Agenda of Randwick Local Planning Panel

Randwick Local Planning Panel 3 May 2019

Development Application Report No. D22/19

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Subject: 1-3 Marcel Avenue, Randwick (DA/459/2017) (DEFERRED ITEM)

Folder No: DA/459/2017

Author: Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer

Proposal: Demolition of all structures on site and construction of a part 3 part 4 residential flat building comprising of 11 dwellings and 2 levels of basement parking for 18 vehicles, associated site and landscaping works.

Ward: North Ward

Applicant: Mrs M McMorrow and Mr SV McMorrow

Owner: Mrs M McMorrow and Mr SV McMorrow

Cost of works: $5,875,911

Reason for referral: Approval pending amended plans

Previous Item: D5/19 – 1-3 Marcel Avenue, Randwick (DA/459/2017) - Randwick Local Planning Panel – 14 March 2019 1pm

Recommendation

A. That the RLPP is satisfied that the matters detailed in clause 4.6(4) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 have been adequately addressed and that consent may be granted to the development application, which contravenes the Height of Buildings development standard in Clause 4.3 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The concurrence of the Director of the Department of Planning & Environment may be assumed.

B. That the RLPP grant consent under Sections 4.16 and 4.17 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/459/2017 for demolition of all structures on site and construction of a part 3 part 4 residential flat building comprising of 11 dwellings and 2 levels of basement parking for 18 vehicles, associated site and landscaping works, at No. 1-3 Marcel Avenue Randwick, subject to the development consent conditions attached to this report.

Subject Site

Submissions received

North

Locality Plan

1. Introduction

The subject Development Application (DA) was considered at the Randwick Local Planning Panel (RLPP) meeting on 14 March 2019. At the meeting, it was resolved:

“That the Randwick Local Planning Panel defers determination of the Development Application and invites the Applicant to submit amended plans and supporting information showing:

a) The living area and bathroom to unit 3.03, the balcony/balustrade adjoining that space and the roof form over that space being deleted.

Note: The bedroom and immediately adjoining balcony to unit 3.03 may be amalgamated with unit 3.01.

b) Unit 3.04 being amended as follows:

- The balcony on the south-eastern side (including balustrade) being deleted;

- The layout being amended to provide a north facing balcony and living area. The unit may extend to occupy the void space between it and the current unit 3.03.

c) The trafficable area of the level 2 south eastern side balconies being reduced to a maximum depth of 1m measured from the south eastern façade. The remaining south eastern side of level 2 shall be replaced with a planter box running the full length of the building.

d) Basement levels 1 and 2 being setback a minimum 900mm from the south eastern boundary to both comply with the DCP and provide for deep soil planting at a sensitive interface. This will necessitate the storage areas and motorcycle parking area being relocated. The amended basement levels shall provide parking in accordance with Council’s DCP requirements and AS2890.1.

e) The driveway entrance being redesigned to be consistent with the drawing titled ‘B85 Vehicle Entry & Exit Swept Turning Paths’ by Varga Traffic Planning Pty Ltd dated 2018-7-9. The width of the driveway crossover shall be minimised to provide additional street parking and landscaping. The plan shall also show the amended arrangement for the pedestrian entry path.

f) Appropriate access and management measures for the visitor parking spaces.

g) A revised landscape plan consistent with the proposed amendment to the building.

h) Revised Clause 4.6 variation request(s). The panel would expect compliance (or close to compliance) with the FSR standard due to the changes required above.

The above information must be submitted to the Council by 4 April 2019 otherwise the application may be determined on the information currently provided. Following receipt of this information, the Panel will determine the application electronically, unless the Chair determines that a further public meeting is required.”

2. Issues

Applicant submitted additional information including amended plans on 4 April 2019 and the following comments are provided in response to the Panel’s resolution:

The additional information, received by Council 2 April 2019, is addressed as follows:

a) The living area and bathroom to unit 3.03, the balcony/balustrade adjoining that space and the roof form over that space being deleted.

Note: The bedroom and immediately adjoining balcony to unit 3.03 may be amalgamated with unit 3.01.

Satisfactory: The Level 003 floor plan (A2206) is consistent with the required amendments above. This amendment removes the need for a non-standard condition requiring level 03 south eastern side balcony to be limited to a depth of 1m.

b) Unit 3.04 being amended as follows:

- The balcony on the south-eastern side (including balustrade) being deleted;

- The layout being amended to provide a north facing balcony and living area. The unit may extend to occupy the void space between it and the current unit 3.03.

Satisfactory: The Level 03 floor plan (A2206) is consistent with the above amendments.

Satisfactory: The Level 02 floor plan (A2205) amendments are consistent with the above. This removes the need for a previously proposed non-standard condition limiting the depth of the balcony to 1m maximum.

Satisfactory: Amended plans are consistent with the above. Amended Plans (page 4 and 5 of the package) plan number A2201 and A2202 show the required changes. Storage is relocated to northern part of basement level 1 (Plan A2201) and motor cycle parking is relocated to parking level Ground -1 A2202.

Satisfactory: Driveway entrance is redesigned to be consistent with the referenced document above. The key amendment being the relocation of the waiting bay from the right hand side of the car lift to the ‘natural’ left hand side of the driveway. Council’s Development Engineer raises no objections to the amendment which is required as a condition of consent.

f) Appropriate access and management measures for the visitor parking spaces.

Satisfactory: Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the ‘Visitor Parking Arrangements’ and raises no objections to it which states: Visitors will be required to use the intercom that will be located on the right side of the driveway, approximately 3m inside the front boundary, which will be hardwired to each apartment. Residents will then be able to “send” the car lift to the upper basement level where the visitor spaces are located.

g) A revised landscape plan consistent with the proposed amendment to the building.

Satisfactory: The landscape plan is consistent with the amendments to the development.

h) Revised Clause 4.6 variation request(s). The panel would expect compliance (or close to compliance) with the FSR standard due to the changes required above.

Satisfactory: The reduced floor area required by resolution points a and b results in a floor space ratio of 0.89:1 which complies with the maximum 0.9:1 floor space ratio standard in clause 4.4 of the RLEP and no longer requires a Clause 4.6 variation request. The height of the development is maintained and the applicant has submitted an amended Clause 4.6 variation request. Although the height of the buildings is maintained, as a result of reduced floor area, the bulk and scale of the development along the south eastern side of the building is set further back from the side and rear boundaries adjoining No. 5 Marcel Avenue and No. 10 Ritchard Avenue. It is considered that the proposed height of the building satisfies the objectives of the development standard and the objectives of the zone. An assessment of the amended clause 4.6 for building height is carried out further below.

3. Referrals

Council’s Development Engineer was referred the amended plans and documentation for review and are satisfied with the amended and additional information submitted.

4. Submissions

The owners of adjoining property lodged further submissions based on the resolutions. The points raised in the submissions have been addressed in the table below.

§ 5 Marcel Avenue, Randwick

§ 7A Marcel Avenue, Randwick

§ 15 Marcel Avenue, Randwick

§ 30 Marcel Avenue, Randwick

§ 3 Moira Crescent, Randwick

Issue	Comment
The application should be refused on the basis of the following: · Increased and dangerous traffic conditions and on street parking conditions; · Risk to stability of large trees in front of 5 Marcel Avenue; · Construction site impacts; · Adverse privacy impacts; · Impacts on the water table by excavation and removal of bedrock · It will set an undesirable precedent for Marcel Avenue exceeding the building height and FSR;	As discussed in the original assessment the amended scheme is unlikely to result in unreasonable adverse traffic or parking congestion; The extent of works are unlikely to have any significant impact on the stability of street trees in the front of No. 5 Marcel Avenue. Suitable construction site management conditions and traffic management plans can mitigate impacts from the construction phase of the development. The amended scheme does not result in any significant adverse privacy impacts on the neighbouring properties. The amended scheme is located and oriented to maximise visual privacy between buildings on site and for neighbouring buildings. Appropriate conditions are included to ensure that the building, including building footings, are to be designed to ensure that they will not be adversely affected by stormwater, floodwater and/or the water table and vice versa. Each application is assessed on its merits. The proposed development, as amended, sits on land at a transition point of the surrounding area between two varying height standards. The amended scheme provides a reasonable transition between the varying height standards providing greater setbacks from the south eastern side of the site and the lower height standard applicable to sites beyond. The amended scheme now complies with the FSR development standard.
· The development results in a poor design outcome and does not contribute to the character of the area; · Excessive wall height and adverse impacts on eastern side; · Does not satisfy the objectives of the building height standard and the R3 zone; · The proposal does not satisfy the Apartment Design Guide controls resulting in poor residential amenity and adverse amenity impacts (visual privacy) on adjoining properties;	The proposed scheme is of a fairly high design standard and will contribute to the character of the area. The variation to the external wall height DCP control is acknowledged. However, the proposal satisfies the objectives of the control by providing greater than minimum separation from side and rear boundaries by way of greater side setback to the south east and compliant setbacks to the north western and south western boundaries adjoin neighbouring buildings substantially separated from the proposed development. The scheme also adopts reduced floor plates at the top two levels (02 & 03) including a lightweight design using a mixture of glazing and louvred elements which break up its massing and provide visual interest when viewed from neighbouring properties. The proposed development, as amended, is considered to satisfy the objectives of the standard and the R3 Medium density residential zone. The proposed development whilst not satisfying the minimum 6m separation for the purposes of privacy protection, does satisfy the ADG design guidance incorporating appropriate measures that will suitably minimise visual privacy impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties.
Why hasn’t the breech of the standard for building height been supported when other DA’s that have sought a breach of a standard have not been supported?	Each application is assessed on its merits. The proposed development, as amended, provides sufficient environmental planning grounds in justifying the breach of the development standard. See Clause 4.6 variation request in this report.

5. Relevant Environment Planning Instruments

5.1. State Environmental Planning Policy 65 (SEPP 65) – Apartment Design Guide (ADG) (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

The amended scheme maintains compliance with the SEPP 65 design quality principles and the design criteria in the ADG having particular regard to apartment sizes and room configuration. The amended scheme also improves levels of solar access across the development.

5.2. Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible with consent. The amended scheme is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will contribute to the desired future streetscape character.

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

Clause

Development Standard

Proposal

Compliance

(Yes/No)

Cl 4.4: Floor space ratio (max)

0.9:1

0.89:1 (reduced from 0.93:1)

Yes

Cl 4.3: Building height (max)

9.5m

12.05m

5.2.1. Clause 4.6 - Exceptions to development standards

The non-compliances with the development standard are discussed in section 6 below.

6. Clause 4.6 exception to a development standard

The proposal seeks to vary the following development standard contained within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012):

Clause

Development Standard

Proposal

Proposed variation

(%)

Cl 4.3:

Building height (max)

9.5m

11.4m (RL72.40-RL61.00);

Original 12.05m);

Applicant states the contravention is 10.5m as measured from the outer most roof of the south eastern elevation (RL71.50) above ground level (RL61.00)

1.90m (original 2.45m);

Applicants measurement = 1m

20% (original 25.7%);

Applicants calculation = 10.5%

Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012: Exception to a Development Standard relevantly states:

3. 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.

4. 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.

In Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118, Preston CJ summarised the matters in Clause 4.6 (4) that must be addressed before consent can be granted to a development that contravenes a development standard.

1. The applicant’s written request has adequately demonstrated that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case

Chief Justice Preston in Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118 reinforces his previous decision In Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827 where he identified five commonly invoked ways of establishing that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. The most common is to demonstrate that the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard.

2. The applicant’s written request has adequately demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

Chief Justice Preston in Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118 reinforces the previous decision in Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90 regarding how to determine whether ‘the applicant’s written request has adequately demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard’.

The grounds relied on by the applicant in their written request must be “environmental planning grounds” by their nature. Chief Justice Preston at [23] notes the adjectival phrase “environmental planning” is not defined, but would refer to grounds that relate to the subject matter, scope and purpose of the EPA Act, including the objects in s1.3 of the EPA Act.

Chief Justice Preston at [24] notes that there here are two respects in which the written request needs to be “sufficient”.

1. The written request must focus on the aspect or element of the development that contravenes the development standard, not the development as a whole (i.e. The written request must justify the contravention of the development standard, not simply promote the benefits of carrying out the development as a whole); and

2. The written request must demonstrate that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. In Four2Five Pty Ltd v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 90 at [31] Judge Pain confirmed that the term ‘sufficient’ did not suggest a low bar, rather on the contrary, the written report must address sufficient environmental planning grounds to satisfy the consent authority.

3. 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.

Chief Justice Preston in Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118 at [27] notes that the matter in cl 4.6(4)(a)(ii), with which the consent authority must be satisfied, is not merely that the proposed development will be in the public interest but that it will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the development standard and the objectives for development of the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.

It is the proposed development’s consistency with the objectives of the development standard and the objectives of the zone that make the proposed development in the public interest.

If the proposed development is inconsistent with either the objectives of the development standard or the objectives of the zone or both, the consent authority, cannot be satisfied that the development will be in the public interest for the purposes of cl 4.6(4)(a)(ii).

4. The concurrence of the Secretary has been obtained.

Chief Justice Preston in Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118 at [28] notes that the other precondition in cl 4.6(4) that must be satisfied before consent can be granted is whether the concurrence of the Secretary has been obtained (cl 4.6(4)(b)). In accordance with Clause 4.6 (5), in deciding whether to grant concurrence, the Secretary must consider:

(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

Under clause 64 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, the Secretary has given written notice dated 21 February 2018, attached to the Planning Circular PS 18-003 issued on 21 February 2018, to each consent authority, that it may assume the Secretary’s concurrence for exceptions to development standards in respect of applications made under cl 4.6 (subject to the conditions in the table in the notice).

The approach to determining a clause 4.6 request as summarised by Preston CJ in Initial Action Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2018] NSWLEC 118, has been used in the following assessment of whether the matters in Clause 4.6(4) have been satisfied for each contravention of a development standard.

6.1. Exception to the Building Height development standard (Clause 4.3)

The applicant’s written justification for the departure from the building height standard is contained in Appendix 2.

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

The applicant’s written request seeks to justify the contravention of the building height development standard by demonstrating that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case because the relevant objectives of the standard are still achieved.

The objectives of the building height standard are set out in Clause 4.3 (1) of RLEP 2012.

The applicant has addressed each of the objectives as follows:

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

“The proposed height (size and scale) is considered to be compatible with the desired future character generated by the controls. The 3-storey presentation on the north-western side of the site is less than that anticipated by the 12-metre control for the north-western portion of the site, noting that the control envisages a part 3, part 4 storey scale of development.

A portion of the built form protrudes beyond the 9.5m height limit on the south-eastern side of the site, however, such height is further recessed from the south-eastern extent of the built form and/or sited below the built form (associated with the sloping topography).

Compliance with the setbacks and provision of abundant landscaping within the setbacks combine to ensure that the proposed height, bulk and scale of the development is provided within a landscaped setting. The articulated and fragmented form of development also contributes to a desirable and reasonable level of built form.

Importantly, it is considered that the further-recessed nature of the built form on the south-eastern side achieves a reasonable transition with the lower density housing forms to the east, noting that these properties are also zoned R3 Medium Density which contemplates 2-3 storey scaled developments, in the form of town houses or residential flat buildings.

The proposed residential flat building will also be compatible with the taller residential flat buildings on the northern side of Marcel Avenue. These buildings are unlikely to change which confirms that the proposal will be compatible with the existing and desired future character surrounding the site.

The proposed height is consistent with that anticipated by the controls for the north-western portion of the site. The proposed height and FSR is also consistent with the controls that apply to the western neighbours addressed to Carrington Road.”

On the above basis, the proposed height is considered to meet the objectives of this height standard.

(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 development is not within a conservation area or a heritage item. The site is alongside a road identified as a heritage item and referral comments from Councils Heritage Planner indicate no objection to the proposed development. The addition of a balcony to the front of level 03 reduces bulk from the street side elevation.

(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 justification demonstrates that this objective is satisfied by noting that:

“The proposed height is not responsible for any adverse amenity impacts to surrounding properties as outlined in detail above.

It is reiterated that the proposed height is not responsible for any adverse or unreasonable visual bulk, privacy, shadow, or view impacts.

The proposed height is setback in accordance with the setback provisions whilst the provision of landscaping within the setbacks softens the visual appearance of the built form when viewed from neighbouring properties.”

Assessing officer’s comment: In conclusion, the applicant’s written request has adequately demonstrated that compliance with the floor space ratio development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

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

The applicant’s written request seeks to demonstrate that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the Building Height development standard as follows:

· “The proposed additional height is able to be provided on the site without compromising the character of the locality.

· The internal performance of the units is high, noting that the proposal outperforms solar access, ventilation unit size, private open space and storage requirements. This demonstrates that the proposed height variation does not compromise the high-quality design and performance of the units.

· There are no unreasonable adverse visual bulk, view, shadow or privacy impacts associated with the height variation, noting that the proposal appears as below the height limit when viewed from the northern neighbours across Marcel Avenue.

· Solar access is retained to the north-facing windows and porch of the eastern neighbour at 5 Marcel Avenue which is the relevant criteria for shadowing that applies to single dwellings. It is noted that the primary living areas and private open space of the eastern neighbour is located on its southern side which takes advantage of the coastal views. It is also considered that there are no adverse privacy impacts associated with the proposed height given that secondary windows are sited along the western side of the eastern dwelling and that there is a substantial landscaped (compliant) side setback between the respective dwellings.

· Compliance with the side setback requirements and the lack of relationship between the site and rear neighbours ensures that there are no adverse or unreasonable visual privacy impacts associated with the proposed height.

· The substantial difference in topography and separation distance between the subject site and the southern neighbours ensures that there are no adverse visual or acoustic privacy impacts, nor are there any adverse shadow impacts to any primary living or private open space areas. There are also no view impacts to the southern neighbours.

· The substantial separation distance to the western neighbours (10-17metres) and the fact that the western side of the building complies with the 12-metre height limit, ensures that there are no unreasonable shadow, privacy or view impacts that are generated by the height variation.

· The siting of the subject property below the sites to the north and compliance with the height limit as viewed from the elevated northern neighbours ensures that there are no unreasonable view impacts.

· The lack of visual bulk impacts from either the streetscape or private properties surrounding the site ensures that the articulated and reasonable scale of development has no unreasonable visual impacts.

· The large extent of landscaping around the perimeter of the built form and in elevated planter beds contributes to the environmental performance of the proposal, noting that the proposed landscaped areas substantially outperform that within the Apartment Design Guide.

· Based on the above points, it is considered that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to permit the height variation in this instance.”

Assessing officer’s comment: In conclusion, the applicant’s written request has adequately demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. The sufficient environmental planning grounds focus on the particular unique aspects of the site which are that it is sloping, it presents to the street as a three storey scale which is consistent with that envisaged by the standard, it bulk and scale is distributed away from the lower height and density permitted for the sites further along the south eastern side of the site, and impacts such as overshadowing are generally similar to that which would be caused by a compliant development on the site having regard to height and setbacks of a lower density development.

3. 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?

To determine whether the proposal will be in the public interest, an assessment against the objectives of the Building Height standard above and R3 Medium Density Residential zone is provided below:

Assessment against objectives of Building Height standard

For the reasons outlined in the applicant’s written request above, the development is consistent with the objectives of the Building Height standard.

Assessment against objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone

The objectives of R3 Medium Density Residential zone are:

· 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.

Applicant: “The replacement of 2 dwelling houses with a high quality residential flat building is consistent with the objectives of the R3 Medium density residential zone as it provides for the housing needs of the community within a medium density residential environment. The proposal also protects amenity of surrounding residents which confirms that the variation to the height limit does not raise any inconsistency with the zone objectives.

Assessing officer’s comment: The proposed development as amended in accordance with the resolution by the previous RLPP is consistent with the objectives of the building height standard and the R3 Medium Density Residential zone. Therefore the development will be in the public interest.

4. Has the concurrence of the Secretary been obtained?

In assuming the concurrence of the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment the matters in Clause 4.6(5) have been considered:

Does contravention of the development standard raise any matter of significance for state or regional environmental planning?

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

Is there public benefit from maintaining the development standard?

“The proposed height allows for achievement of a compatible building envelope without creating a development with overbearing height, bulk or scale and without compromising the desired future character of the area.

The proposed height is therefore consistent with the State and Regional Policies, particularly urban consolidation principles which seek to provide additional height and density near transport and established services.”

Assessment: Variation of the maximum Building Height standard will allow for the orderly use of the site and there is a no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance.

Conclusion

On the basis of the above assessment, it is considered that the requirements of Clause 4.6(4) have been satisfied and that development consent may be granted for development that contravenes the building height 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

The amended plans and additional documentation have satisfactorily addressed the requirements of the Panel’s resolution and no objections have been raised by Council’ Development Engineer. The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the revised set of conditions as per Attachment No. 3.

Attachment/s:

1.⇩	14 March 2019 Randwick Local Planning Panel Report
2.⇩	Revised RLPP Development Consent conditions
3.⇩	14 March RLPP Conditions of consent