setback line along the street. Notwithstanding the above, the front setback generally must be no less than 3m in all circumstances to allow for suitable landscaped areas to building entries. (ii) Where a development is proposed in an area identified as being under transition in the site analysis, the front setback will be determined on a merit basis.	No change to front setback.	N/A
3.4.2	Side setback
	Residential flat building Comply with the minimum side setback requirements stated below: · <12m – merit · 12m-14m – 2m	Side setbacks (loft): · West: 3.7m · East: 3.5m	Yes
3.4.3	Rear setback
	For residential flat buildings, provide a minimum rear setback of 15% of allotment depth or 5m, whichever is the greater.	15% of allotment depth (average) 5.64m which is the applicable control. Rear setback (loft): 7.5m	Yes
4. Building Design
4.1	Building façade
	(i) Buildings must be designed to address all street and laneway frontages. (ii) Buildings must be oriented so that the front wall alignments are parallel with the street property boundary or the street layout. (iii) Articulate facades to reflect the function of the building, present a human scale, and contribute to the proportions and visual character of the street.	The building design is inconsistent with the objectives of this part of the ADG Design Quality Principles.	No
4.2	Roof design
	(i) Design the roof form, in terms of massing, pitch, profile and silhouette to relate to the three dimensional form (size and scale) and façade composition of the building. (ii) Design the roof form to respond to the orientation of the site, such as eaves and skillion roofs to respond to sun access. (iii) Use a similar roof pitch to adjacent buildings, particularly if there is consistency of roof forms across the streetscape. (vii) Terraces, decks or trafficable outdoor spaces on the roof may be considered only if: - There are no direct sightlines to the habitable room windows and private and communal open space of the adjoining residences. - The size and location of terrace or deck will not result in unreasonable noise impacts on the adjoining residences. - Any stairway and associated roof do not detract from the architectural character of the building, and are positioned to minimise direct and oblique views from the street. - Any shading devices, privacy screens and planters do not adversely increase the visual bulk of the building.	The loft skillion and downturned roof design is incompatible with the building design and emphasises the bulk of the loft.	No
4.3	Habitable roof space
	Habitable roof space may be considered, provided it meets the following: - Optimises dwelling mix and layout, and assists to achieve dual aspect or cross over units with good natural ventilation. - Has a maximum floor space of 65% of the storey immediately below. - Wholly contain habitable areas within the roof space. - When viewed from the surrounding public and private domain, the roof form has the appearance of a roof. A continuous flat roof with habitable space within it will not satisfy this requirement. - Design windows to habitable roof space as an integrated element of the roof. - Submit computer generated perspectives or photomontages showing the front and rear elevations of the development.	N/A – No habitable roof space proposed.	N/A
4.4	External wall height and ceiling height
	(ii) Where the site is subject to a 12m building height limit under the LEP, a maximum external wall height of 10.5m applies.	External wall height: 14.15m	No
	(iii) The minimum ceiling height is to be 2.7m for all habitable rooms.	Ceiling height (loft): 2.4m	No
4.9	Colours, materials and finishes
	(i) Provide a schedule detailing the materials and finishes in the development application documentation and plans. (ii) The selection of colour and material palette must complement the character and style of the building.	Materials and finishes schedule submitted.	Yes
4.12	Earthworks Excavation and backfilling
	(i) Any excavation and backfilling within the building footprints must be limited to 1m at any point on the allotment, unless it is demonstrated that the site gradient is too steep to reasonably construct a building within this extent of site modification. (ii) Any cut and fill outside the building footprints must take the form of terracing following the natural landform, in order to minimise the height or depth of earthworks at any point on the site. (iii) For sites with a significant slope, adopt a split-level design for buildings to minimise excavation and backfilling.	No earthworks proposed.	Yes
	Retaining walls (iv) Setback the outer edge of any excavation, piling or sub-surface walls a minimum of 900mm from the side and rear boundaries. (v) Step retaining walls in response to the natural landform to avoid creating monolithic structures visible from the neighbouring properties and the public domain. (vi) Where it is necessary to construct retaining walls at less than 900mm from the side or rear boundary due to site conditions, retaining walls must be stepped with each section not exceeding a maximum height of 2200mm, as measured from the ground level (existing).	No retaining walls proposed.	Yes
5. Amenity
5.1	Solar access and overshadowing
	Solar access for surrounding development
	(i) Living areas of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours sunlight to a part of a window between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. (ii) At least 50% of the landscaped areas of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours sunlight to a part of a window between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. (iii) Where existing development currently receives less sunlight than this requirement, the new development is not to reduce this further.	The proposal will maintain adequate solar access to the development. The submitted shadow diagrams are inadequate to determine solar access to surrounding properties. Regardless, the proposal will result in additional shadows that are not supported due to the height and FSR non-compliances, among others.	No
5.3	Visual privacy
	(i) Locate windows and balconies of habitable rooms to minimise overlooking of windows or glassed doors in adjoining dwellings. (ii) Orient balconies to front and rear boundaries or courtyards as much as possible. Avoid orienting balconies to any habitable room windows on the side elevations of the adjoining residences. (v) Incorporate materials and design of privacy screens including: - Translucent glazing - Fixed timber or metal slats - Fixed vertical louvres with the individual blades oriented away from the private open space or windows of the adjacent dwellings - Screen planting and planter boxes as a supplementary device for reinforcing privacy protection	The proposal does not comply with the ADG separation distances and will overlook the adjoining RFB to the west and the dwellings to the south and east which is not supported.	No
5.4	Acoustic privacy
	Design the building and layout to minimise transmission of noise between buildings and dwellings.	Proposed loft will have no impact on acoustic privacy.	Yes
5.5	View sharing
	The location and design of buildings must reasonably maintain existing view corridors and vistas to significant elements from the streets, public open spaces and neighbouring dwellings.	Insufficient information submitted to determine view loss, however the additional bulk will likely obstruct some significant views to the coast and ocean for the adjoining RFB to the west, and the RFBs on the opposite side of Melrose Parade. Any view loss is not supported as the additional bulk does not comply with the building height and FSR standards.	No
5.6	Safety and security
	Design buildings and spaces for safe and secure access to and within the development.	The safety and security of the building is unchanged.	Yes
6. Car parking and access
DCP Section B7 – Car Parking Rates
	MDH and RFB: · 1 space per 2 studio · 1 space per 1B apartment (over 40sqm) · 1.2 space per 2B apartment · 1.5 space per +3B apartment · 1 visitor space per 4 dwelling · Motorbike 5% of car parking requirement	The proposal converts a one bedroom to a two bedroom apartment. This generates an additional demand for 0.2 spaces. The proposal does not include any additional car spaces which does not comply.	No
6.1	Location
	(i) Car parking facilities must be accessed off rear lanes or secondary street frontages where available.	No change	N/A
	(iii) Setback driveways a minimum of 1m from the side boundary. Provide landscape planting within the setback areas.	No change	N/A
	(iv) Entry to parking facilities off the rear lane must be setback a minimum of 1m from the lane boundary.	No change	N/A
	(v) For residential flat buildings, comply with the following: (a) Car parking must be provided underground in a basement or semi-basement for new development. (b) On grade car park may be considered for sites potentially affected by flooding. In this scenario, the car park must be located on the side or rear of the allotment away from the primary street frontage. (c) Where rear lane or secondary street access is not available, the car park entry must be recessed behind the front façade alignment. In addition, the entry and driveway must be located towards the side and not centrally positioned across the street frontage.	No change	N/A
6.2	Configuration
	(i) With the exception of hardstand car spaces and garages, all car parks must be designed to allow vehicles to enter and exit in a forward direction.	No change	N/A
	(ii) For residential flat buildings, the maximum width of driveway is 6m. In addition, the width of driveway must be tapered towards the street boundary as much as possible.	No change	N/A
7. Fencing and Ancillary Development
7.2	Front Fencing
	(ii) The maximum height of front fencing is limited to 1200mm, as measured from the footpath level, with the solid portion not exceeding 600mm, except for piers. The maximum height of front fencing may be increased to 1800mm, provided the upper two-thirds are partially open, except for piers.	No change	N/A
	(iv) Solid front fence of up to 1800mm in height may be permitted in the following scenarios: - Front fence for sites facing arterial roads. - Fence on the secondary street frontage of corner allotments, which is behind the alignment of the primary street façade. Such solid fences must be articulated through a combination of materials, finishes and details, and/or incorporate landscaping, so as to avoid continuous blank walls.	No change	N/A
7.7	Laundry facilities
	(i) Provide a retractable or demountable clothes line in the courtyard of each dwelling unit.	Sufficient outdoor spaces provided for drying.	Yes
	(ii) Provide internal laundry for each dwelling unit.	Apartment includes laundry facilities.	Yes

3.0 Referral Comments

No referrals.

Recommendation

That the RLPP refuse development consent under Section 4.16 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 141/2018 for a rooftop addition to the existing residential flat building to create an additional floor for Unit 5, at 19 Melrose Parade, Clovelly, for the following reasons:

· The design of the proposal is poor and is inconsistent with the Design Quality Principles of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65;

· The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives and design criteria of the Apartment Design Guide in relation to visual privacy;

· The proposal will adversely impact the amenity of surrounding properties in terms of visual bulk, overshadowing, loss of privacy, and views loss; and,

· The proposal would set an undesirable precedent for roof top additions to existing residential flat buildings over the height and FSR controls.

Attachment/s:

Nil

Randwick Local Planning Panel 22 November 2018

Development Application Report No. D94/18

Subject: 252-254 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (DA/199/2018)

Folder No: DA/199/2018

Author: Willana Urban, Pty Ltd

Proposal: Demolition of existing structures, construction of a part 3/part 4 storey residential flat building in 2 building forms containing 12 dwellings, basement carparking for 16 vehicles, landscaping and associated works (variation to height and floor space ratio controls).

Ward: Central Ward

Applicant: Landcare Pty Ltd

Owner: Ms M C Castle & Ms V Perez

Summary

Recommendation: Approval



	Subject Site

	Submissions received Ù North
	Locality Plan

Executive summary

The application is referred to the Randwick Local Planning Panel (RLPP) as the development is subject to SEPP 65.

Proposal

The proposal is for the demolition of the existing semi-detached dwellings at 252-254 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (the Site) and the erection of a part three, part four storey Residential Flat Building (RFB) with basement parking. The development proposes:

§ The demolition of existing semi-detached dwellings and associated structures on the Site.

· The removal of several trees on the Site, which are shown on the accompanying Landscape Plan, prepared by Greenplan, Issue C, dated 29/06/2018.

· To undertake earthworks primarily comprising excavation to provide a basement car parking level.

· The construction of a part three, part four storey RFB, consisting of 12 apartments above a basement level containing 16 car spaces, 1 motorbike space and 7 bicycle spaces. The RFB will consist of two main building towers with the basement level connecting the two buildings.

· A common area located at ground level between the two buildings that will have access to the lobby areas.

· A lobby area; one common stairwell and lift well within the building facing Maroubra Road (Building A) and one common stairwell within the rear building, fronting Galvin Street (Building B).

· The installation of new stormwater infrastructure with all roof and surface water directed to a rainwater tank and on-site detention tank. Overflow will be directed to the public stormwater system along Maroubra Road.

The driveway location for the proposed basement parking will be located on Maroubra Road with security grilles on the garage door at the bottom of the access ramp. A new driveway crossover is proposed on the southern boundary, as there is no existing driveway from Maroubra Road. The basement will provide a bin storage room.

Pedestrian access will be provided along the southern, Maroubra Road frontage and the northern, Galvin Street frontage, along the length of the western boundary. Electronically controlled security gates will be located at both access points.

The apartment composition includes three x one-bedroom; seven x two-bedroom and two x three-bedroom apartments, with a total of 12 apartments. A breakdown of the building composition is provided in Table 1 below.

Table 1 | Building A and Building B Composition

Building A	Building B
Basement Level
16 car parking spaces Bike storage area with space for 7 x bicycles 1 x Motorbike space Accessible bin storage room Meters plant 2 x stairwell cores to ground floor 1 x lift core (services Building A) Vehicular access ramp to ground floor
Ground Floor
Common area 2 x accessible one-bedroom apartments Vehicular access to Maroubra Road Pedestrian access to Maroubra Road 1 x accessible lift core and one stairwell core	Common area 1 x two-bedroom apartment 1 x one-bedroom apartment 2 x visitor car spaces with vehicular access from Galvin Street Pedestrian access to Galvin Street Stairwell core
First Floor
2 x two-bedroom apartments 1 x lift core and one stairwell core	2 x two-bedroom apartments Stairwell core
Second Floor
2 x two-bedroom apartments 1 x lift core and one stairwell core	1 x three-bedroom apartment Stairwell core
Third Floor
1 x three-bedroom apartment Stairwell core and lift core	Concrete roof with gravel ballast

Site Description and Locality

The Site comprises of two allotments known as 252 Maroubra Road and 254 Maroubra Road. The Site is legally identified as Lots 1 and 2 in DP 212888. The Site is located on the northern side of Maroubra Road between Cooper Street to the west and Flower Street to the north. The Site has a frontage to both Maroubra Road and Galvin Street.

The total area of the Site is 931.9m², in accordance with the accompanying Survey Plan, prepared by G&R Surveying Services P/L, job no. 1543, Plan Date 21/08 /2017, Date of Survey 08/08/2017. The northern boundary, to Maroubra Road, is 13.895m, the southern boundary, to Galvin Street, is 13.895m. The western and eastern (side) boundaries are 67.07m.

The site is located in close proximity to Maroubra Junction and is within an accessible area, being close to public transport. A number of dwellings and 3-4 storey RFBs are located along Maroubra Road.

Relevant history

The original DA was subject to a review by the Council’s Design Excellence Panel (DEP) in May 2018. The review suggested a number of design amendments. The comments are provided below under the SEPP 65 heading. On 16 July 2018, the Applicant submitted amended plans in response to the DEP comments that included the following changes:

· Basement layout modified to align with core amendments to upper floors and increase in the provision of parking spaces from 14 to 16 spaces.

· Improved foyer access to Building B.

· Activated central courtyard usage through a more usable plan.

· Created front facing street entry lobby with more open feel at Maroubra Road frontage.

· Building B balconies amended to meet minimum of 2m width requirement under SEPP 65.

· Aluminium batten insert at balcony edges to soften visual form.

· ‘Pop-out’ bay windows reduced to lessen visual bulk to neighbours.

· Amended lift lobby layout at Building A.

· Realigned living areas to the north, away from side boundary to reduce privacy impacts.

· Replaced mansard roof form with flat pavillion style roof form to match building style.

Further amended plans were provided on 19 September 2018, which sought to address the issues raised in Council’s Additional Information Letter (dated 23 August 2018) as well as during a meeting held between the Applicant, Owner, Council’s Engineer and Willana Urban on 7 September 2018. The amendments were as follows:

· Deletion of visitor spaces at Galvin Street. Galvin Street widening boundary adjustment retained as turf planting for future Council design and planting.

· Basement layout amended to increase provision of car parking spaces; bicycle spaces and motorcycle spaces.

· Provision of deep soil area reduced to allow for basement extension and provision of additional car spaces as discussed during meeting.

This assessment has been undertaken based on the amended documentation provided.

Submissions

· 262 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

Summarised Issues	Comment
Insufficient Parking Spaces. Height and Floor Space Ratio exceedance should require further parking. Congestion and lack of on-street parking.	Since the notification period, the proposal has been amended to increase the number of car parking spaces from 14 to 16 spaces. The number of motorbike spaces has increased from Nil to 1 space, and the number of bicycle spaces has increased from 5 to 7 spaces. The parking shortfall of 1 space is considered satisfactory in this instance given that the site is within walking distance to a large number of shops as well as public transport services.

Summarised Issues

Comment

Insufficient Parking Spaces.

Height and Floor Space Ratio exceedance should require further parking.

Congestion and lack of on-street parking.

Since the notification period, the proposal has been amended to increase the number of car parking spaces from 14 to 16 spaces. The number of motorbike spaces has increased from Nil to 1 space, and the number of bicycle spaces has increased from 5 to 7 spaces.

The parking shortfall of 1 space is considered satisfactory in this instance given that the site is within walking distance to a large number of shops as well as public transport services.

· 21 Galvin Street, Maroubra

Issue	Comment
Increased parking on Galvin Street. Strata buildings and visitor parking on Galvin Street.	The Applicant was advised that the provision of visitor parking along Galvin Street would not be supported. Consequently, the scheme was amended to incorporate further basement level parking spaces and the deletion of the Galvin Street car spaces. Council’s Engineer has recommended conditions of consent to ensure that the Galvin Street Verge does not include any car spaces.
Loss of access to visual and acoustic privacy.	The proposed design has been amended to orientate living rooms and balconies to the north of the Site. The side elevations ‘pop-out’ windows increase mutual privacy between the proposed dwellings and neighbouring properties. Noise impacts may occur during construction activities. Standard conditions of consent will ensure that construction activities are undertaken in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards.
Loss of solar access.	While the proposed development does overshadow the property at 21 Galvin Street during the afternoon hours (2pm-4pm), the Applicant’s submitted shadow diagrams illustrate how the living areas at 21 Galvin Street will retain at least 3 hours solar access between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. This satisfies the ADG provisions for solar access.
Reduced feeling of open space as a result of overdevelopment of site.	The proposed development is commensurate with the development standards and planning controls outlined within the ADG, the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013. A number of properties along Maroubra Road have been built to a similar scale as that of the proposed, many of which with a greater bulk. Consequently, the proposed development is within reasonable expectations of what is considered an compatible with the desired future character of the area.

Issue

Comment

Increased parking on Galvin Street.

Strata buildings and visitor parking on Galvin Street.

The Applicant was advised that the provision of visitor parking along Galvin Street would not be supported. Consequently, the scheme was amended to incorporate further basement level parking spaces and the deletion of the Galvin Street car spaces.

Council’s Engineer has recommended conditions of consent to ensure that the Galvin Street Verge does not include any car spaces.

Loss of access to visual and acoustic privacy.

The proposed design has been amended to orientate living rooms and balconies to the north of the Site. The side elevations ‘pop-out’ windows increase mutual privacy between the proposed dwellings and neighbouring properties.

Noise impacts may occur during construction activities. Standard conditions of consent will ensure that construction activities are undertaken in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards.

Loss of solar access.

While the proposed development does overshadow the property at 21 Galvin Street during the afternoon hours (2pm-4pm), the Applicant’s submitted shadow diagrams illustrate how the living areas at 21 Galvin Street will retain at least 3 hours solar access between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. This satisfies the ADG provisions for solar access.

Reduced feeling of open space as a result of overdevelopment of site.

The proposed development is commensurate with the development standards and planning controls outlined within the ADG, the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013. A number of properties along Maroubra Road have been built to a similar scale as that of the proposed, many of which with a greater bulk. Consequently, the proposed development is within reasonable expectations of what is considered an compatible with the desired future character of the area.

· 8/260 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

Issue	Comment
Impact on light/shade, privacy and view of surrounding properties from 4 storey building. Height of buildings too tall.	The proposed built form that faces Maroubra Road (southern building) exceeds the height control of 12m by 730mm (6%) at its tallest point. The proposed height breach does not adversely impact upon the neighbouring property at 260 Maroubra Road in terms of overshadowing, as the breach is limited to the upper portion of the roof form associated with the Building A only (southern building). The height breach is minor in the context of the site and the height controls applicable to the site.
Privacy impacts.	In terms of privacy, the proposed built form incorporates design features such as pop-out ‘wings’ to ensure that no overlooking occurs between properties. The north-south (rear-front) orientation of balconies and living areas, as proposed, further ensures that privacy impacts will be minimised between properties.
Loss of views over to Pacific Square and beyond which will be completely.	The Owner of 8/260 Maroubra Road provided Willana Urban with photos of the affected views from the front and rear, top floor units of 260 Maroubra Road (See Photos 1 to 4 below). As the photos show, the top floor units of the property at 260 Maroubra Road currently have heavily obstructed views of surrounding roof tops as well as some, upper portions of built forms of Pacific Square in the distance. The photos have been assessed with consideration given to the planning principle of view sharing as described within the Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council (2004) NSWLEC 140 Case. This view sharing assessment is provided in a separate table below, under the heading ‘View Sharing Assessment’.
Tree protection.	Council’s Landscape Officer has reviewed the Proposed Landscape Plan and has recommended conditions to any consent. The Officer’s comments are provided below.
Dilapidation Report.	The Applicant has agreed to carry out dilapidation reports for the adjoining properties to allay concerns regarding potential construction impacts. A condition is recommended as follows: A dilapidation report (incorporating photographs of relevant buildings) must be obtained from a Professional Engineer, detailing the current condition and status of all of the buildings and structures located upon all of the properties adjoining the subject site and any other property or public land which may be affected by the works, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

Issue

Comment

Impact on light/shade, privacy and view of surrounding properties from 4 storey building.

Height of buildings too tall.

The proposed built form that faces Maroubra Road (southern building) exceeds the height control of 12m by 730mm (6%) at its tallest point.

The proposed height breach does not adversely impact upon the neighbouring property at 260 Maroubra Road in terms of overshadowing, as the breach is limited to the upper portion of the roof form associated with the Building A only (southern building). The height breach is minor in the context of the site and the height controls applicable to the site.

Privacy impacts.

In terms of privacy, the proposed built form incorporates design features such as pop-out ‘wings’ to ensure that no overlooking occurs between properties.

The north-south (rear-front) orientation of balconies and living areas, as proposed, further ensures that privacy impacts will be minimised between properties.

Loss of views over to Pacific Square and beyond which will be completely.

The Owner of 8/260 Maroubra Road provided Willana Urban with photos of the affected views from the front and rear, top floor units of 260 Maroubra Road (See Photos 1 to 4 below). As the photos show, the top floor units of the property at 260 Maroubra Road currently have heavily obstructed views of surrounding roof tops as well as some, upper portions of built forms of Pacific Square in the distance. The photos have been assessed with consideration given to the planning principle of view sharing as described within the Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council (2004) NSWLEC 140 Case. This view sharing assessment is provided in a separate table below, under the heading ‘View Sharing Assessment’.

Tree protection.

Council’s Landscape Officer has reviewed the Proposed Landscape Plan and has recommended conditions to any consent. The Officer’s comments are provided below.

Dilapidation Report.

The Applicant has agreed to carry out dilapidation reports for the adjoining properties to allay concerns regarding potential construction impacts. A condition is recommended as follows:

A dilapidation report (incorporating photographs of relevant buildings) must be obtained from a Professional Engineer, detailing the current condition and status of all of the buildings and structures located upon all of the properties adjoining the subject site and any other property or public land which may be affected by the works, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

View Sharing Assessment

An assessment of view sharing (and loss) is considered against Council DCP provision and the applicable 4 step process provided by the Land and Environment Court Planning Principle established in the matter of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah (2004) NSWLEC 140:

1. Quality of Views: The first step is the assessment of views to be affected (quality of views). Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (e.g. of the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge or North Head) are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views, e.g. a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.	The affected views would best be described as being of low-value. While the proposed development will be visible from the side boundary of the property at 260 Maroubra Road, it will not impede upon any significant water, historic, iconic, unobstructed or harbour views.
2. Reasonable Expectation of View Retention: The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. For example the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries. In addition, whether the view is enjoyed from a standing or sitting position may also be relevant. Sitting views are more difficult to protect than standing views. The expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic.	It is difficult to protect views across rooftops from side boundaries, especially in this case, given that the medium density zoning allows for developments of similar sizes to that of the proposed. Subsequently, it is unreasonable to expect views of neighbouring roof tops or rear yards to be retained indefinitely within a medium density zone that predominantly comprises of built forms of 3-4 storeys (along Maroubra Road).
3. Extent of Impact: The third step is to assess the extent of the impact. This should be done for the whole of the property, not just for the view that is affected. The impact on views from living areas is more significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though views from kitchens are highly valued because people spend so much time in them). The impact may be assessed quantitatively, but in many cases this can be meaningless. For example, it is unhelpful to say that the view loss is 20% if it includes one of the sails of the Opera House. It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.	The extent of the impact on views from 260 Maroubra Road is considered negligible, given that the impacted views are of low-value and from a side boundary. A number of the photos are also taken from balconies and not major habitable rooms. Despite the proposed development, these balconies will still retain most of their existing views.
4. Reasonableness of Proposed Development: The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skillful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbour’s. If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.	The proposed development has been assessed and, with the included amendments, is considered reasonable given the planning standards and controls applicable to the site. The height breach at the southern building is minor and is not anticipated to adversely affect any valuable views nor result in amenity impacts in terms of loss of privacy, noise or overshadowing to the property at 260 Maroubra Road. As discussed above, the Applicant has submitted overshadowing diagrams which illustrate that overshadowing impacts on neighbouring properties are within reasonable expectations, due to the site having a north-south orientation and neighbouring sites being to the east and west.

Photo 1 | Front Unit (Maroubra Road) Top Floor views looking west from 260 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

Source: Owner of Unit 8/260 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

Photo 2 | Rear Unit (Galvin Street) Top Floor views looking west from 260 Maroubra Road,

Maroubra Source: Owner of Unit 8/260 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

Photo 3 | Front Unit (Maroubra Road) Top Floor views looking west from 260 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (behind louvres) Source: Owner of Unit 8/260 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

Photo 4 | Rear Unit (Galvin Street) Top Floor views looking west from 260 Maroubra Road, Maroubra Source: Owner of Unit 8/260 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

· 246-250 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

Issue	Comment
Height variation out of character with streetscape. Loss of solar access	The issues of height and solar access has been addressed above.
Unsatisfactory design (too bulky).	The original DA was subject to a review by the Design Excellence Panel (DEP) in May 2018. The review suggested a number of design amendments. The comments are provided below under the SEPP 65 assessment. The Applicant has amended the scheme with consideration given the DEP comments.
Landscaping.	Landscaping has been addressed above.
Need for Dilapidation Report.	This issue has been addressed above.

· 246-250 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

Issue	Comment
Height variation unsatisfactory. Overshadowing.	The non-compliant height issue has been addressed above and is considered satisfactory in this instance. The Applicant has submitted an amended Clause 4.6 request which justifies the variation to height within the amended scheme. It is considered that due to the minor nature of the height breach, no significant, adverse impacts will occur in terms of privacy, overshadowing or views on neighbouring properties.
Inconsistent height and built form with streetscape.	The proposed development is considered to be consistent with other similar residential flat buildings in the area as well as the desired future character of the area. Building A of the proposed development has a recessed, upper level. Being four levels above basement parking (below ground level), Building A presents as a four storey building to Maroubra Road. However, with the recessed, upper level, in conjunction with an articulated façade, the visual bulk of the building envelope is less imposing than a number of RFBs within the immediate area. For example, 262, 270 and 295 Maroubra Road are all three storeys of residential above at-grade car parking. Consequently, they present to the street as four storeys. However, in these cases, the building envelopes are greater in bulk than the proposed development as their upper levels maintain the same setback as lower levels. Moreover, there are examples of four storeys of residential levels at 220-230 Maroubra Road, approximately 130m to the west of the Site. On this site there is also a six storey building setback from the street. The proposed development is therefore considered to be consistent with other, similar RFBs along the street. With the recessed, upper level of Building A, the proposal is considered a better design outcome than some existing examples of RFBs along the street line.
Insufficient parking available.	The parking issue has been addressed above. Amended plans have seen an increase in car, motorbike and bicycle parking spaces in the proposed development. The site is well-serviced by public transport and is within walking distance to Pacific Square.
Overshadowing from Landscaping	Council’s Landscape Officer has recommended a number of site-specific conditions of consent to ensure that the proposed landscaping is appropriate for the site so as not to adversely affecting neighbouring properties.

Issue

Comment

Height variation unsatisfactory.

Overshadowing.

The non-compliant height issue has been addressed above and is considered satisfactory in this instance. The Applicant has submitted an amended Clause 4.6 request which justifies the variation to height within the amended scheme. It is considered that due to the minor nature of the height breach, no significant, adverse impacts will occur in terms of privacy, overshadowing or views on neighbouring properties.

Inconsistent height and built form with streetscape.

The proposed development is considered to be consistent with other similar residential flat buildings in the area as well as the desired future character of the area. Building A of the proposed development has a recessed, upper level. Being four levels above basement parking (below ground level), Building A presents as a four storey building to Maroubra Road. However, with the recessed, upper level, in conjunction with an articulated façade, the visual bulk of the building envelope is less imposing than a number of RFBs within the immediate area.

For example, 262, 270 and 295 Maroubra Road are all three storeys of residential above at-grade car parking. Consequently, they present to the street as four storeys. However, in these cases, the building envelopes are greater in bulk than the proposed development as their upper levels maintain the same setback as lower levels.

Moreover, there are examples of four storeys of residential levels at 220-230 Maroubra Road, approximately 130m to the west of the Site. On this site there is also a six storey building setback from the street.

The proposed development is therefore considered to be consistent with other, similar RFBs along the street. With the recessed, upper level of Building A, the proposal is considered a better design outcome than some existing examples of RFBs along the street line.

Insufficient parking available.

The parking issue has been addressed above. Amended plans have seen an increase in car, motorbike and bicycle parking spaces in the proposed development. The site is well-serviced by public transport and is within walking distance to Pacific Square.

Overshadowing from Landscaping

Council’s Landscape Officer has recommended a number of site-specific conditions of consent to ensure that the proposed landscaping is appropriate for the site so as not to adversely affecting neighbouring properties.

Key Issues

External Wall Height

Clause 4.4 of Part C2 of the Randwick DCP states that where the site is subject to a 12m building height limit under the LEP, a maximum external wall height of 10.5m applies. The northern building on site complies with the external wall height. However, the southern building has an external wall height of 12m at its tallest point.

Notwithstanding the non-compliance, the proposed wall height is considered satisfactory in this instance for the following reasons:

· The upper floor of the southern building is setback from lower levels to provide visual relief to the vertical massing of the external wall. Consequently, the external walls present as a compliant wall height to the street, given that the upper level has been minimised as far as practical by a reduction floor plate.

· The upper, set back level utilises a mixture of textures and materials that compliment lower levels and further reduce visual massing of the external walls.

· The non-compliant wall sections do not result in adverse impacts on neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing or privacy.

Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to development standard (floor space ratio)

The objectives of Clause 4.6 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) are as follows:

· To provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development,

· To achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.

The Applicant has submitted an amended Clause 4.6 exception to the floor space ratio standard prescribed by Clause 4.4 of RLEP. The proposed development has a floor space ratio of 0.96:1, which does not comply with the development standard. The proposed variation to the maximum floor space ratio standard is summarised in the table below.

	Floor Space Ratio and Variance
Development Standard	0.9:1
Proposal	0.96:1
Excess above RLEP Standard	6.6%

The Applicant has submitted a Clause 4.6 exception report to the floor space ratio standard prescribed by Clause 4.4. In summary, the exception has been considered with respect to the provisions of Clause 4.6 and is accepted on the grounds that:

· The size and scale of the proposed development will not adversely impact upon the existing streetscape or adjoining properties.

· Strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case given that the proposed built form promotes energy efficiency with its ‘2 tower, central court yard’ design as well as its scale being consistent with the desired future character of the locality.

· With no adverse impacts on neighbouring properties in terms of privacy, view loss and overshadowing, there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

· Variation of the development standard will be in the public interest because the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for the zone.

· Contravention of the development standard does not raise any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning.

· There will be no public benefit in maintaining the development standard.

Clause 4.6 – Exceptions to development standard (height of buildings)

The objectives of Clause 4.6 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) are as follows:

· To provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development,

· To achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.

The Applicant has submitted an amended Clause 4.6 exception to the height of buildings standard prescribed by Clause 4.3 of RLEP. The proposed development has a maximum building height of 12.73m at its tallest point, which does not comply with the development standard. The proposed variation to the maximum height of buildings standard is summarised in the table below.

	Height of Buildings and Variance
Development Standard	12m
Proposal	12.73m
Excess above RLEP Standard	730mm or 6%

The variation to building height is shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 | Western elevation of proposal showing extent of variation to building height in yellow.

Source: ABC Planning 2018

The Applicant has also submitted a Clause 4.6 exception report to the height of buildings standard prescribed by Clause 4.3. In summary, the exception has been considered with respect to the provisions of Clause 4.6 and is accepted on the grounds that:

· The objective of Clause 4.6(1)(a) will be satisfied.

· Given that the height breach is limited to a recessed upper level portion of the roof and no adverse amenity impacts occur as a result of the height non-compliance, strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in this case.

· The proposed scale of development is compatible with other, nearby flat buildings. Moreover, the height breach is not discernable from the public domain. Thus, there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

· Variation of the development standard will be in the public interest because the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for the development within the zone.

· Contravention of the development standard does not raise any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning.

· There will be no public benefit in strict application of the development standard.

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

That the application to demolish existing structures, construct a part 3/part 4 storey residential flat building in 2 building forms containing 12 dwellings, basement carparking for 16 vehicles, landscaping and associated works (variation to height and floor space ratio controls) be approved (subject to conditions) for the following reasons

· The proposed development satisfies the matters for consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended.

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

Detailed Assessment

1. Section 4.15 matters for consideration

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

Section 4.15 ‘Matters for Consideration’	Comments
Environmental Planning Instruments
Section 4.15 (1)(a)(i) – Provisions of any environmental planning instrument	Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Consolidation). The site is zoned Residential R3 Medium Density under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent. See table below for compliance with development standards. The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will provide the housing needs of the community whilst enhancing the aesthetic character and protecting the amenity of the local residents. The provision of State Environmental Planning Policies (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004, State Environmental Policy No. 55 – Remediation of land and State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development, with particular reference to the Apartment Design Guide.
Section 4.15(1)(a)(ii) – Provisions of any draft environmental planning instrument	Nil.
Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) – Provisions of any development control plan	The proposal generally satisfies the objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. See table below.
Section 4.15(1)(a)(iiia) – Provisions of any Planning Agreement or draft Planning Agreement	Not applicable.
Section 4.15(1)(a)(iv) – Provisions of the regulations	The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.
Section 4.15(1)(b) – The likely impacts of the development, including environmental impacts on the natural and built environment and social and economic impacts in the locality	The environmental impacts of the proposed development on the natural and built environment have been addressed in this report. The proposed development is consistent with the dominant residential character in the locality. The proposal will not result in detrimental social or economic impacts on the locality.
Section 4.15(1)(c) – The suitability of the site for the development	The site is located in close proximity to local services and public transport. The site has sufficient area to accommodate the proposed land use and associated structures. Therefore, the site is considered suitable for the proposed development.
Section 4.15(1)(d) – Any submissions made in accordance with the EP&A Act or EP&A Regulation	The issues raised in the submissions have been addressed in this report.
Section 4.15(1)(e) – The public interest	The proposal promotes the objectives of the zone and will not result in any significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be in the public interest.

2. Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

2.1 State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPS)

State Environmental Planning Policies (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 (SEPP BASIX) operates in conjunction with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 to ensure the effective attainment of the NSW Government sustainability targets. It applies in this case and thus the DA warrants the submission of a BASIX Certificate. The DA was accompanied by an appropriate BASIX Certificate and the plans annotated with commitments (Certificate Number 914132M and dated 13.04.2018). The certificate satisfactorily demonstrated that the energy and water efficiency targets can be met subject to the implementation of certain commitments. However, amended plans have since been received and therefore an updated BASIX certificate to reflect the plans, as amended, will be required and conditioned prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

State Environmental Policy No. 55 – Remediation of land

SEPP 55 aims to promote the remediation of contaminated land for the purposes of reducing the risk of harm to human health or any other aspect of the environment. Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the development application and the site and has confirmed that the site is suitable for its intended purpose subject to standard conditions of consent in the event of any discoveries.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development

The proposal is subject to SEPP 65 as the proposal is for a residential flat development and is part 3, part 4 storeys in height, containing more than 4 dwellings.

The proposal was referred to Council’s Design Excellence Panel (DEP) for Comment, who have advised the following.

Principle 1: Context and Neighbourhood Context

The site together with 254 Maroubra Road site comprise a joined lot with a street address of 252-254 Maroubra Road, Maroubra. The site is located between Galvin Street and Maroubra Road. The buildings sit on the site are two 1 storey semi-detached dwellings with Maroubra Road frontage and a two spaces garage along Galvin Street.

The site is located about 300m east of Holy Family Catholic Church and St Aidan’s Catholic Primary School and in an established commercial area within 500m of the Maroubra Junction Local Centre. The site has good access to amenities such churches, schools, banks, and is just over 1km from Maroubra Beach.

Maroubra Road is one of the main commercial strips of the Maroubra town centre strategically located across Anzac Parade. Main Shopping Centres are located at the junction of Anzac Parade and Maroubra Road. The road reserve is more than 20m wide that allows for two lanes of carriageways at each direction and both sides have one lane for parking which provide good transport access to the site.

Along Maroubra Road, the buildings surrounding the site are generally 2 to 4 storeys, up to 11 storeys at the Maroubra Junction. In this area of the block between Gavin Street and Maroubra Road there is a significant green space with mature trees between buildings facing either street.

Principle 2: Scale and Built Form

The scheme is configured as two pavilions, one higher along Maroubra Road and one lower along Galvin Street, essentially retaining the open space amenity of the mid-block area in the neighbourhood. This is commendable, however it is noted that the pavilions project slightly beyond adjacent walls along this space. There is a minor height breach for the front pavilion but the rear pavilion is below the height limit. Upper level floors to each of the pavilions are treated as roof elements. The heights proposed are acceptable to the Panel.

The front setback roughly aligns with the adjacent buildings while the rear setback is set at 9m. Side setbacks have generally been set at 2m although window projections reduce this to 1.25m at some locations. These projections facilitate cross ventilation, but run continuously up the building face above the first floor level significantly reducing the setback along parts of the building. It is noted that they have not been calculated in the FSR calculation.

Principle 3: Density

Allowable density is 0.9:1 for the site. The scheme is proposed at 0.98:1 which is approximately 10% over the allowable. Modifications to the design of the building within the side setbacks should be undertaken which may reduce the overall GFA proposed for the site.

Principle 4: Sustainability

Further considerations:

- Rooms on upper levels should have ventilating skylights to provide cross ventilation. This is especially important in upper level bathrooms.

- Consideration should be given to solar hot water heaters and PV panels.

- Water should be harvested, stored, treated and re-used throughout the development, in gardens, and for WC’s and laundries.

- Ceiling fans for bedrooms and living areas - these should be marked on the plans. They are missing on some living areas.

- Roof slabs should be provided with foam insulation covered with pebble ballast to create effective thermal comfort to the top floor apartments if no solar array is used.

Principle 5: Landscape

No drawing by a qualified landscape architect was viewed by the Panel. The architectural drawings however contain some landscape information. Additional landscape should be proposed for the centre common area. Further information about tree species, etc needs to be provided to ascertain if the scheme fulfils its potential in retaining the central block amenity.

Principle 6: Amenity

The apartments generally provide good amenity with cross ventilation. 3D solar views of the living areas indicate that balconies will generally receive good light. Further information on solar access to living spaces should be provided. Living spaces face north and balcony widths are provided for the full width of the living spaces.

Principle 7: Safety

The configuration of the ground level does not provide for good street surveillance with its major blank walls. Consideration should be given to opening up this area, It was also noted that escape from the lift lobbies adjacent to units 3 and 4 is problematic. A reorganization of this stair/elevator arrangement may also facilitate opening up the ground level and provide a better entrance lobby arrangement.

The entry to the rear pavilion occurs in a recess behind a projecting stair that comes up from the garage and requires passing by on a narrow walkway. Consideration should be given to reorganizing this stair to eliminate the recess and allow a more generous passage way to the rear pavilion.

Principle 8: Housing Diversity and Social Interaction

The scheme is supported in principle by the Panel.

Principle 9: Aesthetics

The Panel supports the general approach to the materiality of the project, but notes that the colour selection chosen for the materials is provides for a very dark building. This is especially evident in the rendering on the front cover of the drawing set. The upper portion of the building appears heavy in contrast to the lighter concrete base. Material colours should be revised to provide a more varied palette that better integrates the overall building form. The identity of distinct pavilions on the site could be reinforced with differing base building colours.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The scheme provides a reasonable approach to the development of the site and an appropriate massing that preserves the central amenity of the block.

Some improvements should be undertaken that include elimination of wing projections in the side setbacks, providing for a more open and welcoming ground level interface with Maroubra Road and reorganizing the stair and lift arrangement at the front of the Maroubra Road Building to improve safety and surveillance.

The colour scheme should provide for a lighter appearance and more distinction between the two pavilions.

Planner’s Comment:

Amendments to the proposal were made as a result of these comments and accordingly the proposal now generally satisfies the matters raised. The Design Excellence Panel did not request to review the application once amendments were made. The following non-standard condition is recommended to any consent:

D) The colour scheme shall be revised to provide for a lighter appearance and more distinction between the two pavilions to ensure the building’s appearance is compatible with the streetscape.

Apartment Design Guide

An assessment has been carried out in accordance with Part 3: Siting the Development and Part 4: Designing the Building of the Apartment Design Guide against the design criteria requirements. Any non-compliance to the design criteria includes a merit-based assessment as per the design guidance of the Apartment Design Guide.

Clause	Requirement	Proposal	Compliance
Part 3: Siting the Development
3A -1	Site Analysis
	Each element in the Site Analysis Checklist should be addressed.	Site analysis is considered to be satisfactory.	Yes
3B-1	Orientation
	Buildings along the street frontage define the street, by facing it and incorporating direct access from the street (see figure 3B.1).	The proposed units are oriented to the primary frontage of Maroubra Road and the secondary frontage at rear, Galvin Street. Pedestrian access is provided at both street frontages.	Yes
	Where the street frontage is to the east or west, rear buildings should be oriented to the north.	Lot is orientated to the north.	Yes
	Where the street frontage is to the north or south, overshadowing to the south should be minimised and buildings behind the street frontage should be oriented to the east and west.	Overshadowing to the south is acceptable.	Yes
3B-2	Orientation
	Living areas, private open space and communal open space should receive solar access in accordance with sections 3D Communal and public open space and 4A Solar and daylight access.	Solar access requirements will be achieved for the development above the 70% minimum requirement. The design orientates the living areas to maximise solar access. The communal open space is located with good solar access and follows a pattern of central courtyard (non-building) areas along the adjoining lots.	Yes
	Solar access to living rooms, balconies and private open spaces of neighbours should be considered.	Adjoining neighbours receive at least three hours of solar access.	Yes
	Where an adjoining property does not currently receive the required hours of solar access, the proposed building ensures solar access to neighbouring properties is not reduced by more than 20%.	Adjoining neighbours receive at least three hours of solar access.	Yes
	If the proposal will significantly reduce the solar access of neighbours, building separation should be increased beyond minimums contained in section 3F Visual privacy.	The proposal does not significantly reduce the solar access of neighbours as the lots are orientated north/south.	Yes
	Overshadowing should be minimised to the south or down hill by increased upper level setbacks.	The northern building is lower than the southern building and is compliant with the 12 m height control. This minimizes overshadowing to neighbours.	Yes
	A minimum of 4 hours of solar access should be retained to solar collectors on neighbouring buildings.	No solar collectors were observed on adjoining properties.	N/A
3D-1	Communal and Public Open Space
	Communal open space has a minimum area equal to 25% of the site (see figure 3D.3)	Given that the site is narrow, this is an acceptable outcome. The individual units are provided with large private open space areas which are accessible and generally receive good solar access. The two-tower development proposal allows for a ‘continuation’ of centrally located, open spaces along the street. Therefore, this is an acceptable outcome.	Satisfactory
	Developments achieve a minimum of 50% direct sunlight to the principal usable part of the communal open space for a minimum of 2 hours between 9 am and 3 pm on 21 June (mid winter).	The proposal meets the requirement.	Yes
3E-1	Deep Soil Zones
	Deep soil zones are to meet the following requirements: Site Area: less than 650m²= 7% of Site area.	The proposal includes adequate areas of deep soil zones (18%).	Yes
3F-1	Visual Privacy
	Separation between windows and balconies is provided to ensure visual privacy is achieved. Minimum required separation distances from buildings to the side and rear boundaries are as follows: Up to 12m (4 storeys) – Habitable rooms and balconies = 6m, non-habitable rooms = 3m	The setbacks are acceptable. All Apartments are orientated to the front or the rear of the site. Side Boundary windows have been screened or incorporate ‘pop-out’ wings that face north to minimise privacy impacts whilst allowing for solar penetration.	Yes
3J-1	Bicycle and Car Parking
	The minimum car parking requirement for residents and visitors is set out in the Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, or the car parking requirement prescribed by the relevant council, whichever is less. The car parking needs for a development must be provided off street	The proposal provides 16 car spaces, 7 bicycle spaces and 1 motor bike space and is within an accessible area close to public transport, shops and services.	Satisfactory
Part 4: Designing the Building
4A	Solar and Daylight Access
	Living rooms and private open spaces of at least 70% of apartments in a building receive a minimum of 2 hours direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm at mid winter in the Sydney Metropolitan Area and in the Newcastle and Wollongong local government areas	100% of units meet the requirement	Yes
	A maximum of 15% of apartments in a building receive no direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm at mid-winter	All apartments receive some direct sunlight.	Yes
4B	Natural Ventilation
	At least 60% of apartments are naturally cross ventilated in the first nine storeys of the building. Apartments at ten storeys or greater are deemed to be cross ventilated only if any enclosure of the balconies at these levels allows adequate natural ventilation and cannot be fully enclosed	All apartments have cross ventilation.	Yes
4C	Ceiling Heights
	Measured from finished floor level to finished ceiling level, minimum ceiling heights are: Habitable Rooms – 2.7m Non-habitable – 2.4m	A 2.7m floor to ceiling height for habitable rooms is indicated on plans.	Yes
4D	Apartment Size and Layout
	Apartments are required to have the following minimum internal areas: Studio - 35m2 1 bedroom - 50m2 2 bedroom - 70m2 3 bedroom - 90m2 The minimum internal areas include only one bathroom. Additional bathrooms increase the minimum internal area by 5m² each	Smallest 1 bed unit = 53.20m² Smallest 2 bed unit = 73.70m² Smallest 3 bed unit = 94m²	Yes
	Every habitable room must have a window in an external wall with a total minimum glass area of not less than 10% of the floor area of the room. Daylight and air may not be borrowed from other rooms	All habitable rooms comprise of a window opening for the purposes of light and will not have an area less than 10% of the floor area of the room. For the purposes of ventilation all apartments have multiple aspects.	Yes
	Habitable room depths are limited to a maximum of 2.5 x the ceiling height	All units comply.	Yes
	In open plan layouts (where the living, dining and kitchen are combined) the maximum habitable room depth is 8m from a window	All units comply.	Yes
	Master bedrooms have a minimum area of 10m² and other bedrooms 9m² (excluding wardrobe space	All units comply.	Yes
	Bedrooms have a minimum dimension of 3m (excluding wardrobe space	All bedrooms have a minimum dimension of 3m. Unit 12, Bed 3 has partial non-compliance of 100mm however the room is still considered fit for purpose.	Yes
	Living rooms or combined living/dining rooms have a minimum width of: • 3.6m for studio and 1 bedroom apartments • 4m for 2 and 3 bedroom apartments	The dimensions are generally acceptable.	Yes
4E	Apartment Size and Layout
	All apartments are required to have primary balconies as follows: Studio apartments 4m² 1 bedroom apartments 8m² 2m dim. 2 bedroom apartments 10m² 2m dim. 3+ bedroom apartments 12m² 2.4m dim. The minimum balcony depth to be counted as contributing to the balcony area is 1m	POS areas are considered adequate. Amended plans have increased the size of several balconies to meet the 2m minimum width requirement.	Yes
	For apartments at ground level or on a towerium or similar structure, a private open space is provided instead of a balcony. It must have a minimum area of 15m² and a minimum depth of 3m	Terraced areas at ground floor level are considered fit for purpose.	Satisfactory
4F	Common Circulation and Spaces
	The maximum number of apartments off a circulation core on a single level is eight	Maximum 2 units of circulation cores on any given level.	Yes
4G	Storage
	In addition to storage in kitchens, bathrooms and bedrooms, the following storage is provided: Studio apartments 4m³ 1 bedroom apartments 6m³ 2 bedroom apartments 8m³ 3+ bedroom apartments 10m³ At least 50% of the required storage is to be located within the apartment	Storage areas are provided in basement at the end of each car space. Internal spaces provide areas for storage.	Satisfactory

2.2 Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

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

The proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the zone in that the proposal provides a variety of housing types, with a mixture of apartment sizes and number of bedrooms. The proposal is not considered to be incompatible with the established or desired future character of the surrounding locality. The built form, as proposed, provides for the housing needs of the community within a medium density residential environment. The amenity of neighbours and future residents will be protected through high quality architectural design features that limit the opportunity for overlooking or aural privacy. The increase of the number of dwellings from 2 to 12 on the site is considered to align with the expectations of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

The following Clauses of RLEP 2012 apply to the proposal:

Description	Council Standard	Proposed	Compliance (Yes/No/NA)
Clause 2.7 Demolition requires consent	Demolition	The Applicant has sought consent to demolish the existing buildings.	Yes
Clause 4.3 Height of Building (Maximum)	12m	12.76m	No – the provisions of Clause 4.6 have been addressed.
Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)	0.9:1	0.96:1	No – the provisions of Clause 4.6 have been addressed.

Clause 4.6: Variation to development standard – Building Height

The proposal contravenes the maximum building height development standard contained in Clause 4.3(2) of RLEP 2012. The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012. The variation is summarised in the table below:

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

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

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

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

The concurrence of the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment must also be obtained for development that contravenes a development standard. However, pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Secretary under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 18-003 (dated 21 February 2018) the concurrence of the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment under clause 4.6(4) (b) of the RLEP 2012 may be assumed in certain cases.

In relation to the matters required to be demonstrated by sub clause (3) there are various ways that may be invoked to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary as discussed by Chief Justice Preston of the NSW Land and Environment Court in the case of in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827. Although the Wehbe case was decided in relation to State Environmental Planning Policy No 1-Development Standards ("SEPP 1") and not clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012 it remains of some assistance in relation to identifying the ways in which an applicant may demonstrate that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

Has the applicant’s written request adequately addressed that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

In the Wehbe case Justice Preston said the most commonly invoked way to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary is to demonstrate that the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard.

The objectives of the floor space ratio for the site are set out in clause 4.3 of the RLEP as follows:

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

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

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

In addition, the objectives of Zone R3 are relevant to the proposed development and read as follows:

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

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

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

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

· To protect the amenity of residents.

· To encourage housing affordability.

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

The applicant’s written justifications outline the following arguments for departure from the standard:

Council’s Assessment Officer’s Clause 4.6 Assessment:

In assessing the proposed variation against the objectives of the height of buildings Standard and the objectives of the R3 zone, it is considered that the submitted justification substantiates that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

In terms of the variation to the maximum building height standard, the amenity of residents in the vicinity and the broader context of the area will not be adversely impacted by the additional height. The proposal will not directly result in any significant adverse impacts on the adjoining residential properties or the streetscape in terms of perceived bulk, scale and view loss, overshadowing or privacy impacts. In particular, given the height variation is limited to the recessed, upper level of Building A, from most view points in the public domain, the proposed height variation would be indiscernible from that of a compliant building envelope.

Moreover, the height breach is limited to the southern portion of the Site, meaning that overshadowing impacts are avoided as most shadows fall across a road throughout the day, more than the western and eastern neighbouring properties.

It has been demonstrated that the proposed scale will be appropriate and well-articulated within the context. In terms of the objectives of the R3 zone, the proposed residential flat building will be in line with the desired built form within the zone and provides 12 additional dwellings in a mix of designs without amenity impacts on adjoining properties.

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

The applicant’s written request has successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. As discussed above, the proposed variation to building height is minor in the overall context of the Site and built form, it being limited to the upper portion of a recessed, roof form at the southern portion of the Site.

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is not inconsistent with the objectives of height of buildings and the R3 zone objectives.

The proposal is not inconsistent with the relevant zone objectives in that:

· The proposal will provide 12 dwellings within a medium density residential environment.

· The proposal includes a mix of one bedroom, two bedroom and three bedroom units in varying footprints.

· The amenity of residents is protected for both the future occupants and surrounding dwellings, with potential impacts such as visual amenity, privacy and solar access addressed.

· The proposed scale of development is compatible with the desired future character of the area.

· The proposal will provide 12 new dwellings to the market to ease the demand.

· The size, bulk and scale of the proposed development is considered commensurate with the site’s zoning, planning controls, lot size and surrounding built form context.

Does the Council have delegation to exercise the concurrence function of the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for development that contravenes a development standard? If so:

(a) whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and

(b) the public benefit of maintaining the development standard.

Comments:

Pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Secretary under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 18-003 (dated 21 February 2018) the concurrence of the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed to the approval of development consent for a development that contravenes the development standard for height of buildings, clause 4.3 of RLEP 2012.

Variation from the adherence to the height of buildings standard on this occasion is considered to be of benefit to the orderly use of the site and there is no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance.

The proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning.

Clause 4.6: Variation to development standard – Floor Space Ratio

The proposal contravenes the maximum building height development standard contained in Clause 4.4 of RLEP 2012. The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012. The variation is summarised in the table below:

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

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

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

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

As mentioned above, the concurrence of the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment under clause 4.6(4) (b) of the RLEP 2012 may be assumed in certain cases.

As mentioned above, there are various ways that may be invoked to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary as discussed by Chief Justice Preston of the NSW Land and Environment Court in the case of in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827.

Has the applicant’s written request adequately addressed that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

The objectives of the floor space ratio for the site are set out in clause 4.4 of the RLEP as follows:

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

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

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

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

In addition, the objectives of Zone R3 are relevant to the proposed development and read as follows:

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

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

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

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

· To protect the amenity of residents.

· To encourage housing affordability.

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

The applicant’s written justifications outline the following arguments for departure from the standard:

Council Assessment Officer’s Clause 4.6 Assessment:

In general, the objectives of clause 4.4 Floor space ratio seek to ensure that the scale of development is compatible with the surrounding context and that the building is well articulated and does not adversely impact on surrounding developments. The Applicant’s Clause 4.6 has adequately demonstrated that the proposed scale will be appropriate and well-articulated within the context, citing similarly sized built forms as well as the planning standards contemplated by the relevant instruments. The Applicant has shown that the variation to the floor space ratio standard will not result in a greater impact than a compliant scheme and that, in this instance, the proposed variation is appropriate given the size and orientation of the site as well as surrounding built forms.

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

The applicant’s written request has successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. As discussed above, the proposal achieves the planning objectives for the locality; it fits in with the desired future character of the locality and it is considered to be representative of the orderly use of the site.

The proposed built form has been distributed across the site in an appropriate manner and is articulated in a suitable and compatible way. By separating the proposed buildings into two separate ‘towers’, the proposal respects the prevailing built forms along the street by continuing the centrally located, open spaces. Further, the separation of the two built forms increases energy efficiency by allowing for solar penetration and cross-ventilation to all units. The Applicant’s Clause 4.6 demonstrates that no adverse external impacts occur as a result of the excess in gross floor area.

Overall, the Applicant’s written request has provided adequate justification that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to vary the floor space ratio control, in this instance.

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is not inconsistent with the objectives of floor space ratio and the R3 zone objectives. The proposal is not inconsistent with the relevant zone objectives in that:

· The proposal will provide 12 dwellings within a medium density residential environment.

· The proposed development is well-articulated and in compatible with the desired future character of the area.

· The proposal is energy efficient in that it utilizes the north-south orientation of the site and allows for good solar access and 100% cross-ventilation.

· The proposal includes a mix of one bedroom, two bedroom and three bedroom units in varying footprints.

· The amenity of the residents is protected for both the future occupants and surrounding dwellings, with potential impacts such as visual amenity, privacy and solar access addressed.

· The proposal will not directly address housing affordability but will provide 12 new dwellings to the market to ease the demand.

(a) whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and

(b) the public benefit of maintaining the development standard.

Comments:

Variation from the strict application to the floor space ratio standard on this occasion is considered to be of benefit to the orderly use of the site and there is no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance.

The proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning.

3. Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013

The relevant provisions of the DCP are addressed below.

3.1 Section C2 Medium Density Residential

B7	Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access
3.	Parking & Service Delivery Requirements
	Control	Comment	Compliance
	Car parking requirements: 1space per 2 studios 1 space per 1-bedroom unit (over 40m2) 1.2 spaces per 2-bedroom unit 1.5 spaces per 3- or more bedroom unit 1 visitor space per 4 dwellings	17 spaces required. A total of 16 car spaces are provided. The 1 space shortfall is considered satisfactory in this instance given that the site is well serviced by public transport and in close proximity to shops and services.	Satisfactory
	Motor cycle requirements: 5% of car parking requirement	1 Motor cycle space provided.	Yes
4.	Bicycles
	Residents: 1 bike space per 2 units Visitors: 1 per 10 units	7 required. 7 Bicycle spaces provided	Yes
B11	Development in laneways nominated for road widening
	ii)The dedication to Council of a strip of land 4.57m in depth along the frontage of the lane for road widening purposes.	The Applicant has amended plans to allow for the future dedication of the Galvin Street frontage for road widening.	Yes.
C2	Medium Density Residential
2	Site Planning
2.1	Site Layout Options Site layout and location of buildings must be based on a detailed site analysis and have regard to the site planning guidelines for:  Two block / courtyard example  T-shape example  U-shape example  Conventional example	A site analysis plan has been provided.	Yes
2.2	Landscaped open space and deep soil area
2.2.1	Landscaped open space
	A minimum of 50% of the site area is to be landscaped open space.	421m² 55% proposed.	Yes
2.2.2	Deep soil area
	(i) 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 ADG requires a 7% minimum of deep soil. The proposed 18% deep soil exceeds the requirement of the ADG. The Applicant sought to address the car parking shortfall, brought about by Council’s request to dedicate the Galvin Street Verge as public land, by widening the basement below the Galvin Street Verge and increase parking capacity. This reduced the originally proposed amount of deep soil from 24% to 18%. In consideration of the Applicant’s willingness to dedicate the Galvin Street Verge as public land for Council’s future road widening as per Part B11 of the RDCP, as well as the benefit of increase in the number of basement car parking spaces, it is considered that 18% of deep soil is adequate. Moreover, a reduced amount of deep soil area is acceptable in this instance as it still provides over 7%, as is required by the ADG.	No – acceptable.
	(ii) Deep soil areas must be located at ground level, be permeable, capable for the growth of vegetation and large trees and must not be built upon, occupied by spa or swimming pools or covered by impervious surfaces such as concrete, decks, terraces, outbuildings or other structures.	Deep soil areas are provided at ground level.	Yes
	(iii) Deep soil areas are to have soft landscaping comprising a variety of trees, shrubs and understorey planting.	The landscape plan, prepared by Greenplan, dated 29/06/18, drawing number LSDA-201, 301 and 302 detail a variety of plant species and landscape elements. Council’s Landscape Officer has reviewed the proposal and their comments are provided below.	Yes – see comments of Landscaping, below.
2.3	Private and communal open space
2.3.1	Private open space
	Private open space is to be: (i) Directly accessible from the living area of the dwelling. (ii) Open to a northerly aspect where possible so as to maximise solar access. (iii) Be designed to provide adequate privacy for residents and where possible can also contribute to passive surveillance of common areas.	Private open spaces are provided directly off of living areas and face either north or south (front/rear) of the site. The separation between the two buildings proposed is considered adequate to avoid adverse privacy impacts between residents. Further, it is not anticipated that these POS will pose any adverse risk on the privacy of neighbouring properties due to the orientation of the site and the distance between properties.	Yes
	For residential flat buildings: (vi) Each dwelling has access to an area of private open space in the form of a courtyard, balcony, deck or roof garden, accessible from with the dwelling. (vii) Private open space for apartments has a minimum area of 8m2 and a minimum dimension of 2m.	All of the private open space areas comply.	Yes
2.3.2	Communal open space
	Communal open space for residential flat building is to be: (a) Of a sufficient contiguous area, and not divided up for allocation to individual units. (b) Designed for passive surveillance. (c) Well oriented with a preferred northerly aspect to maximise solar access. (d) adequately landscaped for privacy screening and visual amenity. (e) Designed for a variety of recreation uses and incorporate recreation facilities such as playground equipment, seating and shade structures.	The communal open space promotes passive surveillance by being located centrally on the site, below upper level balconies. Adequate landscaping and screening is provided and the natural orientation of the site allows for solar penetration to the space.	Yes
3	Building Envelope
3.1	Floor space ratio
	The floor space ratio for the site is 0.75:1	The proposal seeks approval for a floor space ratio of 0.96:1. Accordingly the provisions of Clause 4.6 have been considered.	No, see the Clause 4.6 assessment in key issues section.
3.2	Building height
	The site has a permissible building height of 12m.	The proposal includes a maximum building height of 12.76m	No, see the Clause 4.6 assessment in key issues section.
3.3	Building depth
	For residential flat buildings, the preferred maximum building depth (from window to window line) is between 10m and 14m. Any greater depth must demonstrate that the design solution provides good internal amenity such as via cross-over, double-height or corner dwellings / units.	The proposal complies.	Yes
3.4	Setbacks
3.4.1	Front setback (i) The front setback on the primary and secondary property frontages must be consistent with the prevailing setback line along the street. Notwithstanding the above, the front setback generally must be no less than 3m in all circumstances to allow for suitable landscaped areas to building entries. (ii) Where a development is proposed in an area identified as being under transition in the site analysis, the front setback will be determined on a merit basis. (iii) The front setback areas must be free of structures, such as swimming pools, above-ground rainwater tanks and outbuildings. (iv) The entire front setback must incorporate landscape planting, with the exception of driveways and pathways.	The proposal has adopted a front setback which is consistent with the prevailing setback line along the street. The front setback incorporates planting.	Yes
3.4.2	Side setback
	Residential flat building (i) Comply with the minimum side setback requirements stated below: - 14m≤site frontage width<16m: 2.5m (ii) Incorporate additional side setbacks to the building over and above the above minimum standards, in order to: - Create articulations to the building facades. - Reserve open space areas and provide opportunities for landscaping. - Provide building separation. - Improve visual amenity and outlook from the development and adjoining residences. - Provide visual and acoustic privacy for the development and the adjoining residences. - Ensure solar access and natural ventilation for the development and the adjoining residences. (iii) A fire protection statement must be submitted where windows are proposed on the external walls of a residential flat building within 3m of the common boundaries. The statement must outline design and construction measures that will enable operation of the windows (where required) whilst still being capable of complying with the relevant provisions of the BCA.	The side setbacks comply and satisfy the requirements of the ADG. All walls have been well articulated and provide good visual amenity. Amended plans have reduced the size of the ‘pop-out’ wing projections along side elevation to break up their perceived visual bulk, as per the recommendations of the DEP. The setbacks allow for cross ventilation and wherever possible, solar access.	Yes
3.4.3	Rear setback
	For residential flat buildings, provide a minimum rear setback of 15% (9.06m) of allotment depth or 5m, whichever is the greater. Rear setback may be varied where allotment abuts a laneway.	9m. The site has a secondary frontage to Galvin Street at the rear. The proposed rear setback is consistent with the setback line along Galvin Street, which is a laneway. This is considered satisfactory in this instance.	Yes
4	Building Design
4.1	Building façade
	(i) Buildings must be designed to address all street and laneway frontages. (ii) Buildings must be oriented so that the front wall alignments are parallel with the street property boundary or the street layout. (iii) Articulate facades to reflect the function of the building, present a human scale, and contribute to the proportions and visual character of the street. (iv) Avoid massive or continuous unrelieved blank walls. This may be achieved by dividing building elevations into sections, bays or modules of not more than 10m in length, and stagger the wall planes. (vi) Conceal building services and pipes within the balcony slabs.	The proposal incorporates a pedestrian entry point that faces Maroubra Road. Both frontages have balconies that face the street. All facades comprise of a mixture of textures, colours and materials that provide both horizontal and vertical articulation. No unrelieved blank walls are proposed.	Yes
4.2	Roof design
	(i) Design the roof form, in terms of massing, pitch, profile and silhouette to relate to the three dimensional form (size and scale) and façade composition of the building. (ii) Design the roof form to respond to the orientation of the site, such as eaves and skillion roofs to respond to sun access. (iii) Use a similar roof pitch to adjacent buildings, particularly if there is consistency of roof forms across the streetscape. (iv) Articulate or divide the mass of the roof structures on larger buildings into distinctive sections to minimise the visual bulk and relate to any context of similar building forms. (v) Use clerestory windows and skylights to improve natural lighting and ventilation of internalised space on the top floor of a building where feasible. The location, layout, size and configuration of clerestory windows and skylights must be sympathetic to the overall design of the building and the streetscape. (vi) Any services and equipment, such as plant, machinery, ventilation stacks, exhaust ducts, lift overrun and the like, must be contained within the roof form or screened behind parapet walls so that they are not readily visible from the public domain. (vii) Terraces, decks or trafficable outdoor spaces on the roof may be considered only if: - There are no direct sightlines to the habitable room windows and private and communal open space of the adjoining residences. - The size and location of terrace or deck will not result in unreasonable noise impacts on the adjoining residences. - Any stairway and associated roof do not detract from the architectural character of the building, and are positioned to minimise direct and oblique views from the street. - Any shading devices, privacy screens and planters do not adversely increase the visual bulk of the building. (viii) The provision of landscape planting on the roof (that is, “green roof”) is encouraged. Any green roof must be designed by a qualified landscape architect or designer with details shown on a landscape plan.	In response to comments provided by the DEP, the originally proposed mansard roof form has been replaced with a flat, pavilion-style roof from to match the building architectural style. This has worked to reduce the perceived visual bulk of the overall built form.	Yes
4.3	Habitable roof space
	Habitable roof space may be considered, provided it meets the following: - Optimises dwelling mix and layout, and assists to achieve dual aspect or cross over units with good natural ventilation. - Has a maximum floor space of 65% of the storey immediately below. - Wholly contain habitable areas within the roof space. - When viewed from the surrounding public and private domain, the roof form has the appearance of a roof. A continuous flat roof with habitable space within it will not satisfy this requirement. - Design windows to habitable roof space as an integrated element of the roof. - Submit computer generated perspectives or photomontages showing the front and rear elevations of the development.	Not proposed.	N/A
4.4	External wall height and ceiling height
	i) Where the site is subject to a 12m building height limit under the LEP, a maximum external wall height of 10.5m applies.	The northern building that faces Galvin Street complies. The proposed building facing Maroubra Road is non-compliant. This issue is discussed above under Key Issues.	No, see discussion under key Issues.
	(iii) The minimum ceiling height is to be 2.7m for all habitable rooms.	The ceiling height complies.	Yes
4.5	Pedestrian Entry
	(i) Separate and clearly distinguish between pedestrian pathways and vehicular access.	A clearly defined pedestrian entry is provided at Maroubra Road and Galvin Street.	Yes
	(ii) Present new development to the street in the following manner: - Locate building entries so that they relate to the pedestrian access network and desired lines. - Design the entry as a clearly identifiable element in the façade composition. - Integrate pedestrian access ramps into the overall building and landscape design. - For residential flat buildings, provide direct entries to the individual dwellings within a development from the street where possible. - Design mailboxes so that they are convenient to residents, do not clutter the appearance of the development at street frontage and are preferably integrated into a wall adjacent to the primary entry (and at 90 degrees to the street rather than along the front boundary). - Provide weather protection for building entries. Postal services and mailboxes (i) Mailboxes are provided in accordance with the delivery requirements of Australia Post. (ii) A mailbox must clearly mark the street number of the dwelling that it serves. (iii) Design mail boxes to be convenient for residents and not to clutter the appearance of the development from the street.	The entry is well designed and clearly identifiable. Mail boxes are proposed near the front entry point facing Maroubra Road. Standard consent conditions will ensure the street address is properly placed.	Yes
4.6	Internal circulation
	(i) Enhance the amenity and safety of circulation spaces by: - Providing natural lighting and ventilation where possible. - Providing generous corridor widths at lobbies, foyers, lift doors and apartment entry doors. - Allowing adequate space for the movement of furniture. - Minimising corridor lengths to give short, clear sightlines. - Avoiding tight corners. - Articulating long corridors with a series of foyer areas, and/or providing windows along or at the end of the corridor.	The circulation areas are open and receive cross ventilation.	Yes
	(ii) Use multiple access cores to: - Maximise the number of pedestrian entries along a street for sites with wide frontages or corner sites. - Articulate the building façade. - Limit the number of dwelling units accessible off a single circulation core on a single level to 6 units.	A single access core in each tower is acceptable in this instance.	Yes
4.7	Apartment layout
	(i) Maximise opportunities for natural lighting and ventilation through the following measures: - Providing corner, cross-over, cross-through and double-height maisonette / loft apartments. - Limiting the depth of single aspect apartments to a maximum of 6m. - Providing windows or skylights to kitchen, bathroom and laundry areas where possible. Providing at least 1 openable window (excluding skylight) opening to outdoor areas for all habitable rooms and limiting the use of borrowed light and ventilation.	The apartments have maximised natural light and ventilation due to the lot being a north/south orientation. The depth of the units has been limited. Skylights have been incorporated at the upper units of each building (roof skylights).	Yes
	(ii) Design apartment layouts to accommodate flexible use of rooms and a variety of furniture arrangements.	The proposal complies.	Yes
	(iii) Provide private open space in the form of a balcony, terrace or courtyard for each and every apartment unit in a development.	The proposal complies.	Yes
	(iv) Avoid locating the kitchen within the main circulation space of an apartment, such as hallway or entry.	The proposal complies.	Yes
4.8	Balconies
	(i) Provide a primary balcony and/or private courtyard for all apartments with a minimum area of 8m2 and a minimum dimension of 2m and consider secondary balconies or terraces in larger apartments.	The proposal complies.	Yes
	(ii) Provide a primary terrace for all ground floor apartments with a minimum depth of 4m and minimum area of 12m2. All ground floor apartments are to have direct access to a terrace.	The proposal complies.	Yes
4.9	Colours, materials and finishes
	(i) Provide a schedule detailing the materials and finishes in the development application documentation and plans. (ii) The selection of colour and material palette must complement the character and style of the building. (iv) Use the following measures to complement façade articulation: - Changes of colours and surface texture - Inclusion of light weight materials to contrast with solid masonry surfaces - The use of natural stones is encouraged. (v) Avoid the following materials or treatment: - Reflective wall cladding, panels and tiles and roof sheeting - High reflective or mirror glass - Large expanses of glass or curtain wall that is not protected by sun shade devices - Large expanses of rendered masonry - Light colours or finishes where they may cause adverse glare or reflectivity impacts (vi) Use materials and details that are suitable for the local climatic conditions to properly withstand natural weathering, ageing and deterioration. (vii) Sandstone blocks in existing buildings or fences on the site must be recycled and re-used.	The colours and finishes have been detailed in the architectural drawings and indicated on the elevations. There is a variety of finishes proposed. The materials selected will present an acceptable outcome for the building and break up the built form to reduce visual bulk. The following non-standard conditions recommended to ensure the colour selection is appropriate: d. The colour scheme shall be revised to provide for a lighter appearance and more distinction between the two pavilions to ensure the building’s appearance is compatible with the streetscape.	Yes, subject to conditions.
4.12	Earthworks Excavation and backfilling
	(i) Any excavation and backfilling within the building footprints must be limited to 1m at any point on the allotment, unless it is demonstrated that the site gradient is too steep to reasonably construct a building within this extent of site modification. (ii) Any cut and fill outside the building footprints must take the form of terracing following the natural landform, in order to minimise the height or depth of earthworks at any point on the site. (iii) For sites with a significant slope, adopt a split-level design for buildings to minimise excavation and backfilling.	The proposed excavation for the basement will be at a minimum of 1m from all boundaries. No other cut and fill has been indicated.	Yes
5	Amenity
5.1	Solar access and overshadowing
	Solar access for proposed development
	(i) Dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours sunlight in living areas and to at least 50% of the private open space between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.	All units meet the requirement.	Yes.
	(ii) Living areas and private open spaces for at least 70% of dwellings within a residential flat building must provide direct sunlight for at least 3 hours between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.	All units meet the requirement.	Yes
	(iii) Limit the number of single-aspect apartments with a southerly aspect to a maximum of 10 percent of the total units within a residential flat building.	No single aspect units are proposed.	Yes
	(iv) Any variations from the minimum standard due to site constraints and orientation must demonstrate how solar access and energy efficiency is maximised.	The site is orientated north/south and the proposal has maximised solar access and natural ventilation.	Yes
	Solar access for surrounding development
	(i) Living areas of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours access to direct sunlight to a part of a window between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. (ii) At least 50% of the landscaped areas of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight to a part of a window between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. (iii) Where existing development currently receives less sunlight than this requirement, the new development is not to reduce this further.	Overshadowing studies submitted by the applicant show that the neighbouring properties on both sides (west and east) of the Site will retain at least the minimum solar access required as per the RDCP controls.	Yes
5.2	Natural ventilation and energy efficiency
	(i) Provide daylight to internalised areas within each dwelling and any poorly lit habitable rooms via measures such as ventilated skylights, clerestory windows, fanlights above doorways and highlight windows in internal partition walls.	Skylights have been included to improve solar access. All habitable rooms include operable windows for ventilation.	Yes
	(ii) Sun shading devices appropriate to the orientation should be provided for the windows and glazed doors of the building.	The proposed roof slabs are insulated through gravel ballast covering to create effective thermal comfort to the top floor apartments.	Yes
	(iii) All habitable rooms must incorporate windows opening to outdoor areas. The sole reliance on skylight or clerestory windows for natural lighting and ventilation is not acceptable.	All bedrooms incorporate windows that open to outdoor areas.	Yes
5.3	Visual privacy
	(i) Locate windows and balconies of habitable rooms to minimise overlooking of windows or glassed doors in adjoining dwellings. (ii) Orient balconies to front and rear boundaries or courtyards as much as possible. Avoid orienting balconies to any habitable room windows on the side elevations of the adjoining residences. (iii) Orient buildings on narrow sites to the front and rear of the lot, utilising the street width and rear garden depth to increase the separation distance. (iv) Locate and design areas of private open space to ensure a high level of user privacy. Landscaping, screen planting, fences, shading devices and screens are used to prevent overlooking and improve privacy. (v) Incorporate materials and design of privacy screens including: - Translucent glazing - Fixed timber or metal slats - Fixed vertical louvres with the individual blades oriented away from the private open space or windows of the adjacent dwellings - Screen planting and planter boxes as a supplementary device for reinforcing privacy protection	The proposal adequately addresses visual privacy. All units are orientated to the rear or front boundary. Where there are windows or openings which address the side boundaries, ‘pop-out’ wing projections face north and top levels windows are setback with the upper level behind a balcony and balustrade. Adequate separation distances between buildings further mitigate visual privacy impacts.	Yes
5.4	Acoustic privacy
	(i) Design the building and layout to minimise transmission of noise between buildings and dwellings. (ii) Separate “quiet areas” such as bedrooms from common recreation areas, parking areas, vehicle access ways and other noise generating activities. (iii) Utilise appropriate measures to maximise acoustic privacy such as: - Double glazing - Operable screened balconies - Walls to courtyards - Sealing of entry doors	The proposal complies.	Yes
5.5	View sharing
	(i) The location and design of buildings must reasonably maintain existing view corridors and vistas to significant elements from the streets, public open spaces and neighbouring dwellings. (ii) In assessing potential view loss impacts on the neighbouring dwellings, retaining existing views from the living areas should be given a priority over those obtained from the bedrooms and non-habitable rooms. (iii) Where a design causes conflicts between retaining views for the public domain and private properties, priority must be given to view retention for the public domain. (iv) The design of fences and selection of plant species must minimise obstruction of views from the neighbouring residences and the public domain. (v) Adopt a balanced approach to privacy protection and view sharing, and avoid the creation of long and massive blade walls or screens that obstruct views from the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain. (vi) Clearly demonstrate any steps or measures adopted to mitigate potential view loss impacts in the development application.	No views are affected. Refer to discussion in ‘Submissions’ section.	Yes, see discussion in ‘Submissions’ section.
5.6	Safety and security
	(i) Design buildings and spaces for safe and secure access to and within the development.	The proposed stair/elevator arrangement at the Maroubra Road frontage has been amended to facilitate opening up of the ground level and to provide a better entrance lobby arrangement.	Yes
	(iii) For residential flat buildings, provide direct, secure access between the parking levels and the main lobby on the ground floor.	Stair and lift access is provided from the garage to the main entry at Building A (frontage to Maroubra). Building B has direct stair access to main lobby. Secure access will be provided to the garage and to the lobby.	Yes
	(vii) Control visitor entry to all units and internal common areas by intercom and remote locking systems.	A condition will be included to ensure this is provided.	Yes- subject to a condition.
	(viii) Provide adequate lighting for personal safety in common and access areas of the development.	A condition of consent will be included accordingly.	Yes – subject to a condition.
	(ix) Improve opportunities for casual surveillance without compromising dwelling privacy by designing living areas with views over public spaces and communal areas, using bay windows which provide oblique views and casual views of common areas, lobbies / foyers, hallways, open space and car parks.	The proposal will include casual surveillance opportunities with a number of windows and balconies overlooking the street frontages.	Yes
	(x) External lighting must be neither intrusive nor create a nuisance for nearby residents.	A condition of consent will be included accordingly.	Yes – subject to a condition.
	(xi) Provide illumination for all building entries, pedestrian paths and communal open space within the development.	A condition of consent will be included accordingly.	Yes – subject to a condition.
6.1	Location
	(i) Car parking facilities must be accessed off rear lanes or secondary street frontages where available.	Council’s Engineer has supported basement access from Maroubra Road in this instance. This is due to the slope of the site at the northern portion of the Site and the future road widening of Galvin Street Verge.	Yes
	(ii) The location of car parking and access facilities must minimise the length of driveways and extent of impermeable surfaces within the site.	The proposed basement garage is acceptable.	Yes
	(iii) Setback driveways a minimum of 1m from the side boundary. Provide landscape planting within the setback areas.	The proposal complies.	Yes
	(v) For residential flat buildings, comply with the following: (a) Car parking must be provided underground in a basement or semi-basement for new development. (b) On grade car park may be considered for sites potentially affected by flooding. In this scenario, the car park must be located on the side or rear of the allotment away from the primary street frontage. (c) Where rear lane or secondary street access is not available, the car park entry must be recessed behind the front façade alignment. In addition, the entry and driveway must be located towards the side and not centrally positioned across the street frontage.	The proposal includes a basement car park. Rear lane access is not appropriate in this instance given that the Galvin Street verge will be dedicated as public land for future road widening.	Yes
6.2	Configuration
	(i) With the exception of hardstand car spaces and garages, all car parks must be designed to allow vehicles to enter and exit in a forward direction.	Council’s Engineer has provided comments below and is supportive of the basement layout.	Yes
	(ii) For residential flat buildings, the maximum width of driveway is 6m. In addition, the width of driveway must be tapered towards the street boundary as much as possible.	Council’s Engineer has provided comments below and is supportive of the basement layout.	Yes
	(iv) Provide basement or semi-basement car parking consistent with the following requirements: (a) Provide natural ventilation. (b) Integrate ventilation grills into the façade composition and landscape design. (c) The external enclosing walls of car park must not protrude above ground level (existing) by more than 1.2m. This control does not apply to sites affected by potential flooding. (d) Use landscaping to soften or screen any car park enclosing walls. (e) Provide safe and secure access for building users, including direct access to dwellings where possible. (f) Improve the appearance of car park entries and avoid a ‘back-of-house’ appearance by measures such as: - Installing security doors to avoid ‘black holes’ in the facades. - Returning the façade finishing materials into the car park entry recess to the extent visible from the street as a minimum. - Concealing service pipes and ducts within those areas of the car park that are visible from the public domain.	A ventilation shaft is provided.	Yes
7	Fencing and Ancillary Development
7.1	Fencing
	(i) Fences are constructed with durable materials that are suitable for their purpose and can properly withstand wear and tear and natural weathering. (ii) Sandstone fencing must not be rendered and painted. (iii) The following materials must not be used in fences: - Steel post and chain wire - Barbed wire or other dangerous materials (iii) Expansive surfaces of blank rendered masonry to street frontages must be avoided.	The proposed fence design complements the building and will be acceptable.	Yes
7.2	Front Fencing
	(i) The fence must align with the front property boundary or the predominant fence setback line along the street.	The front fence will align with the front boundary and utilises appropriate materials that are considered durable. The front fence was amended to reflect the DEP comments and now provides a more open feel.	Yes
7.3	Side and Rear Fencing
	(i) The maximum height of side, rear or common boundary fences is limited to 1800mm, as measured from the ground level (existing). For sloping sites, the fence must be stepped to follow the topography of the land, with each step not exceeding 2200mm above ground level (existing). (ii) In the scenario where there is significant level difference between the subject and adjoining allotments, the fencing height will be considered on merits. (iii) The side fence must be tapered down to match the height of the front fence once pasts the front façade alignment. (iv) Side or common boundary fences must be finished or treated on both sides.	A 1.8m side and rear fence is proposed.	Yes
7.6	Storage
	(i) The design of development must provide for readily accessible and separately contained storage areas for each dwelling. (ii) Storage facilities may be provided in basement or sub floor areas, or attached to garages. Where basement storage is provided, it should not compromise any natural ventilation in the car park, reduce sight lines or obstruct pedestrian access to the parked vehicles. (iii) In addition to kitchen cupboards and bedroom wardrobes, provide accessible storage facilities at the following rates: (a) Studio apartments – 6m3 (b) 1-bedroom apartments – 6m3 (c) 2-bedroom apartments – 8m3 (d) 3 plus bedroom apartments – 10m3	Storage areas are provided within the basement and each unit provides opportunities for storage in a number of different locations.		Yes
7.7	Laundry facilities
	(i) Provide a retractable or demountable clothes line in the courtyard of each dwelling unit.	Ground level court yard includes a demountable clothes line. Internal laundry is provided for each unit.			Yes Yes
	(ii) Provide internal laundry for each dwelling unit.
7.8	Air conditioning units:
	· Avoid installing within window frames. If installed in balconies, screen by suitable balustrades. · Air conditioning units must not be installed within window frames.	The air-conditioning units are not proposed to be located within the windows.	Yes

4. Referral Comments

4.1 Environmental Health

The SEE states that “The subject site has a long history of residential occupation and it is therefore considered that no further investigation of contamination is required” Page 16.

Appropriate standard conditions to be recommended to address the acoustic and environmental amenity issues from the proposed development, particularly with regards to acoustics and any possible hazardous waste which may arise during demolition.

4.2 Development Engineer

Galvin Street Road widening Comments

Galvin Street has been identified for future road widening and under Section B11 of Council’s DCP the applicant is required (as part of the works) to dedicate a strip of land 4.57m wide along the full site frontage in Galvin Street.

The previously raised issues regarding the proposed visitor parking, permanent plantings and paving within the area of road dedication has been addressed with the deletions of these aspects on the amended plans. The two visitor spaces have been relocated to the basement.

The landscaping within this area will be subject to Council’s requirements. See civil works conditions.

PARKING COMMENTS

Vehicle Parking

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

· 1 space per 1 bedroom unit

· 1.2 space per 2 bedroom

· 1.5 spaces per 3 bedroom unit

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

The proposed development is for 12 units comprising of 2 x 3 bedroom, 7 x 2 bedroom & 3 x 1 bedroom units.

Parking required under DCP = (2 x 1.5) + (7 X 1.2) + (3 X 1) + 12/4 (visitor)

= 3.0 + 8.4 + 3.0 + 3.0(visitor)

= 17.4

= say 17 spaces (including 3 visitor spaces)

Parking Proposed = 16 spaces (including 2 visitor spaces)

The shortfall relates to the amount of visitor spaces only as the residential component has been fully complied with. In consideration of the shortfall it is noted the shortfall is very minor being 1 space (5.9%) only and the site is located in close proximity to public transport and local amenities. On street parking will also be available in front of the site on Maroubra Road. There are no objections to the minor shortfall in this instance.

Motorbike Parking

Motorbike Parking is to be provided at 5% of the vehicle parking requirement.

Motorbike Parking Required = 0.05 x 17

= 0.85

= say 1 space

Motorbike Parking proposed = 1 space (complies)

Bicycle Parking

For Flats/multi dwelling bicycle parking to be provided at 1 space per 2 units plus 1 visitor space per 10 units.

Bicycle Parking Required = 12/2 + 12/10

= 6 + 1.2

= say 7 spaces

Bicycle Parking proposed = 7 spaces (complies)

Comments on Access driveway

It is noted that the proposed access driveway does not comply with Clause 3.3a of Australian Standard 2890.1 in that it exceeds a grade of 1 in 20 (5%) within 6m of the front property alignment. The submitted plans indicate a grade of 5% for first 3m then a 2.5m length of 1 in 8 (12.5%) before steepening to 1 in 4 (25%) at 5.5m into the property. In consideration of sightlines, pedestrian safety, and similar recently approved developments, the proposed configuration will be acceptable in this instance.

The remainder of the basement carpark area, (including, but not limited to, the ramp grades, carpark layout and height clearances) are to be in accordance with the requirements of Australian Standard 2890.1:2004.

Service Authority Comments

Undergrounding of site feed power lines

At the ordinary Council meeting on the 27^th May 2014 it was resolved that;

The subject is located within 15m of a power pole on the same side of the street hence the above clause is applicable. A suitable condition has been included in this report.

Sydney Water Sewer

The submitted plans indicate the basement is proposed to be built over and in close proximity to the Sydney Water sewer line that runs west to east through the development site. The plans must be stamped by Sydney water prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

Flooding Comments

The site lies within the catchment for the recently completed and soon to be adopted Birds Gully Flood Study commissioned by Council. The study does not predict the site will be subject to flooding during major storm events and the site has not been tagged under Sec 10.7 of the Environmental planning and Assessment Act 1979 as being subject to flood related development controls. No flood related conditions are therefore applicable or required. Site drainage will be covered by standard drainage conditions.

Drainage Comments

1. The Planning Officer is advised that the submitted drainage plans should not be approved in conjunction with the DA, rather, the Development Engineer has included a number of conditions in this memo that relate to drainage design requirements. The applicant is required to submit detailed drainage plans to the certifying authority for approval prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

On site stormwater detention is required for this development.

The stormwater must be discharged (by gravity) either:

i. Directly to the kerb and gutter in front of the subject site in Maroubra Road; or

ii. Directly to the kerb and gutter in front of the subject site in Galvin St; or

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

Waste Management Comments

The applicant is required to submit to Council and have approved by Council’s Director Planning, a Waste Management Plan (WMP) detailing waste and recycling storage and disposal for the development site.

The plan shall detail the type and quantity of waste to be generated by the development; demolition waste; construction waste; materials to be re-used or recycled; facilities/procedures for the storage, collection recycling & disposal of waste and show how the on-going management of waste for the units will operate.

Comments on the number of Waste Bins

Appendix 3 in Part B6 of Council’s DCP specifies a waste bin requirement rate for residential flat buildings houses of 1 x 240L bin per 2 rooms for normal garbage and 1 x 240L bin per 2 rooms for recycling.

i.e. Garbage/recycling Bins Required = 12/2 = 6

6 x 240L bins for garbage + 6 x 240L bins for recycling

There are no specific requirements for green waste in Part B6 of the DCP however as some landscape areas are proposed it is recommended that a minimum of 2 x 240L bins also be provided for green waste.

Total Number of BINS required = 6 (normal) + 6 (recycling) + 2 (green waste)

= 14 x 240L BINS

Total Number of BINS proposed = 14 x BINS

The waste bin provision is satisfactory and no objections re raised.

Geotechnical Comments

The submitted geotechnical Report indicates that excavation will predominantly be in sand but may encounter rock within the excavation for the basement. No groundwater was encountered during the borehole investigation but some site seepage would be expected at the soil/rock interface especially during periods of wet weather. No long term monitoring of groundwater was carried out and Development Engineering is aware of groundwater issues in this vicinity (See past report for development at 260 Maroubra Road)

To ensure that any site seepage is not collected and constantly pumped out to the street gutter, conditions have been included in this report requiring tanking and waterproofing of the basement carpark. There must be no dry weather discharge of seepage water to Council’s Street gutter.

Tree Management Comments

The inspection of 25 June 2018 revealed a 4m x 4m Hibiscus tileaceus ‘Rubra’ (Ruby Hibiscus) on the Maroubra Road verge, in the narrow strip between the footpath and front property boundary, halfway across the width of the site (just in front of no.252) of good health and condition which is covered by Council’s DCP.

The plans (dwg DA100) show that as part of constructing a new basement level, the existing vehicle crossing will be maintained along the eastern site boundary, at such a setback that will allow its retention in the streetscape, being about 4m from its trunk, which is about at the eastern edge of its crown, so relevant conditions and a bond have been imposed to ensure this.

Both the trunk and crown of the larger Brush Box, that is also on public property, in front of no.256 to the east, is sited at such a distance from the site that no direct impacts should result, so conditions are not required.

Located centrally in the front setback, there is a mature, 8-10m tall Syagrus romanzoffianum (Cocos Palm), which is exempt from Council’s DCP due to its low landscape value, so can be removed as shown, and be replaced with a new feature tree as part of the new landscape scheme.

There is a variety of vegetation around the rear setback, being firstly, within the subject site, towards Galvin Street, a stand of deciduous, 6-10m tall trees (possibly Robinia psuedoacacia, Golden Robinia’s), comprising one against the rear site boundary, halfway across the width of the site, then a further two larger trees to its south, in the centre of the rear yard, which are regarded as a low value species given their ability to generate invasive sucker growth from their bases as well as spines on their branches, and given their direct conflict with the new footprint, can be removed as so as to allow for more desirable plantings to be provided in these future areas of private open space as part of the new landscape scheme.

Centrally in this rear yard is the sites most established specimen, being a 10m tall Ficus benjamina (Weeping Fig), which would provide screening and privacy between this site and those properties on higher ground on the northern side of Galvin Street; but while covered by the DCP and being in good health, is well known as being an invasive, aggressive and problematic species, regularly causing damage to private and public infrastructure due to their rapid growth rates and large size at maturity.

It was also observed to be in poor condition, as its crown is biased to the west, presumably due to competition from the other trees just to its east, but more importantly, both of its main vertical leaders (northeast-southwest) are included or ‘fused’ just above ground level, which is recognised as a structural fault that carries a higher risk of failure than properly formed branches, and provides justification for its removal on its own.

For these reasons, as well as its direct conflict with all aspects of the proposal, approval has been granted for its removal, and while this will result in the loss of this sites largest specimen, the quantity of canopy trees at this site will be drastically increased as part of the new planting regime, so is seen as an acceptable outcome in this case.

Beyond the northeast site corner, located wholly on the adjoining private property at 21 Galvin Street, close to the common boundary, there are two closely planted trees, being from north to south, a 5m tall Callistemon viminalis (Bottlebrush) then a larger, 6-7m tall Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda), which overhang the roadway as well as above the development site.

Both are covered by the DCP, with the both the trunk and crown of the Jacaranda displaying a bias to the north, with the Bottlebrush having been supressed by this larger, more dominant tree.

Council has a common law responsibility to ensure neither are affected by any works, with Council’s Development Engineer requiring that a 4.57m wide strip of land be dedicated to Council for future road widening purposes, the same as has already happened with both adjoining properties to the east and west, but as this will not involve any physical works at this point in time, with turf to simply be provided, at existing ground levels, no impact will arise from this component at all.

As the northeast corner of the basement will be on the far/southern side of the re-aligned rear boundary/road widening, a distance of at least 8.5m from the northeast site corner/trunks, this will provide sufficient physical separation to avoid any major root damage (outside of both of their SRZ’s), so only precautionary type conditions are required, along with those that permit clearance pruning where needed.

Similarly, beyond the northwest site corner, wholly on 15 Galvin Street, also close to the common boundary, but closer to the works, on the southern side of the road widening, there is a mature, 12m tall Phoenix canariensis (Canary Island Date Palm) which is an exotic species of good health and condition, is covered by the DCP, which is recognised as a landscape feature of the immediate area.

The same as described above also applies here for the road widening, so the only aspect that requires consideration is the possibility of root damage/disturbance arising from works associated with the northwest corner of the new basement level, with dwg DA100, rev C, showing that an offset of about 4m will be provided, which is outside of its SRZ, but would encroach within its TPZ.

However, the existing impervious surface created by the garage slab would have acted as a physical barrier to root growth to some degree, so any impact should be a manageable amount that this palm can sustain, particularly as the fibrous root system of this species is conducive to root pruning, and as such, relevant protection measures have been included.

Further south again, beyond the western site boundary, located in the northeast corner of the adjoining complex at 246-250 Maroubra Road, close to the common boundary, there is a stand of established trees that were observed to provide screening, privacy and amenity for several properties in the immediate area, comprising firstly, two 6m tall Syzygium paniculatum (Magenta Cherry’s), which are a desirable native species which appear in good health and condition, and are covered by the DCP.

The western wall of the basement will be setback 1m from the common boundary, which maintains the setback of the footprint of the existing dwelling, but in the case that roots are encountered during this component, relevant conditions have been provided, with the same also applying to the row of slightly smaller, closely planted screening trees that are further to the south, Buckinghamia celissima (Ivory Curl Flower), in the eastern side setback, closer to the common boundary.

Pruning of their eastern aspects will also be necessary given the extent of overhang, but given that both species are conducive to this, relevant conditions have been provided.

The larger, 10m tall Coastal Banksia and 6m Magnolia that are adjacent the Magenta Cherry’s are setback slightly further away from the boundary and works, but have still been included in the protection conditions as a precaution.

The Landscape Plans will require some amendments in order to be consistent with the most current set of architectural drawings, such as the treatment to be provided for the terraces fronting Galvin Street, as the previous hardstands have been replaced with road widening.

Recommendation

A. That the RLPP supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 4.3 and 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to height of buildings and floor space ratio respectively, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning & Infrastructure be advised accordingly.

B. That the RLPP, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 4.16 and 4.17 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 199/2018 for Demolition of existing structures, construction of a part 3/part 4 storey residential flat building in 2 building forms containing 12 dwellings, basement carparking for 16 vehicles, landscaping and associated works (variation to height and floor space ratio controls), at No. 252-254 Maroubra Road, Maroubra subject to the development consent conditions attached to this report, for the following reasons:

· The proposed development satisfies the matters for consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended.

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

Attachment/s:

1.⇩

RLPP Development Consent Conditions – DA/199/2018 - 252-254 Maroubra Road Maroubra

Randwick Local Planning Panel 22 November 2018

Development Application Report No. D96/18

Subject: 9 Carlton Street, Kensington (DA/92/2018)

Folder No: DA/92/2018

Author: Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer

Proposal: Amending DA to Development consent DA/304/2017 by alterations and additions to the third floor level of the approved residential flat building to convert the approved 2 studio dwellings into a 3 bedroom dwelling.

Ward: West Ward

Applicant: MKD Architects Pty Ltd

Owner: Ideal Kensington Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation: Approval



	Subject Site

	Submissions received Ù North
	Locality Plan

Executive summary

The application is referred to the Randwick Local Planning Panel (RLPP) as the development is subject to SEPP 65.

The subject application seeks to amend consent DA/304/2017 granted on 8 January 2018 under Section 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979. The proposal seeks to add floor area at third floor level converting the approved 2 x studio dwellings into 1 x 3 bed dwelling reducing the total number of dwellings from 8 down to 7 dwellings over four levels. The proposal maintains 10 parking spaces approved on site, communal open space and associated landscaping.

The table below shows the difference between the approved development and proposed amended development:

Approved	Proposed amending DA
2 x studio dwellings	0 x studios
1 x 1 bed dwelling	1 x 1 bed dwelling
5 x 2 bedroom	5 x 2 bedroom
1 x 3 bedroom	2 x 3 bedroom
10 parking spaces	10 parking spaces

The proposed alterations and additions add 31sqm at third floor level resulting in an FSR of 0.95:1 exceeding the approved FSR of 0.9:1 and the maximum pursuant to Clause 4.4 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The applicant has submitted an exception to the development standard under Clause 4.6 of the RLEP explaining that the additional floor area is largely contained within a reduced floor plate of the third floor level, it maintains setbacks from the envelope of the levels below and large parts of the additional floor area are predominately contained within an approved roof and will not result in any appreciable increase in adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties and nor will they detract from the streetscape character along Carlton Street.

The proposal includes additional floor area at third floor level that will have a height of 12.24m which exceed the maximum 12m height of buildings standard pursuant to Clause 4.3 of the RLEP. These additions include an eastern enclosure of an unroofed void area abutting the approved stairwell and studio unit, and floor and roof area at the north western corner of the front building form. The applicant has also submitted a Clause 4.6 exception to this development standard explaining the additional floor area whilst exceeding the standard is located at a part of the site such that it results in only minor additional overshadowing to the western elevation of No. 7 Carlton Street, no additional overshadowing to the eastern elevation of the residential flat building at No. 17 Carlton Street and is substantially setback from the street frontage such that there will be no appreciable adverse impacts on the streetscape character.

The proposal results in the parking demand increasing by 0.25 spaces and when rounded the deficiency will remain at 1 space a shortfall approved with DA/304/2017. Two parking spaces are allocated for the new three bedroom dwelling.

Overall, the applicant is considered to have provided well-founded arguments that the proposed alterations and additions despite exceeding the maximum FSR and Height of buildings standards do not result in any appreciable increase in adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties in relation to view loss, privacy or overshadowing and nor will they detract from the streetscape character and will continue to meet the objectives of the standards and the R3 Medium Density Residential Zone.

The application is recommended for approval.

Proposal

The proposal seeks to add floor area at third floor level converting the approved 2 x studio dwellings into 1 x 3 bed dwelling linked through a central corridor. The proposal allocates 2 tandem parking spaces at basement level.

Figure 1: Roof over third floor level shows three additional floor areas sought as part of this application. 1. Additional floor area and roof at the north western corner of the front building form, 2. Additional floor area by enclosure of a void with new roof filling in the currently approved roof surrounding and 3. Additional floor area by enclosure of hallway between living at right and bedrooms at left under roof approved in DA/304/2017.

Site Description and Locality

The site is currently occupied by a two-storey residential dwelling house with a detached garage to the rear lane. The site is of regular shape and has dual frontages of 15.24m to Carlton Street (southern boundary) and Carlton Lane (northern boundary) respectively, a western side boundary of 40.29m and an eastern side boundary of 40.29m. The site area is 613.90m².

The locality is characterised by a mixture of residential buildings including single detached dwellings, townhouses and low, medium and high rise residential flat buildings. In addition, educational, recreational and commercial land uses are within close proximity to the site.

The neighbouring property to the east is No 7 Carlton Street which contains a two storey attached terrace house containing two dwellings. Vehicle access is gained from the northern portion of the site via Carlton Lane. The neighbouring property to the west is No 17 Carlton Street, a consolidated lot which contains two x four storey residential flat buildings. Vehicle access is via both Carlton Street and Carlton Lane, with at grade parking. The site contains pockets of vegetation within side setback areas. To the north of the site, on the opposite side of Carlton Lane, is No 8 Abbotford Street. The property contains part of a pair of two storey semi-detached dwellings. Vehicular access is via Carlton Lane with garages located at the rear of the site. The site is located approximately 120 metres to the east of the Kensington commercial area along Anzac Parade, a retail and commercial centre, and is also in close proximity to Centennial Park and the Randwick Racecourse. The site has good transport accessibility due to the site’s proximity to Anzac Parade which connects to the Sydney CBD and connections to greater Sydney.

Photo 1: Street view of subject site and neighbouring properties at left 17 Carlton Street containing a four storey walk up flat building and at right No. 7 Carlton Street a two storey terrace house.

Relevant history

DA/304/2017 approved on 8 January 2018, Section 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979, the demolition of all existing structures and construction of a four-storey residential flat building containing 1 x 1 bedroom dwelling, 6 x 2 bedroom dwellings and 1 x 3 bedroom dwelling for a total of 8 dwellings, common open space, basement parking for 10 vehicles, 1 motorcycle and bicycle storage and associated landscape works.

Submissions

· 16 Abbotford Street Kensington

· Resident with unknown address

Issue	Comment
Is there a limit as to how many adjustments that can be made to the development application	There is no limit to the number of modifications that can be submitted under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.
What measures is Council taking to ensure preservation of Kensington Heritage buildings such as the house at 9 Carlton Street.	Broad context: Council’s original heritage study was carried out in the late 1980s and this assessment formed the basis for the listing contained in the Heritage Schedule that was adopted with a new Local Environmental Plan (LEP) gazetted in 1993. Subsequent heritage reviews in 1994 and 2012 resulted in more properties added to the Heritage Schedule and the extensive West Kensington heritage conservation area were added in 1998. As well as the West Kensington heritage conservation area, there are over 50 heritage items within the suburb of Kensington. Additions or deletions from the Randwick LEP Heritage Schedule or changes to heritage conservation areas are made following detailed investigations carried out by a heritage professional, in accordance with established heritage significance criteria, including historical and aesthetic significance. Generally only the most intact examples of buildings of a particular period are listed. The process of making an amendment to the LEP to make changes to the Heritage Schedule follows standard procedures including reporting to Council, public exhibition and referral to the Department of Planning and Environment for gazettal. A previous 2005 LEP amendment proposal for additional heritage conservation areas, including a significant number of properties in Kensington, failed due to community opposition and lack of Councillor support. 9 Carlton Street: The building located at No. 9 Carlton Street whilst not a heritage item contains elements of historical value and to that effect condition 2 was imposed under DA/304/2017 to maintain the historical record value by requiring a brief archival recording of the property to be presented to Council and the Local History Collection of Randwick City Library.
Why would Council approve a DA to knock down the Federation building of historical value still in excellent condition?	The historical value of the Federation building was considered in the assessment of the development application. See comments above.

Key Issues

Clause 4.6 exceptions to development standards

– Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

The proposed development exceeds the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) development standard pursuant to Clause 4.4 of the RLEP. The proposed floor space ratio is 0.95:1, which exceeds the maximum 0.9:1 FSR standard; a variation of 5.5%. The applicant has submitted an exception to the development standard as required under Clause 4.6 of the RLEP and assessed in the detailed assessment section further below in this report.

In short, the applicant provides well-founded planning arguments stating that the maximum standard for the FSR should not be strictly applied and that the overall bulk and scale of development will satisfy the objectives of the standard and the R23 medium density zone under the RLEP. The variation from the standard is relatively minor and the bulk and scale associated with the additional floor area is located well away from the street frontage and the side boundaries and will not detract from the streetscape character or result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring properties having regard to view loss, overshadowing, privacy or visual amenity.

- Height of buildings

The proposed development exceeds the maximum height of buildings development standard of 12m pursuant to Clause 4.3 of the RLEP. The proposed additional floor area is 12.24m exceeding the maximum height of buildings standard representing a variation up to 2%. The proposed alterations and additions also exceed the 10.5m maximum external wall height control in Part C2 Medium Density Residential controls in the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP). The plan below shows the area where the height of buildings standard is exceeded.

Figure 2: The green shaded area shows the 12m maximum height of the building standard in the RLEP is exceeded by 240mm surrounding by approved roof. Also shown in red shading is the proposed additional floor area which exceeds the 10.5m maximum external wall height control in Part C2 Medium Density Residential of the RDCP 2013.

The applicant has submitted a Clause 4.6 exception to the development standard and assessed as acceptable in the detailed section of this report. In brief, it is considered that the overall height and external wall height proposed as part of this application will satisfy the relevant objectives of the standard and the external wall height control for the following reasons:

· The proposed additional wall and overall height associated with the additional floor area at the eastern rear side of the approved development (shown shaded green in figure 2 above) encloses a void area contained within the approved surrounding roof plane and only results in very minor increase in shadowing impacts on a blank wall of the eastern elevation of No. 7 Carlton Street.

· The proposed additional floor area at the western side of the approved third floor level (shown in red shading in figure 2 above) whilst extending the approved roof plane continues to be recessed from the levels below and only results in very minor additional shadowing of a blank wall of the neighbouring flat building to the west at No. 17 Carlton Street.

· The proposed additional floor area enclosing and converting the approved open stair into a hallway connecting the front and rear floor areas does not result in any additional adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties as the approved roof currently covers this additional floor area and it is located behind the approved stair and lift access areas.

The elements that exceed the height of the buildings standard and external wall height control in the RDCP are located in a part of the site where they are not immediately noticeable from street level and continue to be recessed from the levels below. They also contain setbacks well in excess of the minimum setback controls required for medium density development under the RDCP such that the non-compliant overall heights and external wall heights will not detract from the streetscape character nor do they result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring properties having regard to view loss, overshadowing, privacy or visual amenity.

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

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

· 3B–2 Orientation – Solar access to neighbouring property

The ADG requires 6m setbacks for the purposes of providing solar access to neighbouring properties under objective 3B-2 of the ADG. The table below shows the varying setbacks of the development and compliance with the ADG 6m setback control and 2.5m minimum side setback control in Part C2 of the RDCP relating to Medium Density forms of development:

Additional floor area	Setback	ADG	Part C2 of RDCP
Hallway enclosure at western side	7.6m	Yes	Yes
Hallway enclosure at eastern side	5.87m	No – see assessment further below	Yes
Eastern side enclosure of void	3.5m	No – see assessment further below	Yes
Western side	4.74m	No – see assessment further below	Yes

The ADG requires a merit assessment against its design guidance. The ADG acknowledges difficulty in achieving compliance with 6m separation control particularly where the pattern of development in suburban areas contain older flat buildings and detached houses are located on narrow allotments with established existing narrow setbacks. The subject site and surrounding area exhibit such a pattern of development which displays setbacks more consistent with the RDCP side setback controls for medium density development. As such, it is considered more appropriate to apply the 2.5m minimum side setback RDCP control applicable to the proposed development.

The proposed development has minimum side setbacks well in excess of the 2.5m minimum applicable in Part C2 of the RDCP. Despite this, the proposed development exceeds the maximum FSR and height of building standards and therefore it is important to consider in finer detail the additional overshadowing impacts on the neighbouring properties associated with the additional area sought as part of this amending DA. These include

· Hallway enclosure at eastern side – opposite No. 7 Carlton Street

· Western side additional floor area – additional impact to 17 Carlton street

· Eastern side enclosure of void – additional impact to 7 Carlton street

· Hallway enclosure at eastern side – opposite No. 7 Carlton Street

The hallway enclosure at the eastern side opposite No. 7 Carlton Street does not result in additional overshadowing impacts on the neighbouring property opposite at No. 7 Carlton Street due to the stair access already containing a roof over.

· Western side additional floor area – opposite No. 17 Carlton street

The additional floor area at the north western corner of the third floor level results in additional shadowing of a portion of the western elevation of No. 17 Carlton Street. No windows are overshadowed by the additional floor area.

Figure 1: Eastern elevation of No. 17 Carlton Street shows the additional shadow will be cast over a small portion of wall with no window openings impacted.

· Eastern side enclosure of void – additional impact to 7 Carlton street

The enclosed void area at the north eastern corner of the third floor level will cast additional winter solstice overshadowing at 1pm, 2pm and 3pm to a portion of the western wall of No. 7 Carlton Streets - shown in the figure below. No additional over shadowing will be cast onto window openings of this neighbours property as shown in the three images below:

Figure 3: Additional overshadowing to the eastern wall of No. 7 Carlton Street caused by the enclosure of the void at third floor level.

Overall, the additional floor area sought as part of this amending DA results in very minor additional overshadowing on the neighbouring properties and will still maintain at least two hours of solar access to the neighbours private open space and habitable living room windows between 9am and 3pm during the winter solstice.

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

That the application to carry alterations and additions to the third level of approved 4 storey residential flat building to convert the 2 studio dwellings into one 3 bedroom dwelling be approved (subject to conditions) for the following reasons:

· The proposed development satisfies the matters for consideration under Section 4.15 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended.

· The proposal as amended and conditioned is consistent with the objectives in SEPP 65 and the design guidance contains in the Apartment Design Guide (ADG).

· The requirements of Clause 4.6 have been met and that the Height of Buildings in Clause 4.3 of RLEP 2012 can be varied.

· The requirements of Clause 4.6 have been met and that the FSR in Clause 4.4 of RLEP 2012 can be varied.

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

Detailed Assessment

1. Section 4.15 matters for consideration

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

Section 4.15 ‘Matters for Consideration’	Comments
Section 4.15 (1)(a)(i) – Provisions of any environmental planning instrument	See the relevant sections of this report.
Section 4.15(1)(a)(ii) – Provisions of any draft environmental planning instrument	Nil.
Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) – Provisions of any development control plan	The proposal generally satisfies the objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013 (RDCP). See table below and where necessary key issues section of the report.
Section 4.15(1)(a)(iiia) – Provisions of any Planning Agreement or draft Planning Agreement	Not applicable.
Section 4.15(1)(a)(iv) – Provisions of the regulations	The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.
Section 4.15(1)(b) – The likely impacts of the development, including environmental impacts on the natural and built environment and social and economic impacts in the locality	The environmental impacts of the proposed development on the natural and built environment have been addressed in this report. The proposal will not result in detrimental social or economic impacts on the locality.
Section 4.15(1)(c) – The suitability of the site for the development	The proposed development as amended is suitable for the site.
Section 4.15(1)(d) – Any submissions made in accordance with the EP&A Act or EP&A Regulation	The issues raised in the submissions have been addressed in this report.
Section 4.15(1)(e) – The public interest	The proposed development does not result in any significant additional adverse impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring properties The proposal provides housing within an envelope that responds appropriately to the existing approved development and surrounding area. The proposal will not result in any significant or unreasonable adverse impact on the streetscape character or on the amenity of neighbouring properties at No. 7 and 17 Carlton Street. The proposal will be in the public interest.

2. Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

2.1 State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPS)

State Environmental Planning Policy (BASIX) 2004

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

State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality Residential Flat Buildings

SEPP 65 aims to promote quality design of Residential Flat Buildings (RFB’s). The proposal is subject to the policy as it involves the conversion of two studio dwellings into a three bedroom dwelling to a building being 3 storeys and more in height containing four or more dwellings. As required by SEPP 65, the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) is considered by way of an assessment below. The ADG is used in conjunction with SEPP 65 and is a guide containing objectives, design criteria and design guidance to improve the planning and design of residential apartment development in NSW. Having regard to the ADG, an assessment is carried out against the key design criteria requirements in Part 3: Siting the Development and Part 4: Designing the Building. The ADG provides guidance about how development proposals can achieve the nine design quality principles identified in SEPP 65. Any non-compliance to the design criteria includes a merits based assessment as per the design guidance of the Apartment Design Guide.

Council’s Design Excellence Panel (DEP) commented and these have been addressed in the referral section further below and throughout this report. The amending application is accompanied by a design verification statement from the original architect indicating that the design quality principles set out in SEPP 65 are achieved.

Clause

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

Part 3: Siting the Development

3A-1

Site Analysis

Each element in the Site Analysis Checklist should be

addressed

Site analysis plan is adequate.

3B-2

Orientation

Living areas, private open space and communal open space should receive solar access in accordance with sections 3D Communal and public open space and 4A Solar and daylight access

Complies

Solar access to living rooms, balconies and private open spaces of neighbours should be considered

Solar access is retained to the private open space of the neighbour’s to the east and west.

The living rooms and balconies of neighbouring properties will not be impacted by the proposed additional floor areas.

Complies.

See also key issues section of this report.

Overshadowing should be minimised to the south or downhill by increased upper level setbacks

Carlton Street is located to the south.

Complies.

A minimum of 4 hours of solar access should be retained to

solar collectors on neighbouring buildings

Complies.

3F-1

Visual Privacy

Separation between windows and balconies is provided to ensure visual privacy is achieved. Minimum required separation distances from

buildings to the side and rear boundaries are as follows:

Building height	Habitable rooms and balconies	Non-habitable rooms
Up to 12m (4 storeys)	6m	3m
Up to 25m (5-8 storeys)	9m	4.5m
>25m (9+ storeys)	12m	6m

Note: Separation distances between buildings on the same site should combine required building separations depending on the type of room (see figure 3F.2 showing separation of 6m plus 6m between habitable components.

The proposal has varying side setbacks that do not meet the minimum 6m control in the ADG.

Does not comply, however the areas of open space are not changing from approved under DA/304/2017. Moreover, the conversion into a three bedroom dwelling mans that the balcony at the northern end of the site will be attached to bedrooms which are a less intense use than that associated with the originally approved studio.

3J-1

Bicycle and Car Parking

The minimum car parking requirement for residents and visitors is set out in the Guide to Traffic Generating Developments, or the car parking requirement prescribed by the relevant Council, whichever is less.

The car parking needs for a development must be provided off street.

1 space shortfall which is the same as the approved shortfall in DA/304/2017

See Development Engineers comments.

Part 4: Designing the Building

Solar and Daylight Access

Living rooms and private open spaces of at least 70% of apartments in a building receive a minimum of 2 hours direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm at mid-winter in the Sydney Metropolitan Area and in the Newcastle and Wollongong local government areas.

71.4% of apartments will have two hours of solar access between 9am and 3pm.

Complies.

A maximum of 15% of apartments in a building receive no direct sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm at mid-winter

Natural Ventilation

At least 60% of apartments are naturally cross ventilated in the first nine storeys of the building.

All apartments are cross ventilated.

Complies.

Apartment Size and Layout

Apartments are required to have the following minimum internal areas:

Apartment Type	Minimum Internal Area
Studio	35m2
1 bedroom	50m2
2 bedroom	70m2
3bedroom	90m2

5sqm for each additional bathroom

114sqm

Complies.

Every habitable room must have a window in an external wall with a total minimum glass area of not less than 10% of the floor area of the room. Daylight and air may not be borrowed from other rooms

Complies.

In open plan layouts (where the living, dining and kitchen are combined) the maximum habitable room depth is 8m from a window

Complies.

Master bedrooms have a minimum area of 10m2 and

other bedrooms 9m2 (excluding wardrobe space)

Complies.

Bedrooms have a minimum dimension of 3m (excluding wardrobe space)

Complies.

Living rooms or combined living/dining rooms have a

minimum width of:

· 4m for 3 bedroom apartments

Complies.

Private open space and balconies

All apartments are required to have primary balconies as follows:

Dwelling Type	Minimum Area	Minimum Depth
Studio Apt.	4m2	-
1 bed Apt.	8m2	2m
2 bed Apt.	10m2	2m
3+ bed Apt.	12m2	2.4m

The minimum balcony depth to be counted as contributing to the balcony area is 1m.

Complies.

Storage

In addition to storage in kitchens, bathrooms and bedrooms, the following storage is provided:

Dwelling Type	Storage Size Volume
Studio	4m3
1 bedroom	6m3
2 bedroom	8m3
3bedroom	10m3

At least 50% of the required storage is to be located within the apartment

Ample space within the unit will ensure sufficient storage space in the dwelling.

Complies.

2.2 Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

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

The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will contribute to the character of the locality and sufficiently minimises adverse impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring properties having regard to solar access, views, visual amenity and privacy.

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

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

0.9:1

0.95:1 (5.7%)

No see Clause 4.6 exception below

Height of Building (Maximum)

12m

12.24m (RL42.034-RL29.79)

No, see Clause 4.6 exception below.

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to a Development Standard

a) Building Height

The proposal contravenes the maximum height of buildings development standard contained in clause 4.3 (2) of RLEP 2012. The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012.

Height

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

	Building Height
Development Standard	12m
Proposal	12.24m (RL42.034 – RL29.79) associated with the enclosure of the void at third floor level.
Excess above RLEP Standard	2%

Assessment against the applicant’s written justifications for the contravention of the development standard

Pursuant to clause 4.6(3) of RLEP 2012 development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

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

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

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

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

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

In relation to the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3) there are various ways that may be invoked to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary as discussed by Chief Justice Preston of the NSW Land and Environment Court in the case of in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827. Although the Wehbe case was decided in relation to State Environmental Planning Policy No 1—Development Standards (“SEPP 1”) and not clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012 it remains of some assistance in relation to identifying the ways in which an applicant may demonstrate that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

Has the applicant’s written request adequately addressed that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

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

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

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

The applicant’s written justifications in the main outline the following key arguments for the departure from the standard:

Officer’s assessment of the Clause 4.6 exception

The applicant Clause 4.6 exception addresses the objectives height of buildings standard and the relevant objectives of the height of buildings standard and the R3 Medium Density Residential zone in which the site and neighbouring properties are located. The applicant key reasons are paraphrased where necessary under each objective.

Objectives of height of buildings standard

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

The proposal maintains the overall built form being four storey’s with the third level setback from the envelope of the floor levels below. The additional roof area the subject of the exception is setback around 13.8m from the Carlton Street frontage and behind an approved built form and will not be immediately noticeable and as noted by the applicant will match the height of the existing approved development.

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

The subject site is not in a Heritage Conservation area or in the vicinity of a heritage item.

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

As explained by the applicant the small section of roof is recessed from the levels below and does not result in any significant overshadowing of the neighbouring property at No. 7 Carlton Street in mid-winter. The additional floor area make no appreciable increase in visual impact on the neighbouring properties and does not result in any additional overlooking as the balconies have already been approved as part of the original consent in DA/304/2017.

Objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential Zone

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

The developments medium density is maintained providing a three bedroom penthouse dwelling will service the housing needs of the community.

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

Although two studios are lost sought to be replaced with a three bedroom dwelling resulting in only two and three bedroom dwellings, the proposal maintains variety in the layout of both the two and three bedroom apartments ensuring the objective is satisfied.

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

Not applicable

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

The additional floor area, the subject of non-compliance, maintains the four storey built form with the upper level recessed from the levels below. This design scheme is indicative of the medium density built form envisaged by the standards in the RLEP and the specific building design guidelines in the RDCP. The additional floor area and the overall built form will continue to contribute to the desired character of the Carlton Street streetscape. It is also important to consider that this DA does not alter the aesthetics from that originally approved which was widely supported by the Design Excellence Panel raising the point that the setback and different treatment to the roof top …. is supported as a strategy.

· To protect the amenity of residents.

The amenity of future and neighbouring residents will be suitably protected.

· To encourage housing affordability.

The development will deliver a mixture of dwelling sizes and layouts to satisfy the needs of different households and levels of affordability.

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

Not applicable

Overall, the applicant’s written request has successfully demonstrated that compliance with the development standard in question is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case with regards to the relevant objectives of the standard and the R3 medium density zone.

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

The proposal continues to satisfy the planning objectives for the locality and fits in with the scale and character of development in the immediate and wider context, being a four storey scale with the upper level recessed from the levels below. The three bedroom dwelling will serve the housing needs of the community and insisting on a compliant height in this part of the development would be incongruous with the approved surrounding roof form. The resultant height does not result in any significant or unreasonable adverse impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring properties largely resulting in a neutral planning outcome having regard to impacts on views, overshadowing, privacy or visual amenity.

Overall, it is considered that he applicant’s written request inclusive additional information submitted with the application pertaining to overshadowing have successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

1. Consistency with the objectives of the Height of Buildings standard in the RLEP:

The justifications provided in the applicant’s written request and assessment above justify that the variation sought is limited to only small part of the development and will maintain consistency with the objectives of the height of buildings standard in the RLEP.

Importantly, the height of the development as a whole is limited to small part of the development set well back from street frontage ensuring limited visibility from street level. The non-compliant element has a side setback further from an existing approved roof form that already exceeds the maximum standard whereby additional shadowing will have neutral impact on the western elevations of the neighbouring dwelling opposite at No. 7 Carlton Street and the visual impact will be hardly noticeable.

Overall, the proposed development will satisfy the objectives of the height of buildings standard in the RLEP.

2. Consistency with the objectives of the R3: Medium Density Zone

Importantly, the housing needs of the community will continue to be catered for with a variety of housing types and layouts provided with the amending scheme. The development maintains a part three part four storey scale whereby the non-compliant element will fit into and integrate with the approved building form whereby the encroachment above the height standard will not deter from the schemes contribution to the desired streetscape character of the area. The non-compliant elements do not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring properties having regard to overshadowing, views, privacy or visual impacts.

Overall, it is considered that the key matters raised in the applicant’s submission and the assessment carried out against the amended application demonstrate that the resultant environmental impacts of the proposal will be acceptable.

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

· The variation for a better planning outcome

The proposal does not result in any significant change to the existing bulk and scale and will continue to achieve the planning objectives for the locality. The proposal will fit in with the scale and character of development in the context of the medium density zone, whilst minimising potential adverse impacts on surrounding properties.

The assessment carried out above in relation to the objectives of the building height standard and the R3 Medium Density Residential zone demonstrates that there are sufficient environmental grounds to permit the building height variation.

The additional height area does not compromise the desired streetscape character, whereby the proposed development provides side setbacks that are in compliance with the RDCP controls for medium density development.

The variation to the building height development standard will not contribute to any significant or unreasonable adverse environmental impacts to the neighbouring properties in terms of solar access, privacy and views subject to appropriate conditions.

The variation to the height standard is a well-considered response to the development envisaged by the standards for the zone, the sites orientation and the bulk and scale of medium density development along Carlton Street. If the development were made to comply it would not result in any appreciable difference in overall benefits to the neighbouring properties and will in most likelihood result in substandard floor to ceiling heights of the top level apartment – a poorer planning outcome. In terms of visibility from neighbouring properties, the proposed development whilst viewable will align and integrate with the approved eastern elevation creating a more streamlined appearance. Maintaining a recessed built form behind existing approved building elements ensures a neutral outcome in terms of view loss. The conversion from two studio dwellings into one three bedroom dwelling means the terrace at the southern end is now associated with bedrooms a less intense use reducing potential visual and acoustic privacy impacts.

Does the Council have delegation to exercise the concurrence function of the Department of Planning and Environment for development that contravenes a development standard? If so:

(a) Whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and

(b) The public benefit of maintaining the development standard.

· Consistency with the State and Regional Planning Policies

The proposed development seeks development consent under the relevant environmental planning policies of the state and local government area. An assessment of these policies and standards has been carried out throughout this report. The key issues have been identified and assessed as satisfactory in this report and the proposed development is considered to have achieved consistency with the state and regional planning policies.

The proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. Therefore, strict adherence to the numerical standard will be unnecessary in this case for maintaining the medium density housing form envisaged under the LEP for the locality.

· The variation is within the Public Interest

The proposal promotes the objectives of the zone and will not result in any significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality.

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

Variation from the adherence to the numerical building height standard will not be detrimental to the orderly use of the site and there is no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance.

The proposal is considered to be in the public interest.

Clause 4.6 Exception to a Development Standard - Floor Space Ratio

The proposal contravenes the maximum floor space ratio of buildings development standard contained in clause 4.4 (2) of RLEP 2012. The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012.

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

	Floor Space Ratio (FSR)
Development Standard	0.9:1 (552.51sqm)
Proposal	0.95:1 (584sqm)
Excess above RLEP Standard	5.7% (31.49sqm)

Assessment against the applicant’s written justifications for the contravention of the development standard

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

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

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

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

The concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure must also be obtained for development that contravenes a development standard. However, pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 18–003 (dated 21 February 2018) the concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Environment under clause 4.6(3) & (4) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed in certain cases.

In relation to the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3) there are various ways that may be invoked to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary as discussed by Chief Justice Preston of the NSW Land and Environment Court in the case of in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827. Although the Wehbe case was decided in relation to State Environmental Planning Policy No 1—Development Standards (“SEPP 1”) and not clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012 it remains of some assistance in relation to identifying the ways in which an applicant may demonstrate that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

Has the applicant’s written request adequately addressed that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

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

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

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

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

The applicant’s written justifications in the main outline the following key arguments for the departure from the standard:

Officer’s assessment of the Clause 4.6 exception

The main considerations are whether the additional floor area across the whole of the site satisfies the key objectives of the FSR standard and the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

The objectives are assessed as follows:

Floor space ratio objectives

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

The proposed development provides a commensurate scale with that envisaged by the standard which envisages a three storey built form with habitable roof level above contained within reduced floor area at the top level. From street level, the development maintains this scale whereby the additional floor area comprising the infill of the roof void, additional area at the south western corner of the front building element and enclosure of the hallway are setback behind approved built forms and will not be immediately discernible from street level.

The proposed development will both contribute to and be compatible with the desired future character of the area.

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

The proposed development contains well-articulated elements supported by distribution of floor area, setbacks and massing along all elevations that is reflected in the minimal impacts resulting from the additional floor area which is largely contained within the approved roof profile.

The proposed three bedroom dwelling maintains excellent sustainability achieving good levels of solar access and cross ventilation throughout. Photovoltaic cells on the roof approved as part of the original development will maintain very good levels of energy efficiency.

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

The proposed development does not detract from contributory buildings in a conservation area or any heritage items.

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

The amenity of neighbouring properties are considered to have been reasonably protected having regard to the development’s visual bulk and overshadowing. The proposed new windows associated with the development are associated with relatively low use rooms or direct sightlines within the site and will not result in any significant adverse visual and acoustic privacy impacts on the neighbouring properties. The additional floor area is predominately located behind and within approved built forms which largely means a neutral impact on views from surrounding properties.

R3 Zone: Medium Density Residential objectives

The key objectives of the R3 zone are listed as follows:

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

The seven apartments will continue to provide for the housing needs of the community within the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

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

The proposed development provides varying apartment sizes and or layouts which provides a degree of housing choice. The size and layout of the three bedroom dwelling will provide a high level of amenity, functionality and flexibility that will provide for the housing needs of the community within the wider area.

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

The surrounding precinct comprises a mix of single dwellings and older style flat buildings within the visual catchment of the site. The proposed development has a modern architectural style and the part three part four storey contemporary built form provides a sense of depth and openness as viewed from both the neighbouring properties, within the streetscape.

The proposed additional floor area is distributed appropriately amongst the approved built form and materials will be consistent with the aesthetics and use of materials commended by the Design Excellence Panel.

The proposed additional floor area will continue to contribute to the existing and future streetscape character.

• To protect the amenity of residents.

The amenity of residents having regard to privacy, solar access, visual amenity and views are considered to be suitably maintained or at least marginally impacted. The proposed distribution of the additional floor area largely within the confines of a recessed third floor will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on the future occupants or neighbouring residents.

• To encourage housing affordability.

The development will continue to deliver a mixture of dwelling sizes and layouts to satisfy the needs of different households and levels of affordability.

Overall, with respect to the R3 medium density zone objectives and the floor space ratio standard, it is considered that the amendments made to the application and supporting material have appropriately justified that the strict compliance with the floor space ratio development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

Therefore, it is considered that the Clause 4.6 exception to the development standard can be supported as a good planning outcome.

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

The applicant has provided sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard having regard to the demonstrating that the non-compliant floor area will both satisfy the objectives of the standard and the zone. The applicant’s written request highlights the merits of the proposal both in terms of the location of the additional floor area resulting in largely minimal impacts on the streetscape character and on neighbouring properties. In this respect, the additional floor area is largely located within the envelope approved as part of the original scheme in DA/304/2017 and the more noticeable floor area at the south western corner of the front building form result in largely negligible adverse overshadowing impacts. In addition, the scheme maintains larger than minimum separation required for medium density development under the RDCP.

Overall, it is considered that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

1. Consistency with the objectives of the Floor space ratio standard in the RLEP:

Importantly, the additional floor area as a whole is limited to small parts of the third floor level largely contained behind and within approved roof forms. The additional floor and roof form at the south western corner of the front building is more evident however it remains setback behind approved floor area some 13.8m from the front boundary along Carlton Street. This floor area is also 4.75m from the western side boundary and recessed from the floor below complying with the building design controls in the RDCP for medium density residential development.

Overall, the proposed development will satisfy the objectives of the floor space ratio standard in the RLEP.

2. Consistency with the objectives of the R3: Medium Density Zone

The justifications provided in the applicant’s written request and assessment above justify that the variation sought will maintain consistency with the objectives of the R3 medium density residential zone in the RLEP.

Importantly, the housing needs of the community will continue to be catered for with a variety of housing types and layouts provided with the amending development. The development maintains a part three part four storey scale whereby the additional floor area will align and integrate with the approved building elevations and will contribute to the desired streetscape character of the area. The additional floor area do not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring properties having regard to overshadowing, views, privacy or visual impacts.

Overall, it is considered that the key matters raised in the applicant’s submission and the assessment carried out demonstrate that the resultant environmental impacts of the proposal will be acceptable.

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

· The variation for a better planning outcome

The proposed additional floor area and conversion of two studio dwellings into a three bedroom dwelling does not result in any significant change to the existing bulk and scale and will continue to achieve the planning objectives for the locality. The additional floor area will fit in with and largely maintains the approved part three part four storey scale of the development approved in DA/304/2017.

The assessment carried out above in relation to the objectives of the floor space ratio standard and the R3 Medium Density Residential zone demonstrates that there are sufficient environmental grounds to permit the floor space ratio variation.

The additional floor maintains a recessed third floor level substantially setback from the front and side boundaries and will not detract from the existing streetscape or the desired streetscape character.

The variation to the floor space ratio standard will not contribute to any significant or unreasonable adverse environmental impacts on the neighbouring properties in terms of solar access, privacy, visual amenity and views.

The variation to the floor space ratio standard is a well-considered response to the development envisaged by the standards for the zone, the sites orientation and the bulk and scale of medium density development along Carlton Street. If the development were made to comply it would not result in any appreciable difference in overall benefits to the neighbouring properties and will in most likelihood result in substandard sized three bedroom apartment (83sqm) – a poorer planning outcome. In terms of visibility from neighbouring properties, the proposed development whilst viewable will align and integrate with the approved eastern and western elevation creating a more streamlined appearance. The additional floor area remains recessed built form behind existing approved building elements and the levels below ensuring a neutral outcome in terms of view loss. The conversion from two studio dwellings into one three bedroom dwelling means the terrace at the southern end is now associated with bedrooms a less intense use which reduces the potential visual and acoustic privacy impacts on neighbouring properties.

Does the Council have delegation to exercise the concurrence function of the Department of Planning and Environment for development that contravenes a development standard? If so:

(c) Whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and

(d) The public benefit of maintaining the development standard.

· Consistency with the State and Regional Planning Policies

· The variation is within the Public Interest

The proposed development will be suitable for the site, and the applicant’s written justification provides sufficient environmental planning grounds for contravening the floor space ratio standard is considered to be well founded and therefore supportable. The proposal promotes the objectives of the zone and will not result in any significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality. Variation from the adherence to the numerical floor space ratio standard will not be detrimental to the orderly use of the site and there is no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance.

The proposal is considered to be in the public interest.

3. Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013

The relevant provisions of the DCP are addressed below.

B7	Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access
3.	Parking & Service Delivery Requirements	Proposal	Compliance
	Car parking requirements: 1space per 2 studios 1 space per 1-bedroom unit (over 40m2) 1.2 spaces per 2-bedroom unit 1.5 spaces per 3- or more bedroom unit 1 visitor space per 4 dwellings	1 car space shortfall	Does not comply, see Development Engineering comments
C2	Medium Density Residential
2	Site Planning	Proposal	Compliance
2.1	Site Layout Options Site layout and location of buildings must be based on a detailed site analysis and have regard to the site planning guidelines for: · Two block / courtyard example · T-shape example · U-shape example · Conventional example	Maintains U shaped	Complies
2.3	Private and communal open space
2.3.1	Private open space	Proposal	Compliance
	Private open space is to be: (i) Directly accessible from the living area of the dwelling. (ii) Open to a northerly aspect where possible so as to maximise solar access. (iii) Be designed to provide adequate privacy for residents and where possible can also contribute to passive surveillance of common areas.		Complies
	For residential flat buildings: (vi) Each dwelling has access to an area of private open space in the form of a courtyard, balcony, deck or roof garden, accessible from with the dwelling. (vii) Private open space for apartments has a minimum area of 8m2 and a minimum dimension of 2m.		Complies
3	Building Envelope
3.1	Floor space ratio
	0.9:1	0.95:1	See Clause 4.6 exception above.
3.2	Building height
	12m	12.24m	See Clause 4.6 exception above.
3.3	Building depth
	For residential flat buildings, the preferred maximum building depth (from window to window line) is between 10m and 14m. Any greater depth must demonstrate that the design solution provides good internal amenity such as via cross-over, double-height or corner dwellings / units.		Complies
3.4	Setbacks	Proposal	Compliance
3.4.2	Side setback
	Residential flat building (i) Comply with the minimum side setback requirements stated below: - 14m≤site frontage width<16m: 2.5m (ii) Incorporate additional side setbacks to the building over and above the above minimum standards, in order to: - Create articulations to the building facades. - Reserve open space areas and provide opportunities for landscaping. - Provide building separation. - Improve visual amenity and outlook from the development and adjoining residences. - Provide visual and acoustic privacy for the development and the adjoining residences. - Ensure solar access and natural ventilation for the development and the adjoining residences. (iii) A fire protection statement must be submitted where windows are proposed on the external walls of a residential flat building within 3m of the common boundaries. The statement must outline design and construction measures that will enable operation of the windows (where required) whilst still being capable of complying with the relevant provisions of the BCA.	Minimum of 3.48m from eastern side	Complies
4	Building Design
4.1	Building façade
	(i) Buildings must be designed to address all street and laneway frontages. (ii) Buildings must be oriented so that the front wall alignments are parallel with the street property boundary or the street layout. (iii) Articulate facades to reflect the function of the building, present a human scale, and contribute to the proportions and visual character of the street. (iv) Avoid massive or continuous unrelieved blank walls. This may be achieved by dividing building elevations into sections, bays or modules of not more than 10m in length, and stagger the wall planes. (vi) Conceal building services and pipes within the balcony slabs.		Complies
4.2	Roof design
	(i) Design the roof form, in terms of massing, pitch, profile and silhouette to relate to the three dimensional form (size and scale) and façade composition of the building. (ii) Design the roof form to respond to the orientation of the site, such as eaves and skillion roofs to respond to sun access. (iii) Use a similar roof pitch to adjacent buildings, particularly if there is consistency of roof forms across the streetscape. (iv) Articulate or divide the mass of the roof structures on larger buildings into distinctive sections to minimise the visual bulk and relate to any context of similar building forms. (v) Use clerestory windows and skylights to improve natural lighting and ventilation of internalised space on the top floor of a building where feasible. The location, layout, size and configuration of clerestory windows and skylights must be sympathetic to the overall design of the building and the streetscape. (vi) Any services and equipment, such as plant, machinery, ventilation stacks, exhaust ducts, lift overrun and the like, must be contained within the roof form or screened behind parapet walls so that they are not readily visible from the public domain. (vii) Terraces, decks or trafficable outdoor spaces on the roof may be considered only if: - There are no direct sightlines to the habitable room windows and private and communal open space of the adjoining residences. - The size and location of terrace or deck will not result in unreasonable noise impacts on the adjoining residences. - Any stairway and associated roof do not detract from the architectural character of the building, and are positioned to minimise direct and oblique views from the street. - Any shading devices, privacy screens and planters do not adversely increase the visual bulk of the building. (viii) The provision of landscape planting on the roof (that is, “green roof”) is encouraged. Any green roof must be designed by a qualified landscape architect or designer with details shown on a landscape plan.	Maintains flat roof	Complies
4.3	Habitable roof space
	Habitable roof space may be considered, provided it meets the following: - Optimises dwelling mix and layout, and assists to achieve dual aspect or cross over units with good natural ventilation. - Has a maximum floor space of 65% of the storey immediately below. - Wholly contain habitable areas within the roof space. - When viewed from the surrounding public and private domain, the roof form has the appearance of a roof. A continuous flat roof with habitable space within it will not satisfy this requirement. - Design windows to habitable roof space as an integrated element of the roof. - Submit computer generated perspectives or photomontages showing the front and rear elevations of the development.	Third floor level area is 40% of the floor below and designed as a roof. The layout of the third floor unit has a different layout to the approved three bedroom unit approved in DA/304/2017.	Complies
4.4	External wall height and ceiling height
	(ii) Where the site is subject to a 12m building height limit under the LEP, a maximum external wall height of 10.5m applies.	11.939m (41.729 – RL29.79)	Does not comply see assessment below and comments in the key issues section of this report.
Comment: Despite the non-compliant wall height, the proposed development will satisfy the relevant external wall height controls in the resultant development predominately maintains the building form, the floor to ceiling heights required for light and ventilation and the bulk and scale as demonstrated in the clause 4.6 exceptions are considered to satisfy the relevant objectives for the standards and the zone.
	(iii) The minimum ceiling height is to be 2.7m for all habitable rooms.		Complies
4.6	Internal circulation
	(i) Enhance the amenity and safety of circulation spaces by: - Providing natural lighting and ventilation where possible. - Providing generous corridor widths at lobbies, foyers, lift doors and apartment entry doors. - Allowing adequate space for the movement of furniture. - Minimising corridor lengths to give short, clear sightlines. - Avoiding tight corners. - Articulating long corridors with a series of foyer areas, and/or providing windows along or at the end of the corridor.		Complies
4.7	Apartment layout
	(i) Maximise opportunities for natural lighting and ventilation by providing at least 1 openable window (excluding skylight) opening to outdoor areas for all habitable rooms and limiting the use of borrowed light and ventilation.		Complies
	(ii) Design apartment layouts to accommodate flexible use of rooms and a variety of furniture arrangements.		Complies
	(iii) Provide private open space in the form of a balcony, terrace or courtyard for each and every apartment unit in a development.
	(iv) Avoid locating the kitchen within the main circulation space of an apartment, such as hallway or entry.
4.8	Balconies
	(i) Provide a primary balcony and/or private courtyard for all apartments with a minimum area of 8m2 and a minimum dimension of 2m and consider secondary balconies or terraces in larger apartments.		Complies
4.9	Colours, materials and finishes
	(i) Provide a schedule detailing the materials and finishes in the development application documentation and plans. (ii) The selection of colour and material palette must complement the character and style of the building. (iv) Use the following measures to complement façade articulation: - Changes of colours and surface texture - Inclusion of light weight materials to contrast with solid masonry surfaces - The use of natural stones is encouraged. (v) Avoid the following materials or treatment: - Reflective wall cladding, panels and tiles and roof sheeting - High reflective or mirror glass - Large expanses of glass or curtain wall that is not protected by sun shade devices - Large expanses of rendered masonry - Light colours or finishes where they may cause adverse glare or reflectivity impacts (vi) Use materials and details that are suitable for the local climatic conditions to properly withstand natural weathering, ageing and deterioration. (vii) Sandstone blocks in existing buildings or fences on the site must be recycled and re-used.		Conditioned
5	Amenity
5.1	Solar access and overshadowing
	Solar access for proposed development
	(i) Dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours sunlight in living areas and to at least 50% of the private open space between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.		Complies
	(ii) Living areas and private open spaces for at least 70% of dwellings within a residential flat building must provide direct sunlight for at least 3 hours between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.		Complies
	(iii) Limit the number of single-aspect apartments with a southerly aspect to a maximum of 10 percent of the total units within a residential flat building.		Complies
	(iv) Any variations from the minimum standard due to site constraints and orientation must demonstrate how solar access and energy efficiency is maximised.		Complies
	Solar access for surrounding development
	(i) Living areas of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours access to direct sunlight to a part of a window between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. (ii) At least 50% of the landscaped areas of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight to a part of a window between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. (iii) Where existing development currently receives less sunlight than this requirement, the new development is not to reduce this further.		Complies
5.2	Natural ventilation and energy efficiency
	(i) Provide daylight to internalised areas within each dwelling and any poorly lit habitable rooms via measures such as ventilated skylights, clerestory windows, fanlights above doorways and highlight windows in internal partition walls.		Complies
	(iii) All habitable rooms must incorporate windows opening to outdoor areas. The sole reliance on skylight or clerestory windows for natural lighting and ventilation is not acceptable.		Complies
	(iv) All new residential units must be designed to provide natural ventilation to all habitable rooms. Mechanical ventilation must not be the sole means of ventilation to habitable rooms.		Complies
	(v) A minimum of 90% of residential units should be naturally cross ventilated. In cases where residential units are not naturally cross ventilated, such as single aspect apartments, the installation of ceiling fans may be required.		Complies
	(vi) A minimum of 25% of kitchens within a development should have access to natural ventilation and be adjacent to openable windows.		Complies
5.3	Visual privacy
	(i) Locate windows and balconies of habitable rooms to minimise overlooking of windows or glassed doors in adjoining dwellings. (ii) Orient balconies to front and rear boundaries or courtyards as much as possible. Avoid orienting balconies to any habitable room windows on the side elevations of the adjoining residences. (iii) Orient buildings on narrow sites to the front and rear of the lot, utilising the street width and rear garden depth to increase the separation distance. (iv) Locate and design areas of private open space to ensure a high level of user privacy. Landscaping, screen planting, fences, shading devices and screens are used to prevent overlooking and improve privacy. (v) Incorporate materials and design of privacy screens including: - Translucent glazing - Fixed timber or metal slats - Fixed vertical louvres with the individual blades oriented away from the private open space or windows of the adjacent dwellings - Screen planting and planter boxes as a supplementary device for reinforcing privacy protection		Complies
5.4	Acoustic privacy
	(i) Design the building and layout to minimise transmission of noise between buildings and dwellings. (ii) Separate “quiet areas” such as bedrooms from common recreation areas, parking areas, vehicle access ways and other noise generating activities. (iii) Utilise appropriate measures to maximise acoustic privacy such as: - Double glazing - Operable screened balconies - Walls to courtyards - Sealing of entry doors		Complies
5.5	View sharing
	(i) The location and design of buildings must reasonably maintain existing view corridors and vistas to significant elements from the streets, public open spaces and neighbouring dwellings. (ii) In assessing potential view loss impacts on the neighbouring dwellings, retaining existing views from the living areas should be given a priority over those obtained from the bedrooms and non-habitable rooms. (iii) Where a design causes conflicts between retaining views for the public domain and private properties, priority must be given to view retention for the public domain. (iv) The design of fences and selection of plant species must minimise obstruction of views from the neighbouring residences and the public domain. (v) Adopt a balanced approach to privacy protection and view sharing, and avoid the creation of long and massive blade walls or screens that obstruct views from the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain. (vi) Clearly demonstrate any steps or measures adopted to mitigate potential view loss impacts in the development application.		Complies
6.2	Configuration
	(i) With the exception of hardstand car spaces and garages, all car parks must be designed to allow vehicles to enter and exit in a forward direction.
	(ii) For residential flat buildings, the maximum width of driveway is 6m. In addition, the width of driveway must be tapered towards the street boundary as much as possible.
	(iv) Provide basement or semi-basement car parking consistent with the following requirements: (a) Provide natural ventilation. (b) Integrate ventilation grills into the façade composition and landscape design. (c) The external enclosing walls of car park must not protrude above ground level (existing) by more than 1.2m. This control does not apply to sites affected by potential flooding. (d) Use landscaping to soften or screen any car park enclosing walls. (e) Provide safe and secure access for building users, including direct access to dwellings where possible. (f) Improve the appearance of car park entries and avoid a ‘back-of-house’ appearance by measures such as: - Installing security doors to avoid ‘black holes’ in the facades. - Returning the façade finishing materials into the car park entry recess to the extent visible from the street as a minimum. - Concealing service pipes and ducts within those areas of the car park that are visible from the public domain.

4. Referral Comments

4.1 Design Excellence Panel

PANEL COMMENTS

This is a Development Application for additions to an approved development application for demolition existing structures and construction of a 4 level residential flat building with 8 apartments and a basement carpark with 10 spaces. The approved scheme was the result of an agreement made at a conciliation meeting between the proponent and Randwick Council, under the supervision of the Commissioner of the Land and Environment Court. The Court gave orders approving the agreed scheme on January 8, 2018. This application seeks to amend the agreed-upon scheme by adding two rooms to the top floor, converting two studio units into a single three-bedroom unit.

Principle 1: Context and Neighbourhood Context

The site is located in Kensington near Anzac Parade and Alison Road. The area can be considered a transitional area, as residential flat buildings are gradually replacing single family residences. New construction along Anzac Parade is underway near the site with approximately 6 to 8 level buildings in a residential over retail configuration. New construction is generally finished in a contemporary style with rendered walls and movable screens along balconies. There are several existing residential flat buildings in the area ranging from 3 to 12 levels with the tallest building being located on the corner of Abottsford Street and Anzac Parade.

Randwick Racecourse is located approximately 200m to the east of the site. It provides a break in the urban fabric and a substantial green open space within the view shed of Alison Road. Centennial Park lies about 150m to the north of the site across Alison Road.

The site itself is immediately adjacent to a 4 storey brick residential flat building and a 2 storey rendered house.

Principle 2: Scale and Built Form

The proposal is consistent with the bulk and height as described in the site controls with the exception that the roof plane projects slightly at the south east corner of the building. This is not considered a major issue with the proposal, as the elements exceeding the height control do not negatively impact surrounding properties.

Principle 3: Density

The additional floor space proposed would result in a floor area higher than the allowable at 552.5m² GFA, increasing the area to 584 m², or 31.5 m² over the allowable floor space. While the proponent has filed a Clause 4.6 statement with the application, no cogent argument has been made as to why the allowance of this exceeding of the control could be deemed to be in the public interest, or what manner of public benefit it might provide.

The panel feels that this extra floor space, over and above the controls, should not be supported.

Principle 4: Sustainability

There are no sustainability issues raised with the proposal.

Principle 5: Landscape

There are no landscape issues raised with the proposal.

Principle 6: Amenity

There are no landscape issues raised with the proposal.

Principle 7: Safety

There are no landscape issues raised with the proposal.

Principle 8: Housing Diversity and Social Interaction

The Panel supported the previous proposal, as it provided a welcome mix of units in the area. However, the removal of the two studio units and their replacement with a three-bedroom unit removes this benefit and offers a standard mix of units.

Principle 9: Aesthetics

There are no landscape issues raised with the proposal.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

As the originally approved scheme was the result of mediated negotiations between Council and the proponents, where the outcomes were formally agreed upon by all parties at the time, and therefore the Panel feels that the original scheme should be maintained. No credible justification can be found for exceeding the floor space controls, and the proposed additions would decrease the housing diversity offered to the community. The Panel is not in support of this proposal.

Planning comment: As noted by the Panel the height of the development only projects a minor amount and has an acceptable scale and built form. Whilst the reduction of the housing mix is not supported, the proposal is considered to still provide an acceptable mix of two and three bedroom dwelling with varying layouts which ultimately offer housing choice. The fact that a mediated outcome was reached in the previous DA does not preclude amendment to the scheme. In terms of public benefit, it is considered that the reduction in the number of units minimises potential impacts associated with the use of the roof terraces to the south which are now attached to bedrooms as opposed to living rooms for one of the studio units.

4.2 Development Engineer

An application has been received for the alterations and additions to the third level of the 4 storey residential flat building approved under DA/304/2017, to convert the 2 studio dwellings into one 3 bedroom dwelling at the above site.

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

· Architectural Plans by MKD Architects, sheet A-1.01 – A-7.02, dated Feb 18;

· Statement of Environmental Effects by Planning Ingenuity, ref 0104/17, dated Feb 2018;

· Detail & Level Survey by CitiSurv Pty Ltd, issue A, dated 24/02/17;

General Comments

There are no objections to the amending DA from Development Engineering. The conditions attached to this report are generally identical to those provided for DA/342/2017. There has been a minor change to condition 1 since there are now 2 x 3 bedroom units.

Parking Comments

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

· 1 space per 2 studio units

· 1 space per 1 bedroom unit

· 1.2 spaces per 2 bedroom unit

· 1.5 spaces per 3 bedroom unit

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

The development approved under DA/304/2017 was for 8 dwellings comprising of 1 x 3 bedroom, 5 x 2 bedroom and 2 x studio units. This generated the following parking demand

Parking Required = (1 x 1.5) + (5 x 1.2) + (2 x 0.5) + 8/4(visitor)

(DA/342/2017) = 1.5 + 6 + 1 + 2

= 10.5

= say 11 spaces

Parking Approved = 10 spaces

(DA/342/2017)

Parking Shortfall = 1 space (9%)

The subject DA is an amending DA which propose to change the 2 studio units on the top floor into 1 x 3 bedroom unit thereby reducing the total number of units to 7. Parking demand will also change as follows.

Parking Required = (2 x 1.5) + (5 x 1.2) + 7/4(visitor)

= 3.0 + 6 + 1.75

= 10.75

= say 11 spaces

Parking Proposed = 10 spaces (no change)

Parking Shortfall = 1 space (9%)

The parking demand has only increased by 0.25 spaces and when rounded the deficiency will remain at 1 space which was approved with DA/342/2017.

The shortfall is relatively minor and it is noted that each of the proposed dwellings will be able to have access to a carspace including 2 spaces for one of 3 bedroom units.

The site is located in close proximity to Kensington Town Centre and good public transport including future light rail stops on both the Kingsford and Randwick Branches. The minor deficiency in parking was considered acceptable in this instance.

It is noted that carspace 10 will only be accessible through carspace 7 in a tandem arrangement. Tandem spaces are only permissible if they are allocated to a single unit. It has therefore been conditioned that carspaces 7 & 10 be allocated to the 3 bedroom unit. This will leave 8 spaces to be allocated to the remaining 7 units.

Motorbike Parking

Motorbike Parking is to be provided at 5% of the vehicle parking requirement.

Motorbike Parking Required = 0.05 x 12 = 0.6 = say 1 space.

Motorbike Parking provided = 1 space (complies)

Bicycle Parking

For Flats/multi dwelling bicycle parking to be provided at 1 space per 2 units plus 1 visitor space per 10 units

Bicycle Parking Required = 8/2 + 8/10 = 4.8 = say 5 spaces.

Bicycle Parking provided = 6 spaces (complies)

Carpark Layout

The vehicular access driveways, internal circulation ramps and the carpark areas, (including, but not limited to, the ramp grades, carpark layout and height clearances) are to be in accordance with the requirements of Australian Standard 2890.1:2004.

Access Driveway

The access driveway does not comply with AS 2890.1 in that the driveway exceeds a grade of 1 in 20 within 6m of the property alignment. The variation is considered acceptable in this instance as vehicular access will be from Carlton Lane at the rear of the site where there is no pedestrian footpath. Pedestrian traffic will therefore be minimal.

Drainage Comments

On site stormwater detention is required for this development.

The Planning Officer is advised that the submitted drainage plans should not be approved in conjunction with the DA, rather, the Development Engineer has included a number of conditions in this memo that relate to drainage design requirements. The applicant is required to submit detailed drainage plans to the certifying authority for approval prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

The stormwater must be discharged (by gravity) either:

i. Directly to the kerb and gutter in front of the subject site in Carlton Street or Carlton Lane; or

ii. Directly into Council’s underground drainage system located in Doncaster Avenue via a new section of 375mm pipe and new kerb inlet pit; or

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

Flooding Comments

The site is located within the study catchment for the Council commissioned and adopted Kensington/Centennial Park Flood Study. The study indicates that significant flooding is apparent in Anzac Parade to the west and Doncaster Avenue to the east however the subject site is unaffected. This is due to the site being situated on a localised high point and so lies above the major overland flow paths. The site is not subject to any flood related development controls.

Undergrounding of site feed power lines

At the ordinary Council meeting on the 27^th May 2014 it was resolved that;

The subject is not located within 15m of a power pole on the same side of the street hence the above clause is not applicable.

Landscape Comments

Landscaping is not proposed to be altered from that approved under DA/304/2017 hence landscape comments and conditions as provided for DA/304/2017 as still applicable.

Recommendation

A. That the RLPP is satisfied that the matters required to be addressed under clause 4.6(4) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 have been demonstrated and that consent may be granted to the development application, which contravenes the Height of buildings and Floor Space Ratio development standards in Clause 4.3 and 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 respectively. The concurrence of the Director of the Department of Planning & Environment may be assumed.

B. That the RLPP grants development consent under Sections 4.16 and 4.17 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 92/2018 for Alterations and additions to the third level of approved 4 storey residential flat building to convert the 2 studio dwellings into one 3 bedroom dwelling alterations and additions to the third level of approved 4 storey residential flat building to convert the 2 studio dwellings into one 3 bedroom dwelling, at No. 9 Carlton Street, Kensington, subject to the development consent conditions attached to this report.

Attachment/s:

Nil

Randwick Local Planning Panel 22 November 2018

Development Application Report No. D97/18

Subject: 238-242 Alison Road, Randwick (DA/434/2018)

Folder No: DA/434/2018

Author: Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer

434/2018Proposal: Demolition of existing garage and construction of a garage and carport structure including modifications to existing front boundary fencing facing Alison Road (Heritage Item & Heritage Conservation Area).

Ward: North Ward

Applicant: Mr F Serra

Owner: Mr P J Haddad & Mrs N I Hoogstad

Summary

Recommendation: Approval



	Subject Site

	Submissions received Ù North
	Locality Plan

Executive summary

The application is referred to the Randwick Local Planning Panel (RLPP) as the development involves the partial demolition of a heritage item.

Proposal

The application details the demolition of the existing garage at the northern portion of the site and the construction of a new enlarged garage and carport sited up to 450mm from the rear (northern) boundary, 900mm from the side (part western) boundary and up to 655mm from the front boundary. The existing front fence will in part be demolished to accommodate the new driveway to the garage and carport.

Site Description and Locality

The subject site is a wedge shaped lot with a frontage of 39.62m to Alison Road and a short secondary frontage of 2.945m to Dutruc Street with a site area of 426m². The site has a considerable fall to the east with a difference in levels of 3m from the west to the eastern part of the site.

The site is occupied by a Victorian villa which is listed as a heritage item under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The property is also within the St Mark’s heritage conservation area and in the near vicinity are other dwellings which are listed as heritage items. No’s 60B, 62 and 64 Dutruc Street.

Relevant history

A recent development application, DA/180/2017, was approved for ground and first floor additions to the dwelling and construction of a pergola and spa pool to the rear of the dwelling. That application also included a new garage with studio above to the north eastern portion of the site. That part of the application detailing the garage/studio was deemed incompatible with the streetscape and was deleted from the application by condition of development consent.

Submissions

Issue	Comment
66 Dutruc Street Randwick -There are concerns that the new building so close to their boundary will require access to their property for any maintenance which would be undesirable and inconvenient. The proposal will involve substantial earthworks which being done at less than 900mm from the side and rear boundaries does not comply with Section 4.6 of the Randwick Development Control Plan.	Development approval does not absolve obligations between owners in relation to access rights between properties. It is noted that it is not uncommon for outbuildings such as garages which are of masonry construction to be sited up to boundaries (where there are no identified amenity issues) given that masonry walls do not require a high level of maintenance. Earthworks are not prohibited at less than 900mm from a boundary. Instead, the proposed must meet the relevant objectives of the DCP, which include that excavation and backfilling do not cause unreasonable structural, visual, overshadowing and privacy impacts. These objectives will be satisfied by appropriate conditions of consent to maintain the structural integrity of the subject and adjoining properties during and after building works.

- Discussions with the applicant included mention of a roof garden which is not included as part of this application. There are concerns that a roof garden may impact upon their amenity.	The application as submitted does not include reference to a roof garden to the garage.

View of property from opposite side of Alison Road

Corner of site from eastern side of Dutruc Street

Key Issues

Heritage

Clause 5.10(4) of the Randwick LEP 2012 requires Council to consider the effect of a proposed development on the heritage significance of the heritage item.

Council’s Heritage Planner has considered the proposal in relation to the impact upon the heritage item and compliance with the relevant parts of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 and in summary the following comments have been provided.

“This application has been accompanied by a Heritage Impact Statement (HIS) prepared by Russell Lee which addresses relevant DCP controls.

The HIS advises that the existing garage has been damaged by fire and is structurally unsafe.

In relation to Design and Character, the HIS argues that the proposed garage and carport is separate from the main residential building, and will be of a similar design and character as the existing garage, and will maintain the existing curtilage, the majority of existing landscaping, and existing vistas and views.

In relation to Scale and Form the HIS notes that the scale of the proposed structure is in keeping with surrounding and adjacent buildings and similar to the existing damaged structure, and will not replicate, overwhelm, dominate the existing building.

In relation to Siting and Setbacks, the HIS advises that the proposed garage / carport is located in a similar position on the site as the existing garage, approximately 8m east of the main building.

In relation to Garages, Carports, Carspaces and Driveways, the HIS considers that the visual relationship between the existing main residence and the garage and the streetscape from Alison Road will be maintained.

In relation to Fences, the HIS notes that the proposed modifications to the Alison Road fencing entail changes to two of the existing masonry fence panels.

In relation to Gardens and Garden Elements, the HIS notes that the garden elements associated with the property which are visible from the public domain are currently in two distinct sections along the Alison Road alignment (separated by the existing garage), and that these gardens will be reformed and reinstated on completion of the proposed works.

The HIS concludes that the presentation of the residence within the streetscape of Alison Road will remain largely unaltered and intact, and that the proposed alterations and additions will not affect the significance of the property within the context of the surrounding Conservation Area.

Clause 5.10(4) of Randwick LEP 2012 requires Council to consider the effect of a proposed development on the heritage significance of the heritage item.

The Heritage section of Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 provides detailed Objectives and Controls applying to development in a heritage items, including Design and character; Scale and form; and Siting and setbacks.

In relation to Design and Character, clause 2.2 of the DCP includes an Objective of ensuring that new development does not adversely impact on the setting, streetscape or views associated with a heritage item. The DCP includes Controls that development must demonstrate how it respects the heritage values of the heritage item, that street elevations and visible side elevations must not be significantly changed, and that additions must be located to the rear or one side of the building to minimise impact on streetscape. In relation to Scale and Form, clause 2.3 of the DCP includes an Objective that alterations and additions to heritage items do not dominate or compete with the existing significant heritage fabric. In relation to Siting and Setbacks, clause 2.4 of the DCP includes an Objective of ensuring adequate curtilage and landscape setting for the building.

The Heritage section of Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 provides Objectives and Controls in relation to Garages, Carports, Carspaces and Driveways. The DCP includes Objectives of minimising the visual impact of carparking on heritage streetscapes and ensuring carparking structures are visually discreet and do not dominate or compete with original character buildings. The DCP includes a Control that carparking structures are to be located to the side or preferably to the rear of the building and must not be located forward of the building line. Another Control requires that carparking structures are to be unobtrusive and must be of materials, form and details which harmonise with and do not obscure views of the building.

For Car Parking and Access, the Low Density Residential section of Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 clause 6.5 in relation to Garage Configuration requires that the maximum wall height of detached garages front the street is 2.6m and maximum building height of 3.0m for a pitched roof.

The existing single garage is built to the splayed Alison Road boundary, with a grassed setback to the northern boundary of the site of around 2m. The proposed garage and carport structure is to occupy most of the width of the site, with a setback from the splayed Alison Road boundary varying between 0.3m and 4.3m. The garage will have an L-shaped footprint to include a projecting storage area to the western side, with the carport on the eastern side. The garage and carport structure will include a stair adjacent to the Alison Road boundary and on the eastern side of the carport to provide access to the lower part of the site. An existing brick pathway leading from the eastern verandah steps is to be diverted to connect with the new stair. There are no heritage objections to the proposed path diversion. The footprint of the proposed garage and carport will have an increased impact on soft landscaping on the site, will require the removal of an existing tree, and will perpetuate the existing division of the garden space of the dwelling into two halves. It is considered however that that the proposed garage and carport will retain a reasonable curtilage and front garden setting for the dwelling when viewed from Alison Road and Dutruc Street.

The roof is to comprise a skillion roof sloping from south to north, screened by parapets to the Alison Road elevation. Due to the fall of the site, the Alison Road elevation will have a height varying between 1.7m and 3.4m. The garage and carport are excavated into the site, with the side elevations projecting above ground between 1.2m and 2.5m. Council’s DCP allows a maximum wall height of 2.6m for a garage fronting the street, and the proposed structure will be around 0.8m higher than the DCP maximum. The proposed garage and carport will however retain a single storey scale which will not detract from the prominence of the heritage item and will not be overly dominant in the streetscape.

The proposed garage and carport is located within the foreground of most views of the dwelling and whilst the proposed structure will have some impact on views to the heritage item from the footpath on the same side of Alison Road there will not be a significant impact on views to the building from the roadway, of from the footpath on the opposite side of Alison Road. Close up views towards the heritage item will be unaffected. It is also noted that the parapet level of the garage and carport will be approximately 600mm below the ground level of the existing dwelling which will also reduce the visual prominence of the building in relation to the heritage item.

Existing fencing on the site comprises an iron palisade fence on a masonry base in front of the dwelling, as well as a masonry fence with detailed piers and capping and decorative ironwork infill panels extending to the corner of Alison Road and Dutruc Street. Higher piers frame a gate on the corner. It appears that the masonry fencing to the lower part of the site may be of later construction than the palisade fencing to the higher part of the site. Plans and elevations which have been submitted indicate that one existing fence pier and one masonry panel will be lost to allow vehicular access to the new wider carparking structures. Four of the six existing masonry panels will be retained. The proposed building will retain a reasonable proportion of early fencing to the Alison Road boundary. A consent condition is included to require the widened opening in the existing fence to be carefully carried out to avoid damage to the existing piers. Drawings indicate a sliding iron gate to match existing iron work, and appear to depict plan palisades with a similar capping detail to existing ironwork infill panels. The existing decorative ironwork should not be replicated, but there are no heritage objections to the reuse of the existing decorative ironwork if feasible. Replication of the ironwork would lead to confusion as to whether the proposed gate comprises early or recent building fabric, and devalue original building fabric on the site. If reuse of existing decorative ironwork is not feasible, the proposed gate should consist of plain uncapped timber palisades. In any case an appropriate consent condition should be included requiring the submission of further detail of the proposed gate.

In conclusion the proposed garage and carport structure will not adversely impact on the heritage value of the existing heritage item, nor the St. Mark’s heritage conservation area, and will be generally inconsistent with relevant Controls within the Heritage section of Randwick Development Control Plan 2013. The proposed garage and carport should use a colour scheme which is compatible with the existing dwelling on the site, a different colour scheme is not to be adopted. Details of the proposed colours, of the proposed new gate have not been provided, and an appropriate consent condition should be included.

Three conditions are recommended for inclusion with development consent in relation to the protection of the existing fence piers and reuse of decorative ironwork of the fence, and details of colours, materials and textures provided for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.”

Setbacks

The objectives of Part 3 of the RDCP in relation to setbacks seek to;

a) Maintain or establish a consistent rhythm of street setbacks and front gardens that contributes to the character of the neighbourhood,

b) Ensure the form and massing of development complement and enhance the streetscape character,

c) Ensure adequate separation between neighbouring buildings for visual and acoustic privacy and solar access,

d) Reserve adequate areas for the retention or creation of private open space and deep soil planting, and

e) Enable a reasonable level of view sharing between a development and the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

See discussion below in relation to the front setback of the garage.

In relation to the side and rear boundary setbacks the new garage and carport is sited similarly to the existing garage to the northern side boundary and overall will not result in any significant adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining property with regards to solar access and visual amenity.

Car parking and access

The objectives of Part 6 of the RDCP in relation to parking and access seek;

a) To ensure car parking and access facilities do not visually dominate the property frontage or streetscape,

b) To ensure parking facilities are integrated with the architectural expression of the dwelling as an integrated element,

c) To minimise hard paved surfaces occupied by driveways and parking facilities, and maximise opportunities for deep soil planting and permeable surfaces for stormwater infiltration,

d) To ensure the location and design of parking and access facilities do not pose undue safety risks on building occupants and pedestrians, and

e) To ensure the location and design of parking and access facilities do not adversely impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties.

Part 6.2 of the RDCP has specific controls that relate to parking facilities in relation to parking facilities forward of the front façade of the alignment. These include;

a) There is no alternative or feasible location for accommodating car parking,

b) The site has a significant slope with the dwelling being elevated above the street level,

c) The garage or carport will not adversely affect the visual amenity of the street and the surrounding areas,

d) The garage or carport will not pose an undue risk on the safety of pedestrians, and

e) The garage or carport will not require the removal of significant landscape elements that enhance the streetscape such as rock outcrop or sandstone retaining walls.

The proposed garage and carport replace an existing garage in the same location which is fire damaged and dilapidated and requires demolition and replacement. The only feasible location for car parking is in this location because this is the only part of the site which has direct access to a roadway.

As noted by the Heritage Planner the siting of the garage and carport is much lower than the dwelling due to the fall of the site and the garage in this location will not adversely affect the visual amenity of the streetscape and in particular the appearance of the heritage item as viewed in the street. Also, given that the garage and carport are in the same location as an existing structure there will not be any significant site works or removal of vegetation to accommodate the new structures. There is an existing Crepe Myrtle tree adjacent to the northern boundary which is in fair health and is not regarded as significant and permission is granted to remove this tree.

Therefore there are no objections to the proposed garage and carport structures as the overall objectives of this part of the DCP will be satisfied.

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

That the application to demolish the existing garage and construction of a garage and carport structure including modifications to existing front boundary fencing facing Alison Road be approved (subject to conditions) for the following reasons:

· The proposal will not adversely impact on the heritage significance of the heritage item pursuant to clause 5.10(4) of RLEP 2012.

· The proposal is consistent with the objectives of DCP 2013 in relation to side and rear setbacks and carparking and access.

Detailed Assessment

1. Section 4.15 matters for consideration

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

Section 4.15 ‘Matters for Consideration’	Comments
Section 4.15 (1)(a)(i) – Provisions of any environmental planning instrument	See below
Section 4.15(1)(a)(ii) – Provisions of any draft environmental planning instrument	Nil.
Section 4.15(1)(a)(iii) – Provisions of any development control plan	The proposal generally satisfies the objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013, see table below
Section 4.15(1)(a)(iiia) – Provisions of any Planning Agreement or draft Planning Agreement	Not applicable.
Section 4.15(1)(a)(iv) – Provisions of the regulations	The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.
Section 4.15(1)(b) – The likely impacts of the development, including environmental impacts on the natural and built environment and social and economic impacts in the locality	The environmental impacts of the proposed development on the natural and built environment have been addressed in this report. The proposal will not result in detrimental social or economic impacts on the locality.
Section 4.15(1)(c) – The suitability of the site for the development	The site has sufficient area to accommodate the proposed land use and associated structures. Therefore the site is considered suitable for the proposed development.
Section 4.15(1)(d) – Any submissions made in accordance with the EP&A Act or EP&A Regulation	The issues raised in the submissions have been addressed in this report.
Section 4.15(1)(e) – The public interest	The proposal promotes the objectives of the zone and will not result in any significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be in the public interest.

2. Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

2.1 Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

The site is zoned R3 under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent.

The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will provide for the housing needs of the community whilst enhancing the aesthetic character and protecting the amenity of the local residents.

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

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

0.75:1

0.44:1

Yes

Height of Building (Maximum)

9.5m

3.03m to new garage

Yes

3. Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013

The relevant provisions of the DCP are addressed below.

3.1 Section C1: Low Density Residential

DCP Clause	Controls	Proposal	Compliance
	Classification	Zoning = R3
2	Site planning
2.3	Site coverage
	301 to 450sqm = 55%	Site = 426m² Proposed = 45%	Yes
2.4	Landscaping and permeable surfaces
	i) 301 to 450 sqm = 25% i) Deep soil minimum width 900mm. ii) Maximise permeable surfaces to front iii) Retain existing or replace mature native trees iv) Minimum 1 canopy tree (8m mature). Smaller (4m mature) If site restrictions apply. v) Locating paved areas, underground services away from root zones.	Site = 426m² Proposed = 34%	Yes
2.5	Private open space (POS)
	Dwelling & Semi-Detached POS
	301 to 450 sqm = 6m x 6m	Site = 426m² Proposed = 6m x 6m	Yes
3	Building envelope
3.1	Floor space ratio LEP 2012 = 0.75:1	Site area = 426m² Proposed FSR = 0.44:1, no change to existing	Yes
3.2	Building height
	Maximum overall height LEP 2012 = 9.5m	Proposed = 3.03m, to new garage	Yes
	i) Maximum external wall height = 7m (Minimum floor to ceiling height = 2.7m) ii) Sloping sites = 8m iii) Merit assessment if exceeded	Proposed = 3.03m	Yes
3.3	Setbacks
3.3.1	Front setbacks i) Average setbacks of adjoining (if none then no less than 6m) Transition area then merit assessment. ii) Corner allotments: Secondary street frontage: - 900mm for allotments with primary frontage width of less than 7m - 1500mm for all other sites iii) do not locate swimming pools, above-ground rainwater tanks and outbuildings in front	The existing dwelling is sited in part up to the front boundary and the proposed new garage and carport is similarly sited.	Yes
3.3.2	Side setbacks: Dwellings: · Frontage less than 9m = 900mm · Frontage b/w 9m and 12m = 900mm (Gnd & 1^st floor) 1500mm above · Frontage over 12m = 1200mm (Gnd & 1^st floor), 1800mm above. Refer to 6.3 and 7.4 for parking facilities and outbuildings	Minimum = 900mm Proposed = 900mm	Yes
3.3.3	Rear setbacks i) Minimum 25% of allotment depth or 8m, whichever lesser. Note: control does not apply to corner allotments. ii) Provide greater than aforementioned or demonstrate not required, having regard to: - Existing predominant rear setback line - reasonable view sharing (public and private) - protect the privacy and solar access iii) Garages, carports, outbuildings, swimming or spa pools, above-ground water tanks, and unroofed decks and terraces attached to the dwelling may encroach upon the required rear setback, in so far as they comply with other relevant provisions. iv) For irregularly shaped lots = merit assessment on basis of:- - Compatibility - POS dimensions comply - minimise solar access, privacy and view sharing impacts Refer to 6.3 and 7.4 for parking facilities and outbuildings	Minimum = 8m Proposed = 450mm. There are no objections to the rear setback as there are no adverse impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining property	Yes
4	Building design
4.5	Colours, Materials and Finishes
	i) Schedule of materials and finishes ii) Finishing is durable and non-reflective. iii) Minimise expanses of rendered masonry at street frontages (except due to heritage consideration) iv) Articulate and create visual interest by using combination of materials and finishes. v) Suitable for the local climate to withstand natural weathering, ageing and deterioration. vi) recycle and re-use sandstone (See also section 8.3 foreshore area.)	To be conditioned as required by Heritage comments
4.6	Earthworks
	i) Excavation and backfilling limited to 1m, unless gradient too steep ii) Minimum 900mm side and rear setback iii) Step retaining walls. iv) If site conditions require setbacks < 900mm, retaining walls must be stepped with each stepping not exceeding a maximum height of 2200mm. v) sloping sites down to street level must minimise blank retaining walls (use combination of materials, and landscaping) vi) cut and fill for POS is terraced where site has significant slope: vii) adopt a split-level design viii) Minimise height and extent of any exposed under-croft areas.	The extent of earthworks is not excessive. A condition of consent is included to nominate excavation works to ensure the integrity of the subject and adjoining site	Yes
6	Car Parking and Access
6.1	Location of Parking Facilities:
	i) Maximum 1 vehicular access ii) Locate off rear lanes, or secondary street frontages where available. iii) Locate behind front façade, within the dwelling or positioned to the side of the dwelling. Note: See 6.2 for circumstances when parking facilities forward of the front façade alignment may be considered. iv) Single width garage/carport if frontage <12m; Double width if: - Frontage >12m, - Consistent with pattern in the street; - Landscaping provided in the front yard. v) Minimise excavation for basement garages vi) Avoid long driveways (impermeable surfaces)	The single vehicle access is maintained	Yes
6.2	Parking Facilities forward of front façade alignment (if other options not available)
	i) The following may be considered: - An uncovered single car space - A single carport (max. external width of not more than 3m and - Landscaping incorporated in site frontage ii) Regardless of the site’s frontage width, the provision of garages (single or double width) within the front setback areas may only be considered where: - There is no alternative, feasible location for accommodating car parking; - Significant slope down to street level - does not adversely affect the visual amenity of the street and the surrounding areas; - does not pose risk to pedestrian safety and - does not require removal of significant contributory landscape elements (such as rock outcrop or sandstone retaining walls)	The new garage and carport is sited to the front of the site between 656mm and 4100mm from the front boundary.	See Key Issues
6.3	Setbacks of Parking Facilities
	i) Garages and carports comply with Sub-Section 3.3 Setbacks. ii) 1m rear lane setback iii) Nil side setback where: - nil side setback on adjoining property; - streetscape compatibility; - safe for drivers and pedestrians; and - Amalgamated driveway crossing	The garage is sited up to 450mm from the rear northern boundary and 900mm from the western side boundary.	See Key Issues
6.4	Driveway Configuration
	Maximum driveway width: - Single driveway – 3m - Double driveway – 5m Must taper driveway width at street boundary and at property boundary	Driveway is 5.6m in width. There are no objections to the proposed width of the driveway as this will provide direct and safe egress and exit from the garage and carport and will not detract from the streetscape given the width of the frontage to Alison Road.	Yes
6.5	Garage Configuration
	i) recessed behind front of dwelling ii) The maximum garage width (door and piers or columns): - Single garage – 3m - Double garage – 6m iii) 5.4m minimum length of a garage iv) 2.6m max wall height of detached garages v) recess garage door 200mm to 300mm behind walls (articulation) vi) 600mm max. parapet wall or bulkhead vii) minimum clearance 2.2m AS2890.1	The garage is detached from the dwelling. The garage generally satisfies the internal dimensions. The external wall height of the garage is up to 3.03m to the parapet. There are no objections to the overall height of the building as the height will not detract from either the dwelling or the streetscape	Yes
6.6	Carport Configuration
	i) Simple post-support design (max. semi-enclosure using timber or metal slats minimum 30% open). ii) Roof: Flat, lean-to, gable or hipped with pitch that relates to dwelling iii) 3m maximum width. iv) 5.4m minimum length v) 2.6m maximum height with flat roof or 3.0m max. height for pitched roof. vi) No solid panel or roller shutter door. vii) front gate allowed (minimum 30% open) viii) Gate does not open to public land	The carport adjoining the garage is an open light weight structure which has a length of 6.04m and height of 3.03m to the parapet which extends across the garage and carport. There are no objections to the overall height of the carport as the height will not detract from either the dwelling or the streetscape	Yes

4. Referral Comments

The proposal has been considered by Council’s Development Engineers for consideration and comment. Conditions have been provided for inclusion with any development consent granted. As noted above the proposal has also been referred to Council’s Heritage Planner for comment and conditions have also been provided for inclusion with the development consent.

Recommendation

That the RLPP grants development consent under Sections 4.16 and 4.17 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 434/2018 for the demolition of the existing garage and construction of a garage and carport structure including modifications to existing front boundary fencing facing Alison Road at No. 238 - 242 Alison Road Randwick subject to the development consent conditions attached to this report.

Attachment/s:

1.⇩

RDAP Dev Consent Conditions (dwellings dual occ) - DA/434/2018 - 238-242 Alison Road, RANDWICK

Issue	Comment
The decking should be removed because it was illegally constructed and now makes the subject space trafficable.	Whilst the existing deck makes the space more trafficable than the originally constructed continuous planter box, the installation of individual planter boxes at regular intervals ensures the space is not conducive for general access.
The proposed modification is contrary to Council’s assessment of the previous modification application that the decking is conducive to using the space for trafficable purposes and not a reasonable planning outcome.	The previous modification application was assessed by Council on the basis of there being no individual planter boxes on top of the deck.
The space was originally approved as a full length planter box, which was intended to ensure it was non-trafficable.	The installation of individual planter boxes at regular intervals ensures the space is not conducive for general access.
The privacy screen should have been approved setback 90cm from the boundary.	The privacy screen has already been approved and does not form part of the application.
The non-trafficable area has been converted into a balcony space with a length of 25 m and looks directly into main living areas.	A balcony is required to have a minimum dimension of 2 m to ensure it is a functional space (Part C2 Section 4.8 of RDCP 2013). The subject space has a minimum dimension of 540 mm and therefore is not suitable for passive recreational activities associated with a balcony.
The pot plants can be easily moved by one or two people.	The planter boxes are not fixed and can probably be moved by two people. However, given the planter boxes occupy the entire length and the difficulty associated with moving them in and out of a confined space it is unlikely they will be removed. A condition is included in the recommendation of this report to ensure the planter boxes remain on the deck at all times.
The louver windows have been removed to provide access to the balcony by the occupants.	The louver windows have a total of 18 individual glass panels that would need to be removed together with a flyscreen that can only be removed from the outside. A 500 mm high wall would need to be stepped over to obtain access to the deck. A condition is included in the recommendation of this report to ensure the louvers windows are not removed.
The decking is not required to protect the waterproofing membrane.	It is not known whether the decking is required to protect the waterproof membrane as no expert independent advice has been provided with the application.

Criteria	Response
a) it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and	The unauthorised works are not considered to result in a development that will fundamentally alter the originally approved residential development.
b) it has consulted with any relevant public authorities or approval bodies, and	The development is not integrated development or development where the concurrence of another public authority is required
c) it has notified the application & considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification	The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties and parties that made submissions in relation to the original development were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the RDCP 2013. One submission was received as a result of the notification process.

Objective/Control	Proposed Modification	Compliance (Yes/No/NA/ Conditioned)
Objective
· To ensure development minimise overlooking or cross viewing to the neighbouring dwellings to maintain reasonable levels of privacy.	The proposed modification to retain the existing deck will not result in any unreasonable visual privacy impacts to neighbouring dwellings subject to conditions.	Conditioned
Controls
iii) Focus upper floor balconies to the street or rear yard of the site. Any elevated balconies or balcony returns on the side facade must have a narrow width to minimise privacy impacts on the adjoining properties.	The subject space has a narrow width of 540 mm and is not conducive to passive recreational activities.	Yes
iv) Where a balcony, deck or terrace is likely to overlook the private open space or windows of the adjacent dwellings, privacy screens must be installed in positions suitable to mitigate the loss of privacy. Privacy screens must be permanently fixed and have a minimum height of not less than 1600mm as measured from the finished floor level. Privacy screens must achieve a minimum of 70% opaqueness and may be constructed with: - Translucent or obscured glazing - Fixed timber or metal slats mounted horizontally or vertically - Fixed vertical louvres with the individual blades oriented away from the private open space or windows of the adjacent dwellings	The existing privacy screen will be retained along the northern edge of the subject space. It will continue to mitigate privacy impacts from within the dwelling.	Yes
v) Screen planting and planter boxes may be used as a supplementary device for reinforcing privacy protection. However, they must not be used as the sole privacy protection measure.	The combination of planter boxes at regular intervals on the of the deck and the existing privacy screen and the narrow width of the space will adequately protect the privacy of the properties to the north.	Yes